The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-10-10
squatter Sovereignty

The Washington Constitution remarks that
''Squatter Sovereignty never was known or
recognised as a Democratic principle at all,
and is not now" That is most certainly the
truth What National Democratic Conven-
ton ever declared that no matter what the
Supreme Court decided, the people Of terri
tory had pIenary power prohibit slavery ?
We see that the Black Republicans at
Worcester endearvored to fix this principle
on Senator Cass. 1t will be found stated in
Summers TRADE on the "fve-headed' barbar-
ism ofslavery." that the place where it was
first announced is Cass' Nicholson letter.
Now, precious good care is taken not to cite
this letter. 1t is dated December oath 1917,
is before US, and this is its doctrine as to legis-
lation on slavery:
Il am opposed to the exarcise Of any jjuris-
dicton by Congress over this matter and |
am in favor Of leaving to the people of any
Territory, which may be hereafter acquired, the
right to regulate it for themselves, 1nder tile
genera! principle Of the constitution"
There is no sovereignty here ''Who,' Gen.
eral Cass has repeatedly said in the Senate,
talks about sovereignty being in Territories
Surely, have not" When did he elevate
them, as Douglas and Thayer are doing, to
| the condition of States? Here are the pricise
words of General Cass in 1917, of this very
Nicholson letter, out of which demagogues
are extracting so freely the absurd doctrine
that the Territories are co equal in the slavery
question to Suites;
''In various respects the Territories differ
! from the States. Some oftheir rights inchoate,
and they do not possess tie peculiar attribute Of
s0uereignty"
This doctrine, we repeat, of squatter soyer-
ereignty, never was held to be Democratic
doctrine, nor ever will be; and if we were
asked to point out the precise time when, and
place where Senator Douglas departed from
the sound Democratic faith, it would be at the
time and place where, in the Lincoln discus
sion, he said that the people of Territory
might prohibit slavery, no matter what might
be the decision.ofthe Supreme Court.
Perhaps nc. paper ever issued by President
Buchanan commanded so wide an approval
as the letter which, shortly after his inaugur-
alton he wrote to Silliman and his associates
of Connecticut; and it was not only warmly
approved by the Democratic party, by whom
it was hailed with exultation, but by the ma
tional men throughout the country. As a
specimen of Democratic praise, take Col. For
ney's works. He said that this reply "shed
along the dark pathway that has led into our
Kansas troubles, flood Of light . it ''disspa-
it deprived sectionalism ofthe only weapons
left in its armory Of expedents," and it 'fnvi-
gorated the friends Of the Constitution" And
so said the Democratic press generally !:
and the National Wing press, if it did not go
to this extent of eulogy, bore cheerful testi-
mony to the mastery ability of its presenta-
ton Of the slavery question and to the sound
ness of its constitutional principles. Now
here is an extract from this reply:
Slavery existed at that period and still ex-
lists in Kansas under the Constitution of the
United States. This point has at last been
finally decided by the highest tribunal known
to our laws. How it could ever have been
seriously doubted is a mystery. If a confed-
Grafton of sovereign States acquires a n.w
Territory at the expense OF our common blood
and treasure, surely one set of the partners
can have no right to exclude the other from
its enjoyment by prohibiting them from TAX
ing into it whatever is recognized to be pro-
perty by the common Constitution. But when
the peope-the bona fle residents of such
Territory-proceed to frame a State Consti-
tution, then it is their right to decide the
important question for themselves, whether
they will continue, modify, or abolish slave
ry. To them, and to them alone, does this
question belong, free from all foreign inter-
ference.
Is there any such nonsense here as Doug
las is now retailing that the people ola Ter
Titory have as much power over the slavery
question as the people ola State Most GER
tanly not Is there any such doctrine in
the resolves Of National Democratic Conven-
tons Certainly not Then who has de-
parted the faith, Breckenridge who holds
precisely the doctrine of this letter-the doc
trine Of every Democratic Convontion-the
doctrine Of the Democratic fathers, Jefferson
and Nadison-or Douglas who clothes
Territory with the attributes belonging only
| to 4 State!