Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-05-25

441
-------------
{. NO. 81.
is, that non-intervention as established IN
1850, and carried out in 1854, is not un-
derstood at the North as it is at the South;
that, while we hold that, in leaving "the
whole subject where the Constitution and
the great principles Disagreement place
it," the common Territories are to remain
open for settlement by southern people, with
their slaves. until otherwise provided by a
State Constitution The friends and sup
porters of the same doctrine at the North
maiutain that, under it, the people ofan or
ganized Territory can protect or exclude
slave property before the formation of a State
constitution This opinion, or construction
of theirs, is what is commonly dubbed
''squatter sovereignty" Upon this point
of difference in construction of what are 'the
great principles of self government" under
the Constitution of the United States, a
great deal has been said and written
We have heard it in the social circle, in
the forum, on the hustings. and in the halls
of legislation The newspapers have lite
rally groaned with dissertations on it
Pamphlets have been published for and
against the respective sides Congress has
spent months in it's discussion, and may
spend as many years as they have months.
without arriving at any more definite or
satisfactory conclusion in relation to it than
Millions perplexed spirits did upon the alb
struse question on which they held such
high and prolonged debate when they rea-
soned-
"Of Providence, foreknowedge, will, and fate
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute,
And found no end in wandering mazes lost"
1t is not my purpose now to enter the list
Of these disputants. My own opinions upon
the subject are known; and it is equally
known that this difference ofopinion, or con-
struction, is no new thing in the history of
this subject. Those who hold the doctrine
that the people of the Territories, according
to the great principles of self-government,
under the Constitution of the United States,
can exclude slavery by Territorial law, and
regulate slave property as all other proper
ty, hold the same views they now do, when
we agreed with them to stand on those
terms This fact is also historical The
South held, that under the Constitution the
Territorial Legislatures could not exclude
slavery-that this required act of sovereign
ty to do. Some gentlemen of the North
held, as they now do, that the Territorial
Legislatures could control slave property as
absolutely as they could any other kind Of
property, and by a system of laws could viz
tually exclude slavery from amongst them
or prevent its introduction if they chose.
That point of difference, it was agreed BY
both sides, to leave to the courts to settle
There was no cheat, or swndle, or fraud, Oh
double dealing in it. 1t was far, honora.
bic, and constitutional adjustment of the diff
ference. No assertion or declaration by Con.
gress, one way or the other, could have af-
fected the question in the least degree; for
if the people. according to "the great prin-
ciples of elf-government" under the Consti-
tuition, have the right contended for by those
who espouse that side of the argument, then
Congress could not and cannot deprive them
of it. And if Congress did not have or does
not have the power to exclude slavery from
a Territory, as those on our side commended
and still contend they have not, then they
could not and did not confer it upon the Ter
ritorial Legislature. We of the South held
that Congress had not the power to exclude,
and could rot delegate power they did no,
possess: also. that the people had not the
power to exclude under the Constitution and
therefore the mutual agreement was to take
the subject out of Congress. and leave the
question Of the power of the people where
the Constitution had pleased it, with the
courts. This is the whole of it, The ques-
ton in dispute is judicial one. and no act
of Congress, nor any resolution of any party
convention, can in any way affect it, unless
we first abandon the position Of non inter-
vention by Congress.
But it seems exceedingly strange to me
that the people of the South should. at this
late day, begin to find fault with this North
ern construction, as it is termed-especialy
since the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of bred Scott. In this connection,
I may be permitted to say, that have read
with deep interest the debates of the Char
lesion Convention. and particularly the able
logical. and eloquent speech of the Hon
VIM. L. Yancey, Of Alabama. 1t was, de-
ciledly, the strongest argument have seen
on his side of the question. But its great
est power was shown in it's complete answer
to itself. Never did man, with greater
clearness, demonstrate that 'squatter sover-
eighty" the great bug of the day, is
not in the Kansas BILL all that has been said
to the contrary, Notwithstanding This he
put beyond the power Of refutation But
he stopped not there-he went on, and by
reference to the decision of the Supreme
Court alluded to. he showed coEclusively.
in most pointed and thrilling climax, that
this most frightful doctrine could not by
any possibility, be in it, or in any other
Territorial bill-that it is constitutional
impossibility. With the same master hand
he showed that the doctrine Of ''squatter
sovereignty is not in the Cincinnati plat
form; then why should we of the South now
complain of non-intervention, or ask change
of platform +?
What else have we to do but to insist
upon our allies to stand to their agreement ?
Would it not have been much more natural
to look for finching on their side than on
ours. Why should we desire or want any