Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-10-03


slaves, introduced "a great POLITICAL evil =
into our institutionsf
But we proceed TO other points.
Was, or was not, the Missouri restriction Of
1920, in direct conflict with the Southern doc
trine that Congress has no right to exclude
slavery from any Of the Territories of the Uni
ted States Was it not in conflict with the
Southern doctrine that Congress has no right
to refuse admission to State because its con-
stitution might recognise slaverys No man
can deny that it was. Mr.. Buchanan, from the
time that restriction was enacted, down to one
year ago, endorsed. approved and maintained
that restriction He never denied, but always
maintained, the power Of Congress over slavery
in the Territories.
In his letter to Mr. Sanford Of 21st August
184s, he said
Having urged the adoption of the Missouri
Compromise, the inference is irresistible that Con-
gress, in my opinion, possesses the power TO egis
late upon the subject of slavery in the Territories
What an ebsurditv would it then be, II, whilst as
sorting this SOVEREIGN POWER IN CON
GRESS, which power, from its nature, must be
EXCLUSIVE, should in the very same breath
also claim this identical power for the population
Of Territory in an unorganized capacity"
Does the Enquirer think this position of Blu
chanan on the slavery question "impregna-
ble?" If this power be sovereign and exclu-
siye" in Congress, then are the positions we
have laid down as containing Southern doc
trines, ridiculous and absurd. Either the South
is wrong, or Mr. Buchanan is wrong, on these
questions. Congress has the right, orit has
not the right, to exercise sovereign and ex-
elusive power" in legislating upon the subject
of slavery in the Territories Mr. Buchanan
has affirmed that Congress has the power. Is
this position Of his impregnable ?" Was not
this opinion the result of deep rehection9 Did
he not review the subject at the instance of his
friends, and reiterate his convictions, upon full
deliberation2 Read his letter to the Hon
VIM. L. Yancey of Alabama, dated May 18th,
1s4s, and published by Mr.. Yancey at page
90 Of his pamphlet.
To understand the Importance of this letter,
it must be borne in mind that the State Demo
cratic Convention Of Alabama, held prior to
the Baltimore Convention of 1846, had adopted
series of resolutions affirming the State-rights
doctrines of non-intervention with slavery by
Congress in the Territories, and among this
series is the following, to wit
!" Resolved, That the treaty of cession (from
Mexico, then depending) should contain clause
securing an entry into these Territories to all the
citizens of the United States, together with their
property of every description, and that the same
Al 4T,s&
the Territories are under its authority"
Others of the series insisted upon the recog,
nition Of these principles la some other mode,
If they could not be embraced in the treaty,
and the delegates to the Baltimore Convention
from Alabama, were instructed "to vote for no
man as President or Vice President who would
not avow himself opposed to either Of the
firms Qfrestricting slacery,n &c.
Georgia end Florida adopted resolutions con-
tanning substantially the same doctrines, just
prior to the Baltimore Convention OF ls4s
Well, the Alabama platform was forwarded
by Hon. w. L. Yancey, (then delegate TO
the Baltimore Convention) to Mr. Buchanan
on the I'd day of May, ls4s, and on the 18th
day of that month, Mr. Buchanan responded
by letter, which is published page 90 of Mr.
Yaneey's pamphlet and in which letter Mr.
Buchanan said:
"0n the 26th Of August last, after much refec.
ton, addressed letter to the Democracy Of
Berks county, Pennsylvania, on this important and
exciting question, IN which / expressed strong
opinion In favor ofth eatspsso, Of TIE Missouri
Compromise to any Territory which we might ae-
T~ovo, Lnw III =
expressed this opinion from the time fhe question
mas first agiiatsd; and every days experience
since the date of my letter, has but served to
strengthen my conviction that tie Missouri Com
promise is the best If not the only mode of final
~ and satisfactorily adjusting this yexed and dan
gerous question. Under these circumstances, 1
cannot abandon the position which have thus de-
i5erately and conseientiously taken, and assume
any other that can be presented"
In this letter, Mr.. Buchanan deliberately
refused to recognise the Southern doctrine, and
planted himself firmly and resolutely upon the
Missouri Compromise. Is this position of Mr..
Buchanan "impregnable !" Does The deliber-
ate maintenance, by Mr. Buchanan, of the doc
trines Of the Missouri restriction, place him on
:" the straight line of justice and constitutional
dutyi"
We might refer to other evidences on this
same point and show that Mr. Buchanan's
avowed opinions, doUn to 1866, have been
uniformly in favor Of the Missouri restriction:
indeed, he has said expressly that " he regard
ed the Missouri Compromise as sacred as a
constitutional provision" Is this position Of
his impregnable 7"
We arc not done with this question, but we
have not space to-day for further proofs or
comments upon it, we intend, before we are
done. to exhibit the hypocrisy OF Mr. Rnchan