Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-05
mr. nuenanan,. sanford Lester.

WASHINGTON, August II, IS46.
T. SANFORD. Eso-Dear Sir: have just received !
yours of the 18th instant, in which you submit 70
me the following paragraph, and ask Wnetner II
contains an accurate version Of the conversation
between US, concerning my Berks county letter, ON
the occasion TO which you refer:
Happening to meet Mr.. Buchanan at the Presl-
dents evee on Friday evening" called LIS afternoon
20 this letter. and asked him if he intended 70 De
understood as claiming that the population OF ter
rtory in an unorganized capacity haa tne rlgns -
control the question of slavery in such territory.
He declared that no such idea had ever oeen maI.-
tanned by him; that the construction put upon ms
LANGUAGE hv Mr. Yancey was perverslon OF us
plain and obvious meaning; that in his opiaion .ng
inhabitants of a territory, such, hao no ponucai
right lalthough they possessed all the prlsa'e re
of American citizensl that they had no pow
whatever over the subject of slavery anu they
cod neither interdict nor establish it, except when
assembled in convention to form astate conslsuuSh-
He further authorized and requested me 10 MAKE
public use of these declarations that ihisl'
think proper to correct any impression wnicn UT.
Yancey reconstruction OF his language III '4e AS
letter might have made"
with the addition which have inserted between
brackets. dis statement is substantially aihios'
literally correct accord to my recollection.
In nv letter TO Befks county OF 10Th August
! had said & Under the Missouri compromise slavery
was for ever prohibited north of the parallel OF %
deq 20 mn and south of this parallel the question
was left to be decided by the people What peoPie,
| Updoubtedl the people OF the uerrlIory asSetOi0
in convention to form state constitution, ana ask
admission into the Union and not [6rst
or first conlers who might happen TO arrive IN the
territory. assembled in [primary] meeting" IL
doubt on this subject could possibly exist, 1t IS re-
moved by the next succeeding sentence OF my e'ter
nroceed 70 state that "Congress in the admission
of Texas adopted the same rule" &c. And what was
this rule? The joint resolution for annexing Texas &c
the limited States approved March l, lS45, answers
the ouestion in the following words: "Andsuchstate;
as NAV be formed out of that portion OF said terri
tory living south of IS deg. 80 min. north latitude
commonly known as the Missouri compromise line
shall be admitted into the Union with or Wlthou'
slavery, as the people of each state asking admis
sion NAV desire" Such was the description OF Inc
people to whom l referred in my Berks county
letter.
ANY other construction of the letter would rende
il essentially inconsistent with itself. Having urge
the adoption of the Missouri compromise. the IN
ference is irresistible that Congress, IN my opinion
possesses the power to legisate upon the subject
slavery in the territories. What an absurdlt
would it then be- if whilst asserting this soverelg
mower in Congress, which, power from Its natur
must be exclusive should in the very same breat
also claim this identical power = for the Populauo
of a territory in an unOrganized capacity.
: In conclusion, desire to reiterate and realnrI
every sentiment contained in my Berks county lette
I cling TO the Missouri compromise with create
= tenacty than ever, and yet firmly believe that
: will be adopted by Congress-
Yours, very respectfully, JAMES DUChANAS'
{ Candfopd ESu