The Oxford intelligencer., 1860-09-05


be any squatter sovereignty in this resolu-
btion, Thase never been able to perceive it.
If there be any, reference in it to territorial
Legislatures. it has entirely escaped my no-
tiee. It presents The clear principle that at
the time the people form their constitution,
they shall then decide whether they viii have
slavery or not. And yet it has been stated
over and over again that, in accepting the
nomination under that platform, l endorsed
the doctrine of squatter sovereignty Isup-
pose you have all heard this repeated thou
sand times. ---.....,-.,.. .-..1'al .ila -
[AVoice. 1--WE all knew it was a lier'1
Web, | am glad you did. .' a.. ;,;-si {,
How beautifully this plain principle Of
constitutional law corresponds with the best
interests of the people Under it, emigrants
from the North and South, from the East and
the West, proceed to the territories. They
carry with them that property which they
suppose will best promote their material in
terests; they live together in peace and har-
mony, The question Of slavery will become
foregone conclusion before they have inhab-
itants enough to enter the Union as State
There win then be no "bleeding Kansas" in
the territories; they viii all live together in
peace and harmony, promoting the prosper
ity of the territory and their own prosperity,
until the time shall arrive when it becomes
necessary to frame a constitution. Then the
whole question will be decided 70 the gener-
al satisfaction. But, upon the opposite prin-
ciple, what will you find in. the territories
Why, there will be strife and contention all
the time One territorial legislature may es-
tablish slavery, and another territorial legis7
lature may abolish it, and so the struggle
will be continued throughout the territorial
existence. The people, instead of devoting
their energies and industry to promote their
own prosperity, will be in state Of constant
strife and turmoil, Just as we have witnessed
in Kansas. Therefore, there is no possible
principle that can be SO injurious to tile best
interests of a territory as what has been call
cd squatter sovereignty. GfnIIlF
Now let me place the subject before you
in another view. The people Of the South
ern States can never abandon this great prin-
ciplc of State equality in the Union without
self-degredation. ["Nevcrwl Never with
out an acknowledgment that they are inferior
in this respect to their sister States. Whilst
it is vital to them to preserve their equality,
the Northern States surrender nothing by
admitting this principle. In doing this they
only yield obedience to the Constitution of
their country, as expounded by the Supreme
Court of the United States. While for the
North it is comparatively mere abstraction,
with the South it is a question Of co-equal
State sovereignty in the Union. ..t....
If the DEGREES of the high tribunal cstab-
lishcd by the Constitution for the very pur-
pose are to be set at naught and disregarGed,
it will tend to render all property of every
description insecure. What, then, have the
North to do. Merely to say that, as good
citizens, they will yield obedience to the de-
cision of the Supreme Court and admit the
right of Southern man to take his property
into the territories, and hold it there, Just as
northern man may do; and it is to me the
most extraordinary thing in the world that
this country should now be distracted and
divided because certain persons at the North
viii not agree that their brethren at the South
shall have the same right IN the territories
which they enjoy. What would |, as a Penn
sylvanian, say or do, supposing anybody was
to contend that the legislature of any terrific
ry could outlaw iron and coal within the ter
ritoryl Laughter and cheers. The prin-
ciplc is precisely the same. The Supreme
Court of the United States have decided
what was known to us to have been the ex-
isting state of affairs for fifty years-that
slaves are property. Admit that fact, and
you admit everything. Then that property
in the territories must be protected precisely
in the same manner with any other property.
/ III IL oc nOt 80 pIOtcCtcu III bhc tSiiitOiiSS,
the holders Of it are degraded before the
world. g- be- -i safa. 81. tr.
We have been told that non-interveDtion
on the part of Congress with slavery in the
territories is the true policy. Very well. l
most cheerfully admit that Congress has no
rightto pass any law to establish, impair, or
abolish slavery in the territories. Let this
principle of non-intervention be extended to
the territorial Legislature, and let it be de-
clared that they in like manner have no pow
er to establish impair or destroy slavery, and
then the controversy is, in effect ended
This is all that is required at present and l
veEily believe all that will ever be required.
Hands off by Congress, and hands off by
the territorial Legislature. Loud applause.
With the Supreme Court of the United
States, l hold that neither Congress nor the
territorial Legislature has any power to es-
tablish, impair, or abolish slavery in the ter
ritories. But it. in the face of this positive
prohibition, the territorial legislature should
exercise the power of intervening, then this
/ q 4 4 a..