Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-03-17

of animadversion,-I may say, indeed, of
-censure. (by some of his Southern friends and.
supporterr]. How. different opinions could
exist respecting the meaning of that part of
my letter l notconjecture. These are the
words: quote them here:
% 1T (tbe Interference of Congress) should
be limited TO the creation OF proper govern
ment for new countries, settled or acquin ed,
and to the necessary provision for their even
tual admission into the Union, leaving in the
mean time to the people inbabiiing them to
regulate their own concerns in their OVID
way
.But.sir. independent of this obvious view,
may safely appeal to many Southern gentle
men who were here when that letter was
written, and who are here now, to say wheth-
er they do not know that this was my mean
ing at the time. There some of them
within my eye at this moment"
Here Mr.. Butler of South Carolina, and
Mr. Davis, OF Mississippi, and others, signifed
their assent
IF any one has misunderstood me before,
| conceive the fault was his own"
Mr. DAVIS, then. and some other Democratic
leaders from the South, were in Washington
at the time the letter was written, and knew
Gen. CAss does not say, they understood or
kneso it maintained, and was intended by him
to maintain, the doctrine of squatter
sovereignty. How did they knoro it? Mr..
DAVIS, in some remarks made at the same
time, with those of Gen. CAss above quoted.
and on the same subject, shows how they
came to know it. He said:
Al always construed his Nicholson letter
as he has eXplaintd it now. |
thought l understood the opinions Of the
honorable Senator from Michigan before he
wrote that letter; and know of The conference
to which he has alluded, but to which have
neuer heretofore referred. l understood the
opinions of the S major to be the same then
as understand them TO be now. They have
never met my approval"
So, it appears that there was conference"
of Democratic leaders held over this famous
letter at the time it was written! AL! who
were present at this conference" k7'e,0, of
course, what the author of the letter meant.
and that he meant squatter sovereignty. Mr..
DAVIS 'knew," he says, 'of this conference"
though he had never referred to it, until
then. Mr. DAVIS can keep a secret! AS he
kne,o of The conference" he must have krio,0n.
it is to be presumed. what the conference
kne,c, and they knew all about the squatter
sovereignty business. But they kept dark"
during the whole canvass, and saw the
honest Democratic masses of the South
daped, cheated into the support of Gen. CAss
when, if but one OF them had spoken with
the certainty of knoacledge which they all pos
4
the vote Of a single Southern State, not even
CT Virginia or Mississippi!
That he would not have received the vote
of Virginia, had he been correctly understood,
was stated in the most positive terms, as we
have already seen, by leading representa-
tive from that State, on the floor of the House.
That he could not have received the vote Of
Mississippi, we know from Mr.. DAVIS himself
who. in the course of the debate in the Senate
on the 23rd ult., said:
'If ii had been known lin lSfS] that the
venerable candidate. then, of the Democratic
party, and now Secretary of State. held the
opinion which he so frankly avowcd at a sub
sequent period, on the floor OF the Senate,
tell you, sir, addressing himself to Mr.. Doug
get the vote of Mississippi than you, with
your opinions, would have to-day.
Why, then. did not Mr.. DAVIS undeceive
the people of Mississippi, in 1913? He, in
deed, says. he performed duty" to his con-
stituents on that occasion, and told them his
belief was that the squatter sovereignty
of the Nicholson letter was the
true one. His beIief-his understanding
his construction of the letter! Were not these
founded on poSitlUe knowledge, and did they
not amount to absolute certainty? Suppose
in performing, what he says, he considered a
duty" to his constituents, by telling them
his "belief," his understanding OF the NchOl-
son letter, he had said to them: Il am going
to vote for Gen. Cas-; but deem it my '.du-
iy" to say to you, that | knOV-and so do
other distinguished Democrats who attended
, conference" on the subject at Washington,
when the letter was written kRoO-that the
author did, in that letter, intend to avow and
maintain the doctrine of squatter sovereign
y" - suppose Mr.. DAVIS had done this
would he have done more than was due from
llm, under the circumstances, to his cOnsti- |
uents. and to the cause of simple justice and |
air dealing?
Having. in 1913. voted for GEN. CAss with |
lis eyes ,eide open, as to the sqnatter sover-
.ignty opinions of that gentleman, Mr.. DAVIS
,ravely announces in the Senate in 1853, that |
he is mot to be cheated, with his eyes Open" |
nto the support of any man for the next |
Presidency. who holds The doctrine of Mr.. |
DOUGLAS, which is the same doctrine held by
ien. CAss in 1S48-the doctrine, that is, of |
quatter sovereignty!
Mr.. DAvIs's present colleague in the Senate,
ir. BRowN. who threw the "bombshell, Into
hat body on the 23i ult., by calling upon the
Northern Democratic Senator'S to define their
ositons, was one of the numerous host of
be cheated" in Is4S. He was. at that time.
Representative in Congress, and in a speech
n the House on the 2Ist of January, 1850.
eferring to the Nicholson letter, he said he
al, in the Presidential ass, as the friend
Gen. CAss, interpreted the letter as not
the doctrine of sqnatter sover-
gnty." True, he had done this not without
ome misgivings, at first, as to its correct
ess; bat gentlemen nearer the person of Gen.
ASS than himself" had interpreted the letter
OF to mean squatter sovereignty, and thus,
appears, his "misgivings" on that point were
nieted. 'Ie had denounced the doctrine
nfore the people, and he then denounced it
efore the House." lie further said:
in the last Presidential canvass men of
II parties (at the South. Mr.. b. no doubt
eant) had assailed the doctrine. The Wings
largcd Gen. CAss with entertaining these
Jews. and the Democrats indicated him
yainst the charge. The doctrine was uni
ersally denounced by men of all parties at
lie South"