Pointe Coupee Democrat. [volume] (False River [i.e. New Roads], Parish of Pointe Coupee [La.]) 1858-1862, 1860-08-04
THE DE MOOR AT,
P. A. ROY, Editor .
Extracts from Speech of Hon. Daniel S.
Dickinson.

H. H. Much has been said upon the subie
ID ID OF Non-lhtervcntion and Squatter Sove
eighty, as it is termed, and there b;
been much more said upon them than hs
70 been understood by those who have sal
10 it.. And it would be we'll for the polit
20 Cal magpies, whe chatter so hippantI
'of upon the subject, to learn their lesso
!" before they prate it, The two prime
e pies. which really have no relation t
each other, and are entirely ditferen
Il have been strangely and unpardonabl
confourded; but | will state the tru
definitions Of each separately. Nor
Intervention means that there should b.
no intervention to extend or prohbi
:: slavery in the Territories, but that tn
people of the States and the Territore
! should be left, while a Territory, to en-
i JOY just such rights, as to carrying thei
} slaves with them when removing int,
the Territories or exclusion therefrom
as it should be held by the courts be
longcd to them. Squatter sovereignty
claims the sovereign right of the people
OF Territory to exclude the introduc
PRODUCTION Of slavery from the territory
by hostile Territorial legislation, regard.
less OF the construction given to the
Constitution by the decisions of the Su.
preme Court Before the Dred Scott de-
clslon, this was an open question; since
that decision, it is so no longer. The
difference is plainly this: Non-Interven-
ton by Congress and qualified popular
sovereignty proposed such Territorial
Legislation as should be in Difference to-
subject to, and in harmony with, the de-
cisons Of the Supreme Court upon the
great question. Squatter Sovereignty
defines the authority Of the Territorial
Legislature to exclude slavery from the
Territory by lawsabsolutely regardless
OF the construction given to the Consti-
tuition by the court
1t has been often said, with truth, that
was the first to introduce the principle
IF Aon-lntervention and qualified Popu-
lar Sovereigntv into Congress for the
tie uotppifflie uotppiffflfiee has been regarded w.tn ulo
favor, it has been assigned to me; but
when it has been greeted with popular
applause, it has had, numerous claim
ants. 1t has sometimes been said, but
enormously, that ! was an advocate, if
not the author, of the doctrine Of Squat,
ter Sovereignty. Twas and am an ad-
vocate Of Non Intervention with quail
fled Popular Sovereignty-that is, with
the right Of the people to legislate, in
harmony with the Constitution, for their
domestic government | never was an
advocate for, or believer in, the doc
trine of Squatter Sovereignty, and hold
it to be an out-and-out absurdity, for it
makes the laws of Territorial Lcgisla-
ture to override the Constitution Of the
United States.
The resolutions which | introduced in
1871, proposing Non Intervention in the
Territories, and suggesting the princi-
pie of Popular Sovereignty in a qualified
form, proposed, as shown by the speech
which followed their introduction, that
the Territorial Legislature should keep
in view such construction as should be
given to the Constitution by the Supreme
Court, and legislate in harmony with and
in declaratory obedience to it. They
were never brought to a.vote, because
practical measures, involving thea pre-
else question, came under consideration
soon after their introduction, and for no,
other reason.
In 1849,- Mr.. Calhoun, myself, and
others, were upon the committee charged
with bill known as the Clayton Com
promise 1 proposed, and Mr.. Calhoun
assented, that the bill should be framed
upon the principlesof Non-Intervention;
and it was so fromed, and so passed the
Senate, but it was, near the close OF the
session, laid on the table in the House
of Representatives. The only difference
between Mr.. Calhoun and myself upon
the subject then, or at any other time,
was this: He proposed that the bill
should recognize, in declaratory form,
the right of the citizens ofall the States
to go to the common Territories with
their property-slase property included
and there be protected. Without af-
frming or denying his position, pro-
posed, as it was an unsettled question,
and strictly belonged to the judiciary. 70
leave it to be decided by the courts; to
which he readily assented-remarking
that the South had such entire conf
depce in their position that they were
willing to stand upon Non-lnterventlon,
and await a judicial construction OF the
Constitution, and of their rights in the
Territories. The position of Mr.. Cal.
houn has since been fully vindicated and
sustained by the Dred Scott decision.
The Compromise measures OF lSoo
were based upon the same Non-lnter
| vention idea, and while they were under
discussion in the Senate of the United
States, | had the honor to state my po.
sition there in speech upon the floor,
as follows:
aNow. sir. I wish to say. once for all