Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1859-08-24
Letter from the Hon. F. w. Pickens on
Popular Sovereignty.

Letter from the Hon. F. w. Pickens on
Popular Sovereignty.
The New York Times is permitted to pub.
Gsh the following extract of very interesting
letter from our Representative at the St.
Petersburg Court, the Hon. F. W. Pickenf, Of
South Carolina
You give gloomy view of affairs among
our friends. You speak of the South no,
being liberal enough. | know not what you
refer to, but my own opinion is, that at this
luncture in our affairs things ought not to be
pushed to an extreme either North or South.
The extreme and revolutionary ground taken
BY large party North, has necessarily driven
the South, or portion of it, to take extreme
ground in defence. Mr.. Seward declared that
Free and Slave holding States could not exist
in one Union-either the Slave States must
became free, or the Free States must become
sia.>. &c. Now all that the Free States
l,,:.r2, can become Slave States, and of
course such declaration BY an authorized
ei;!cr of the great popular party North, is
nothing more or less than declaration OF
ex;rrmination or suhjugation, and is q direct
war upon the Federal Union. Yet the major.
u al the North seem to sustain him. think
it an error, and am glad that but few persons
South assume that there must be Congression-
al legislation in advance to protect Slavery by
law in the new Territories. 1t is by no means
demand of the South. For legislation IT,
wolves discretion and deliberation, and that
gives jurisdiction in Congress over the whole
Iuatter.
And yet if popular sovereignty, III q people
81 Il Territory, gives Territorial legislature
the righ, to declare, before they are State
III what property shall consist and in what it
shall not consist, then popular sovereignty
gives them more power than Congress has,
for it is the Constitution alone that can de-
clare that. To declare, this, is the highest
exercise of sovereign power, and can emanate
alone from the original law of society, made
as compact by a people or peoples, i'll con-
ventiou assembled. There is no such thing
as popular sovereignty" except as expressed
raroush forms of law, unless in cases of revo.
lution then it becomes great national right,
inherent in man. "Popula: sovereignty" in
habitual ordinary legislation assuming juris
diction over property, is mob law. A terrific
rial legislature has no popular sovereignty"
in any sense. There is no such thing even as
the sovereignty of the people of the United
ereignty of the people IF the States-as ascer-
taincd and expressed through the States.
There is no sovereignty in the government of
the United States, for it is the creature Of the
Constitution, which is compact between real
sovereigns. What proves this is, that there
is no power to alter or add to that compact,
except through thrcc.feurths of the States
themselves in separate conventions assembled
and these States can even abolish the Gov.
ernnent, and make new Government entire
". There is sovereign power, and this is the
sovereignty of the United States.
There is no power in the government ofthe
United States to create even freehold, and
the grant of land in the new States or Terri.
tories only vests freehold by the government
as the agent and trustee of the conjoined
sovereignty of the States by special compact,
giving the government power "to make all
needful rules and regulations as the public
territory, &c." The people Of Territory are
in chrysaiis state, and the very term Ter
ritory" shows it, for it is not State. A State
is not population alone, but it is boundary,
land, water, location, eminent domain, organic
and fixed law, fundamental and independent
right. All this is the idea of State. Popu-
lation legislation against property before the
community have made a compact and organic
law to give them the attributes of State is a
soiicism. That popular sovereignty which
looks to the people as the original source Of
all power-a great, inherent and inaienable
right, to be exercised in the last resort on
great occasions to vindicate the liberties and
the power OF 3 people when there has been
oppression, or to create and make new
governments a great right, and lies as the
basis of American independence. But popu,,
lar sovereignty, to be exercised in hahitual
and daily legislation by the people assembled,
is full Of confusion, and impracticable. All
mere legislative assemblies are .derivative, and
in no point of view have they any popular
sovereignty.
There is no power in Congress to create a
State-that is an emanation of sovereignty
and belongs to the people in Convention-and
in that Convention making State, they can
give the powers and forms of State. The
only power Congress has is in these words,
"New States may he admitted by the Congress
into the Union" which pre.supposcs the State
created, and under the power given from the
States in the compact Of Union, which allows
Congress to make ell need:ul rules and
regulations" respecting the Territory, &C.,
&c. Fh=y can confer the right on the people
3ita,n certain boundaries Of their Territories
10 assemble, ur<rr certain regulations, to form
q SJaio AL II il has a I" Republican iorm,''
and docs nn; violate tie "ncedtul rules and
regulation" whic Congress has prescribed
beforehand in the " Territory" then they are
bound TO admit it, and have no right to look
beyond the record making the State. This is
all the power they have, and there is nothing
short Of an original organic law Of any State
that can say, in what property shall consist,
or in what it shall not consist. popular
s;oycreignty'"o "squatter Sovereignty" for
any such purpose is revolutionary, and as.
sUmes rights in a state of nature and leads
directly 10 confusion and conflict And SO,
t2o, does any jurisdiction in Congress to de-
rein adcance, inwhat property shall consist
or not consist amongst a people of o Territory
previous to their becoming q State. This