The Oxford intelligencer., 1860-06-06
squaftcr Sovereignty . Mere Ab-
-stracfion s--


be established before we can safely proceed to
reason upon any of the practical affairs of life
and the failure in life of unfortunate" indivi-
duas, like the failure of ill-devised governmental
measures, may usually be traced back, with un-
erring certainty, to errors of opinion respecting
some principle or doctrine which, in the outset
was overlooked or disregarded, because it was
supposedto be of too abstract nature to deserve
the consideration Of practical" men.
Our revolutionary fathers went to war with
the mother country upon nero abstraction.
The British Parliament had repealed the odous
stamp act of which the colonies complained; but
that repeal was accompanied by an assertion OF
the friaeiplS that the colonies were uncondi-
tionally subject to the legislative power of Par
liament 1t was opposition to that detested
principle which precipitated the struggle of the
revolution.
Assent to an abstraction, whether such assent
be given expressly or by implication, necessarily
involves assent to every conclusion aud conse-
quencc that may lcgtimatcly result from the
principle originally admitted and it is because
of this fact that we should always be cautious
about yielding our assent to abstract doctrines
1t is now urged, with great plausibility, by the
apologists for "Squatter SsSereignty," that, at
the present moment there is 10 Territory to
which the doctrine can be practically applied,
and therefore, that the South, inasmurh as she
cannot Immediately lose anything through its
operation, is contending for a mer, abstraction
when she demands that the doctrine shall be re-
pudiated and condemned. Precisely the same
argument was addressed to TIE pre-rcvolutionary
patriots. They were told that they were not
then called upon to pay any stamp duties and,
therefore, that they were making great and need
less outcry about mere abstraction, which was
wholly without t'e slightest present importance
or significance; but they replied that great and
vital princire was at stake, aud so important did
they consider it to be, that they soemnly pledged
to its maintenance, in an hour of darker peril
than the present. their lives, their fortunes, and
their sacred honor. Had they weakly yielded to
the soft persuasions of those who whispered
"peace" and prated of distractions" these
States, it is not unlikely, would to-day have been
in the condition of colonial vassalage to England.
If We now admit the doctrine of "Squatter
Sovereignty We must admit it with all its logical
results in the future. Whenever, within the
wide limits of our present possessions, new
Territory shall be organized, we must expect to
sec the emissaries of "Emigrant Aid Societies"
aocling thither, like birds of prey to a field of
carnGsc until their numbers shall enable them to
dedicate the land to the purposes of ant-slavery,
by applying the doctrine of "Squatter Sovereign
ty" and not another slave State will ever be carved
out of the public domain which we now hold for
that doctrine just as certainly as the Wmot pro-
viso, or the Ordinance of 1884, will crush out
slavery in all the Territories
Moreover, when our people, obeying their in
stinct for territorial acquisition and expansion,
shall have made themselves masters of Cuba.
Central America and Mexico, those regions, too,
will be oveTun by the hordes of anti-slavery
sent forth by the over-pcopled free States upon
the special mission of excluding slavery by means
Of that doctrine which is now characterized as
"a mere abstraction" When such things could
be done, by what other tenure than that of suf-
ferancc would slavery retain its existence in any
of the States? And how long would the paper
barriers of constitution continue to restrain
those ravenous creatures greedy and thirsting
for its lfe-blood, whose final spring is only now
delayed by physical fear?
Butwearo told that we must now swallow Squat
hoo L.
charged with inconsistency, and because our re
pudaton of the doctrine would render it difficult
if not impossible, to carry the Democratic ticket
in some of the Northwestern States.
In that remarkable specimen of special plead
ing which was recently delivered in Washington
by Senator from Illinois in reply to Mr.. Davis
the distinguished speaker carefully confined him
self to an attempt to prove that he had been ver-
bally consistent, and that the majority of South
ern States and statesmen had been verbally
inconsistent, in reference to what he termed the
doctrine Of non-interventon. With all his bold
ness, he dared neither assert that the South had
ever ratified his construction Of the Cincinnati
Platform of 1856, nor deny that the South might
JUST as Well aoanuOn, eApncitly ana at once, all
her interest in the common territories as to accept
the Squatter Sovereignty Interpretation of that
platform. He proved himself to be a skilful
player upon words, and nothing more No man,
who remembers the canvass of 1856 in Missis.
sippi, Til pretend we think, that Squatter Sover-
eighty then met with any favor in the eyes of our
people; and our delegates at Charleston left the
convention the other day because fictitious ma
Jority refused to place upon the Cincinnati plat
form the same construction under which our
people voted for Mr.. Buchanan four years ago
If the success of the Democratic party really
depends upon the recognition Of the heresy of
Squatter Sovereignty, We are much disposed TO
doubt the permanent value Of any success that
may be thus achieved When the King of Epirus
exclaimed, in reply to those who congratulated
him upon the signal victory he had obtained over
the Romans, Another such victory would ruin
mel" he expressed just such feeling as would
weigh down the heart of any clear-sighted and
sagacious Democrat who should survey the field
after the party had achieved nominal victory
under the battle-cry of "Squatter Sovereigntyl"
The trophies and fruits of such victory would