Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1856-04-15
Northern Democracy-Squatter sovereignty.

II one thing is clearer than another it is that
" the whole of the Northern Democracy the adj
vocates of the heresy OF Squatter Sovereignty; and
their support Of the Nebraska bill given upon
the single consideration that it recognized and en-
forced the Squatter Sovereignty doctrine. Such
is the proclaimed position of most of the leading
Northern Democrats, from Gen. Cass down. the "lit-
tie Giant" Richardson and all Included. And yet this
doctrine so boldly announced and steadfastly ad
hered to by the Northern Democracy, is the very
one which the Virginia Democracy has declared is
''more odious than the Wilmot proviso ;" and the
very which the Enquirer has asserted the South
will never submit to-"
The truth is that upon the Nebraska as upon all
other questions the Democratic party have played
miserable double game That measure at the time of
its passage was, aud still is, sustained upon exactly
opposite grounds by the Southern and Northern
wings of the party And it is their object to conn-
ne this deception through the coming Presidential
struggle For what either wing about ool-
wnking the country aud its mass of honest and pa
triotc voters when,by doing the loaves and fishes
of government are retained in the hands OF the un-
scrupulous managers and wire-workers, who attend
conventions and make nomnationsy
The Enquirer, see, is strangely disturbed a. Ia
what it terms Mr.. Fillmores 'equivocal position in
or not the squater sovereignty doctrine is of the
principles Of that act neghbor omts to tell IT,.
If we mistake not the Enquirer, during the discus
sion upon the Kansas BILL opposed it for awhile up
on the openly alleged ground that it DID recognize
the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. And certainly
nothing done afterwards to clear that bill OF the
objection the Enquirer urged against it. On the
trary, much said by distinguished members of
its own party establish the construction which it
self had put upon it. And yet, without having
required any explanations this point aud without
even now requiring any, il is ready to support io
the Presidency any aspirant of its party proeSSedb
in favor of adherng 10 it, without much As init
mating the slightest desire to get at his opinions
regard doctrine which itself has said the South
would 'never submit To" and which its party here
in Virginia have proclaimed, is more odous than the
Wmot Proviso." We take it for granted that the
Enquirer would hardly acknowledge itself willing t,
support Cass, or Douglas, or any other Northern
unless it had satisfactory assurances OF their being
opposed to the Wlnot Proviso. If so how can it
reconcile il to duty and patriotism to support any
Of them for the Presidency without first ascertanng
whether they are not opposed in good faith to doc
trine which is far and more odiousg
We suggest, therefore, that while insisting upon
further pledges from Mr.. Fillmore, the Enquirer
should also turn its attention to members of its own
household and let the public know where they stand
in reference the odous doctrine of squatter SOW
ereignty Among all the prominent aspirants for the
Cincinnati nomination, the Enquirer itself will
scarcely alege that it in possession of the opinions
of single one Of them on this subject If it is. 1t
has certainly not made them public. How stand,
Buchanan on this question? How Pierce Douglas
Bright? Can the Enquirer inform u.s. If not we
advise it to pratv Of Mr. Fillmore's "equivo
cal position on the Kansas act-no more of anybody,
unsOundness in reference TO the constitutional rights
Of the South"
We now put this question to the Enquirer and it,
Democratic contemporaries: 1t it should leak out
hereafter that Buchanan Douglas, Pierce or any
other Northern Democrat spoken Of in connection
with the Presidency is the advocate Of the doctrine
of Squatter Sovereignty and favors its application 10
Kansas, Nebraska and our other territories would
the Enquirer support either of them for the Presi
dencyy We put this question IN good faith and
trust II may not be inconyenieut to our neghbor 10
vouchsaie an early answer. To one so jealous Of the
rights of the South, aud opposed to all noncom.
mittalism in regard to them, cannot but conceive
that it would be patriotic pleasure to reply to all
interrogatories bearing upon them.
Meanwhile, to show you what the position Of Col.
iaShhuSoh s-lhe ulai your party supported for the
Speakership with such pertnacty-we give place To
the following letter addressed to gentleman in Viz.
ginis from the COonels competitor in his last Con.
gressona canvass. You will perceive that the ground
upon which the Colonel defended the Kansas Ne.
braska bill before his constituents was that il would
necessarily make Kansas Nebraska and all either
Territories free. But here is his competitors letter
QufScEY ILLiNois March a. 1856
Dear ST-1Our letter Of the Sth inst has lust
me. Ia u you inquire did OF did Col WIN A Rich
ardson, your opponent Tor Congress Ia the last contest
state TO bis constituents that the Kansas aud Nebraska hill
would have the effect Of making those Territories free
cannot state that be did in the precise terms Of your ia
terrogaofy but be did frequently aud emphatcaly say
that the repeal Of the Missouri restriction be called
was favorable ~ Freedom that h (fhs restictionl ctaL
shcd slavery South Of So So aud that under the squat
Ger sovereignty principle the whole Of the territory as well
south az North oi that line, would be formed into irc,
States. give, in his words, Ol his favore q
eamatous Mover mind never mind wait awhile and
you vail sec that before ibis time year the people OF
the Territory will prohibit slavery
am. very respectfully,
Your 0bcdient servant
ARCHIBALD WILLIAMS
Col. Richardson, during the whole Of our G. ,ss
indignantly rcpecd thc charge OF being favor Of a ry