Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-06-14
From the Concord a. IT, Democratic Standard
SoUATrER SOVEREIGNTY REPUDIhTED


committed, and denies all power in the people
OF the Territories to interfere with slavery eX.
cep, To protect it. save when they form Con-
sttuton for admission into the Union VIII
the New Hampshire ''Patriot' and its con-
trercS Of the Douglas press in this State back
down from the false position they have as
sumed and rcpudiate their "Squattcr Soye-
rcignty'' views. Or have they resolved 10 20
over to the Black Republicans:
From the Washington Cons.i,u:ior.l
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IS. seUATTEE SOVEREIGN.
Ti.
II i, essential TO the intelligent discussion Of
any question that the precise Specification Of
ihr phrases employed should bc clearly and
accurately defined, anil the hopeless confusion
nf ideas exhibited in the illusions Of many of
our contemporaries upon the leading political
tonic Of The day furnishes 4 conspicuous illus
tI-,loa OF this automatic truth. We will not
'loour opponents the injustice of assuming that
this confusion of the phrases we have prciiXed
to o,!r article is the result Of lack of d;Scrim-
ina,ion. Dn the contrary, as the doctrine of
popular sovereignty" rightly understood,
must necessarily prove as popular as that Of
"s1uattcr Sovcrcig ignty" is odious, from its mn
cors;itutionality the Use OF the two phrases in
discriminatory argues rather an adroitnesS.
useful enough to those whose principles will
not bear analysis.
But is there any foundation for assuming the
! convcrtihility Of these terms? And is it fair to
charsc that ore is All advocate Of ">quattcr So
! vcrcgnty' because he has given in his adhesion
I 10 the doctrine Of popular sovereignty =" We
think not. Popular sovereignty ana Squatter
sovereignty are doctrines not only distinct but
antagonistic; and the distinction is 50 clear. the
antagoni>m so palpablc that he who runs may
read. This we propose briefly to show.
I Mr.. Buchanan, in his letter Of acceptance
and in his inaugural address, has furnished the
clcarcst possible definition OF popular sovereign
! tv In hi- letter of acceptance he Says-"The
people Of Territory. like those Of State, shall
decide lor themselves whether slavery shall or
shall not exist in their limits" and in his in.
augrlral lie sayS-"A difference of opinion has
arisen as TO the point of time when the people
of territory Shall decide this question for
themselves = , Though ii has ever
been my individual opinion that under the Ne
hraslia-kansa> act, the appropriate period will
be when the number Of actual residents in the
territory shall justify the formation oi Cons,i.
tuition with view to It's admission Is Il State
into the Union" This is popular sovereignty
in the territories 1t recognizes the exercise
bv Il territorial legislature of every power con-
Sistcnt with the provisions Of the Constitution.
but it does not recognize the exercise Of any
power inconsistent with the rights of the peo-
pie of the States, in whom resides the ultimate
sovereignty over, a; we'll ~ the ownership OF,
all the common territory o! the | nitcd States.
Squattcr sovereignty, "n the contrary, rccog
nizcS the right oi those men (whateyer may
he their numbcrl who may have s1uattcd on
the public domain in advance of the public SiIr-
vovS and without tho ownership Of one acre
Of the soil, to elect q Legislature which shall
undertake oprohibit slavery within territory,
and thus practically deprive nearly half of the
partners. in this confe,lcracy Of States, Of the
right of rmigrating with their property to any
norton Of thei: vast and extended domain. IN
other words. this squattcr sovereignty confers
on the first settlers of Territory absolute and
unlimited power over the property rights Of all
future immigrants.
Thus undertaking the matter, we proclaim,
unhcStatingly, that while we shall ever advo'
cate popular sovereignty, we will wage an ctcr-
nal war on squattcr sovereignty. While the
ono doctrine is just constitutional, and in con
iormity with the spirit Of our institutions the
other is unjust unconstitutional, and in viola
ticn Of the equality of the States. The one is
the doctrine Of the Democratic party; the other
il the doctrine of the diSOrganizerS and boilers,
! who seek to divide and destroy the Democratic
party, and with it the Union.
In pursuing this train Of thought we were led
into an expression which hasibccn perverted to
mean the very opposite of our intentions. We
said few days ago: The principles cmhla-
zonca on the Democratic party.are, 'non-intcr-
vcntion by Congress or by Territorial LcSisa-
trlrcs either To establish or prohibit slavery in
the territories, and the protection Of slave pro-
pertv therein, Is long us the territorial condi-
ton shall remain, by the judiciary, under the
Constitution Of the United States. The plain
meaning of this is, that Congress cannot. and
therefore should not, attempt to establish or
prohibit slavery in any territory, and that the
Territorial Legislature, deriving all its powers
Of legislation from Congress- cannot and should
not, attempt to establish or prohibit slavery in
. the territories But, since the Constitution OF
( the United States protects all of its people in
tine cuiovmcnt o. all their rights Of property,
whenever they may be found in Il territory
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 nntijcndiY cgisla.
I ton which is calculated to destroy or impair any
right of property. We consider these self.
evident propositions But it is said in some
quarters that the people Of the Northern States
will not sustain this Interpretation OF the pow
crs Of people in Il territory. II this be true,
(,rhirh re rW neser Jeliers) the people Of the
Northern States arc ready TO set aside the
Constitution. destroy the equality Of the States.
/ and present to their brethren Of the South the
alternative of submission to dishonor, or the
vindication of their rights over the ruins Of the
Constitutional Union which they have so long
cherished as priceless heritage And it may
be assumed MS certain, that no people trained
to Scl(.governmcnt and valuing liberty above
all other things, will continue TO consider them
selves bound by compact when perverted by
mere numerical majority Of their partners
into an instrument of opposition and wrong. -,
We stand by the Cincinnati platform all
true Democrats willard that proclaims nor
Intervention by Congress with slavery III the
States in the Territories, or in the District OF
Columbia We stand by the bred Scott deci-
sion of the Supreme Court. which secures to
IL. pcoplc of the States the right 10 ernigratc
to. and remain in, any territory Of the United
States with the property they may have held
in anv Of the States We, therefore, are forced
to saw that the Constitution inhihits the several
Territorial Legislatures from abolshing proper
t. in slaves; and the same prohibition applie'
to the ptoj,'e Of territory till they come Il
.orr. a Constitution preparatory TO their ad
mission into this Union. We arc willing It
trust the people Of territory to protect aN theil
people in the enjoyment Of oil their rights
and. when unlriendly legislation is attempted
if such attempt is ever made, we arc willing Il
trust the judiciary to correct it.
The Territory of Kansas furnishes the beS'
evidence Of the indisposition of any people to DC
manifest wrong to the individuals who com
pose il fever the passions Of community
have been thoroughly aroused and the anti
slavery feeling fretted into absolute madness
anywhere it was Kansas; Vet her Legislature
acknowledgements ofintcrcsted partIsans out
;do ti,o;r o,rn horJcrs and refused to pass law