Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1860-07-06
Breckenridge and Lane-squat-
ter Sovereignty.

mtters Lexington speech. Nbllst preparing Vhis
week, to search old documents for further proof
/ VIC found in the Huntsville Independent Ala, the
extracts we publish below, fully convicting both
Breckenridge and Joe Lane Of as malignant squat
ter sovereignty IA was ever charged upon Douglas
Let the reader bear in mind that the seceders at
CHARLESTON, demanded of the Northern delegates the
recognition Of the right of Congress to protect sa
very in the Territories and seeded because the de-
mand was not allowed, aud, with this light before
him, let him ask how Breckenridge and Lane can
stand upon the seceders platform, or how the sece-
ders could have nominated them with their squatter
sovereignty, unless there was cheating around the
board Breckenridge cannot concede the power
claimed for Congress without giving the lie to his
oft expressed opinions to the contrary, and the Sc
ceders could not have nominated him, in good faith
without first abandoning their claim. Read the
extracts, and the inconsistency the rascality of
the whole transaction will manifest itself at once
and honest men will repudiate the ticket cheat
"A trick that covers some Interior and dangerous
design. In the House of Representatives, March
23d 1854 Breckenridge said
"But if non-intervention by Congress be the prin-
ciple that underes the compromise Of 1850, then
the prohibition of 1920 being inconsistent with
that principle, should be removed and perfect non
Intervention thus established by ldV.
Among the many Misrepresentation sent TO the
country by some of the enemies of this bill per-
haps no one is more fragrant than the charge that
At proposes 10 legisldte slavery into Nebraska and
Kansas. Sir, u the bill contained such a feature IL
tcoutd not receive my Uote The right 10 establish IN
UolUeS the coTreiahVe right 10 prohibit and denying
both, tcould Uote for neither. go further, and
express the opinion that clause legislating slavery
into those Territories could not command one South
ern vote in this House. 1t is due to both sections
of the country and to the people, to expose this
groundless charge. What, them is the present con-
! dition of Nebraska and Kansas Why sir there
is no government no slavery, and very little popu-
lation there; flor your Federal laws exclude your
citizens y but law remains on the statute book
forever prohibiting slavery in these Territories. 1t
! is proposed simply to take off this prohibition, but
not to make enactment in the afiirmance of sla-
very there. Now, in the absence of any law estab-
fishing slavery in that region previous to the pro-
hibiting act it is too clear for dispute that the
peal of the prohibition has not the affirmative effect
of fixing slavery in that country. The effect of
the repeal, therefore, is neither TO establish
cude but to leave the future condition Of the Terri
tories dependent oholLy upon the action Of the nhab
itans subject only to such limitations as the FEEDER
al Constitution may impose. But to guard fully
against mlSCOnSItuCtlO0 anu even against
perversion the language of the bill is perfectly
plict on this point. q.
at will be observed, that'the rights of the peo-
pie to regulate in their own way all their domestic
institutions, is left wholly untouched, except that
whatever is done, must be done in accordance with
Consttution-the supreme law of us all. And the
rights of property under the Constitution, well
as legislative action properly left to the decision
of the Federal judiciary. This avoids contested
issue which it is hardly in the competency of Con-
gress to decide, and refers it to the proper tribunal
"Then sir, neither the purposes nor the effect of
the bill is to legislate slavery into Nebraska and
Kansas but its effect is to sweep away this vestge
of Congressional dictation on this subject to allow
the free citizens of this Union to enter the common
territory with the Constitution and the bill alone in
| their hands, and to remit the decision of their
rights under both to the courts of the country
Who go before his constituents refusing to stand
on the platform of the Constitution Who can
make case to them of refusing to abide the decs-
ion of the courts of the Union?
"Sr care nothing about refined distinctions, or
subtleties, or verbal criticism. repeat the broad
and plain proposition, that if Congress may inter-
vene this subject it may intervene on any other
and having thus surrendered the principle, and
broken away from Constitutional limitations, you
are driven into the very lap of arbitrary power
BY this doctrine, You may erect despotism under
the American system. The whole theory is libel
on our institutions 1t carries us back to the alb
horrent principles of British colonial authority,
against which we made the issue of independence
| have never acquiesced in this odious claim and
will not believe that it abide the test Of public
scrutiny.'-See app. Cong Globe, voL IA, page l4l
In 1856, Gen Joe Lane said:
"Now, gentlemen, there is nothing peculiar
nothing new, in that for it is not the first time that
4 baS nrOanZinO Territories 49,
But that law organizing the Territories Of Kansas
aud Nebraska placed in the hands of the Opposi-
ton pretext for attacking Democratic principles
They raised a hue and cry throughout the country
that the area of slavery was to be eXtended-tha
new slave States to be added to the Union
Is there anything in the Kansas Nebraska bill tC
justify this hue and cry and the consequent excite
, mcnt2'
"There is nothing in the law, gentlemen, bu
, what every enlightened American heart should ap
: prove The idea Incorporated in the Kansas Nebrds
kd bill is The true american principle; for the bit
does not establish prohibit Slavery but leaves III
people Of the Territories perfectly free 10 reguiat
their oton affairs IN their ody. Our italics. !
Is there any man who can object to that idea' l
b there any American citizen who can oppose tha
priuciple2'
"Gentemen, desire to say to you that Il prin
ciple incorporated into the Kansas-Nebrlska bill i
the very principle in defence Of which your fore
the revolutionary war for the American colonies
two years previous to the Declaration of lndepcn
5 dence, asserted this same principle we now find in
/ corpOrated in the Kansai-Nebraska bill
= upon examination, you will find that the Dec
, laration, made October IA, INA, asserts that N
people Of the ScVerdl colonies "are entitled 10 FIRE
= and cncpe poorer Of legislation in their scperd pro
Y vnc1L legislatures in all cases Of internal poliY -
, This was refused by the Crown, but reasserted b.
our ioreahcrs. Upon this issue the battles Of tn
II Revolution were fought by the blood of our IA
L theirs his priacPie Of selEgoccrnment was estab
v GShci. This right refused by the King, was SC
cured, consccmtcd and established by the hes
blood that ever flowed in the veins of man.
r. Would you now refuse TO the people of tho te ri
l. tories the rights your noble sireS demanded of tn
9 Crown, and won by their bood--thus placing Jour
selves in olplsiton to the right Of self-governmen
~ in the Territories thereby occupying the very pc
, siton towards the Territories that George III d