Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-05-18
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY Oh SQUATTER
/. SOtERETGNTY sg-- 81

question that the precise SlgnlncatOn OF the PnaseS
EMPLOYED should be clearly and accurately defined
and the hopeless confusion of ideas exhibited in the
illusions Of many of our contemporaries upon the
leading political topic of the day, furnishes con-
spicuous illustration of this automatic truth. we
will not do our opponents the injustice of assuming
that this confusion of the phrases we have prefxed
to our article is the result Of lack of discrimination
On the contrary, the doctrine of popular sover-
eighty" rightly understood, must necessarily prove
as popular as that of squatter sovereignty" is obi
ous from its unconsttutionalty, the use of the two
phrases unfortunately argues rather adroitness,
useful enough to those whose principles will not
bear analysis.
But is there any foundation for assuming the con-
yertblity of these terms? And is it fair to charge
that one is an advocate of "squatter sovereignty
because he has given in his adhesion to the doctrine
of popular sovereignty" We think not. Popu-
lar sovereignty and squatter sovereignty are doc
trnes not only distinct but antagonistc and the dis
tncton is so clear the antagonism palpable that
he who runs may read. This we propose briefly to
show.
Mr.. Buchanan, in his letter of acceptance and in
his Inaugural Address, has furnished the clearestpos
sble definition of popular sovereignty. In his let
ter of acceptance he says: "The people of Terri
tory, like those of State shall decide for themselves
whether slavery shall or shall not exist in their lin
its; and in his inaugural he says: "a difference
of opinion has arisen to the point of time when
the people of territory shall decide this question for
themselves This is happily, of but little practical
my individual opinion, that under the Nebraska
Kansas act, the appropriate period will be when the
number of actual residents in the territory shall JUS
tify the formation of a constitution with view to
its admission as State into the Union" This is
popular sovereignty in the territories 1t recognises
the exercise by territorial legislature of every pow
er consistent with the provisions of the constitution
i &c
inconsistent with the rights of the people Of the
States, in whom resides the ultimate sovereignty
over, as well as the ownership Of all the common
territory of the United States
Squatter sovereignty, on the contrary, recognises
the right of those men (whatever may be their num-
ber) who may have squatted on the public domain
in advance of the public surveys and without the
ownership of one acre of the SOIL to elect legisla
ture which shall undertake to prohibit slavery with
in territory and thus practically deprive nearly
half of the partners in this conederacy of States, of
the right of emigratng with their property to any
portion Of their vast and extended domain In other
words this squatter sovereignty confers the first
settlers of territory absolute and unlimited power
over the property rights of all future immigrants
Thus understanding the matter, we proclaim, I'M
hesitatingly, that while shall advocate pop
uIar sovereignty, we will wage an eternal war on
squatter sovereignty. While the one doctrine is
just constitutional and in conformity with the spirit
of our Institutions the other is unjust unconstitu-
tona and in violation of the equality of the States
The one is the doctrine of the democratic party the
other is the doctrine of the dsorganzers and boters
who seek to divide and destroy the democratic party,
and with it the Union.
1t was in pursuing this train of thought we were
led into expression which has been perverted to
mean the very opposite of our intentions We said
a few days ago: The principles emblazoned on the
democratic banner are, "non-intervention, by Con-
gress by territorial legislatures either to establish
or prohibit slavery in the territories and the pro-
lection of slave property therein as long the ter
ritoria condition shall remain by the judiciary, un-
der the constitution of the United States" The
plain meaning of this is, that Congress cannot and
therefore should not attempt to establish prohibit
slavery in any territory, and that the territorial leg
slature deriving all its powers of legislation from
Congress, cannot and should not attempt to estab-
lsh or prohibit slavery in the territories. But,
since the constitution of the United States protects
all of its people in the enjoyment of all their rights
ofproperty, whenever they may be found in terri
tory common to all the States, protection to that
property is duty Of those invested with the power
of local legislation and it is the duty of the judiciary
to set aside any untriendly legislation which is cal
culated to destroy or impair any right of property.
We consider these selfevident propositions. But it
is said in quarters that the people of the North
States will not sustain this Interpretation of the
powers of people in territory. If this be true,
luhica zoe uiU nerer beliere,) the people of the
Northern States are ready to set aside the consttu
ton destroy the equality of the States and present
to their brethren of the South the alternative Of sub
mission to dishonor or the vndicaon of their rights
over the ruins of the constitutional Union which
they have so long cherished priceless heritage
And it may be assumed as certain, that no people
trained to elfgovernment and vaung liberty above
all other things, will continue to consider themselves
mt ~np,y, NV
merca majority of their partners into an instrument
of oppression and wrong
We stand by the Cincinnati platform-all true
democrats willard that proclaims non-interference
by Congress with slavery in the States in the terri
tories, or in the District of Columbia We stand
by the bred Scott decision of the Supreme Court,
which secures to the people Of the States the right
to emigrate to, and remain in any territory OF the
United States with the property they may have held
in any of the States. We therefore, are forced to
say the constitution inhibits the several territorial
legislatures from abolshing property in slaves and
the same prohibition applies to the people of terri
tory till they come to form constitution prepare
tory to their admission into the Union. We are
willing to trust the people Of territory to protect
all their people in the enjoyment Of all their rights
and when unfrendly legislation is attempted if such
attempt is made, willing to trust the jul
| dietary to correct 1t.
| The Territory of Kansas furnishes the best evil
dence of the indisposition of any people to do man
ifest wrong to the individuals who compose it. If
the passions ola community have been thorough
ly aroused, and the anslayery feeling fretted into
absolute madness any where, it was in Kansas yet
her legislature resisted all the appeals Of interested
partisans outside their borders and refused to
pass law abolishing slavery in Kansas. This was
triumph of Justice and the constitution, and so it
will ever be with an honest frontier people. We SAY
to the people of the South leave this question where
the democratic party has left it. and where the SUI
preme Court has left it; say to the North, if you
love the Union, and the progress Of free institutions
leave this question where the democratic party has
left it, where the constitution places it. and where
Justice demands it to be left. Ours is emphatically
a government of opinion and the public sentiment
of the people, whether in State Territory, will
in the end prevail. That public sentiment when it
is authorized to speak, is potential and will be felt
in moulding its institutions and it is not probable