Sii'^3 
 
^5 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 <\ 
 
 MR. CALEB B. SMITH, OF INDIANA, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 
 
 DELIVERDD IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S., JAN. 8, 
 
 1845. 
 
 r 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 J. ANi) G. S. GIDEON, PRINTERS. 
 
 ■ 1845. 
 

SPEECH 
 
 Mr. CALEB B. SMITH, who had the floor from the previous day, having 
 moved for the rising of the committee, addressed the House in opposition to tlie 
 joint resolution. 
 
 He said, that if there was any question which appealed to the members of 
 that House, as Americans and as patriots, to discard from their minds every vest- 
 ige of partizan feeling, this was such a question. It rose far above all party- 
 views and party ends, and involved in its decision consequences seriously affect- 
 ing the integrity of the Constitution, and the perpetuity of the Union. And 
 here, in the outset of his remarks, he must be permitted to express his sincere 
 regret, that the gentleman from Alabama, who addressed the committee on yes- 
 terday, (Mr. Yancey,) while deprecating, with a zeal and eloquence but rarely 
 witnessed upon that floor, the intrusion of party spirit into a debate of this char- 
 ter, had not seen proper to conform his own course to the precepts which he de- 
 fined for the government of others. The gentleman would have better attested 
 his sincerity, and furnished stronger evidence of his own exemption from the 
 feelings of a partisan, if he had spared an appeal to the sneers and sarcasms upon 
 his political opponents, with which he had seen proper to garnish his speech. 
 
 I shall not (said Mr. S.) undertake to follow that gentleman in his discussion 
 of the acts or objects of the Hartford Convention, nor waste the time of the com- 
 mittee in refuting the stale charge o( Federalism, which he has attempted to cast 
 upon the political party with which I am associated. 
 
 The chairman of the^Committee on Foreign Aflairs, (Mr. C. J. Ingersoll,) in 
 opening the debate upon this question, spoke of the great increase of public sen- 
 timent in favor of the annexation of Texas within the last year. He informed 
 us, what every man upon this floor knows to be true, that if this proposition had 
 been submitted to a vote here one year ago, it would have been rejected by an 
 overwhelming majority. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 has told us truly, that one year ago, the annexation of Texas to this Union found 
 but few advocates. The sentiments, the feelings, the wishes, and the judgments 
 of the American people were against it. The hope of its annexation, if cher- 
 ished at all, only e^fisted with a portion of the people of the South. Now, sir, 
 those who have the firmness to stand up and give utterance to those sentiments, 
 which but one year ago were the sentiments of the great body of the American 
 people, do it at the hazard of being branded as traitors to their country, and en- 
 emies to its prosperity. 
 
 How is this change to be accounted for ? What has produced such a revolu- 
 tion in public sentiment ? What new lights have been brought to bear upon this 
 question, which have created such marvellous popularity for a measure which, 
 but so short a time since, was an oi^ject of aversion ? Sir, there is no mystery 
 in all this. It presents but another and a striking instance of the irresistible in- 
 fluence of party spirit and party discipline. The appliances of party have been 
 brought to bear upon this question. The annexation of Texas has been incor- 
 porated into the Democratic creed. The " Lone Star" has found a place upon 
 the Democratic banners. The faithful have been invoked to come up to the 
 rescue, while the doom of the traitor has been denounced upon all who falter or 
 waver in their support of this new article in the Democratic confession of faith. 
 The history of the last fifteen years has furnished us striking evidence of the 
 
power and influence of party spirit in shaping public opinion upon political 
 questions. 
 
 There are numerous objections which present themselves to my mind against 
 the annexation of Texas, a portion of which I shall now proceed to examine. 
 It willte impossible for me to examine them all, in the brief time allotted me 
 by the rules of the House, or to present my views upon any of them as fully as 
 I should desire. 
 
 Those who advocate this measure, belong to that class of politicians who con- 
 t end, that the Federal Government is one of limited powers — w^io denounce with 
 great zeal what they term a latitudinarian construction of the Constitution ; and 
 who deny to Congress the right to exercise any powers except such as are ex- 
 pressly delegated by that instrument. It is by them that the right of Congress 
 to appropriate money for internal improvements has been denied — that the power 
 of improving our rivers and channels of trade and commerce has been question- 
 ed — that the vetoes of the Maysville road bill, of the appropriation for the Wa- 
 bash river, and of the Eastern harbor bill, at the last session of Congress, have 
 been sustained and defended. They can see no power in the Constitution, con- 
 ferred upon Congress, to develope the resources of the countrj', by improving its 
 rivers and harbors, or by facilitating trade and intercourse between its different 
 parts. They denounce us as latitudinarian constructionists for urging upon Con- 
 gress the exercise of this important power ; and yet, with all their anxiety to 
 preserve the rights of the States, and to confine this Government to the exercise 
 of the powers conferred by the Constitution, they ask that Congress shall assume 
 the important power of adding a foreign nation to our own. 
 
 Under what pi'ovision of the Constitution is it contended that this important 
 power is conferred ? We are referred to that provision which authorizes Con- 
 gress to admit new States into the Union. The history of the Constitution, its 
 exposition by those who assisted in its formation, the whole scope and spirit of 
 the instrument, the action of the Government under it, and the opinions of our 
 most eminent statesmen ; all conspire to show that this clause was only intended 
 to confer upon Congress the power of admitting new States created from terri- 
 tory belonging to the United States. The venerable patriots who framed our 
 Constitution, certainly never contemplated that, in giving to Congress the power 
 to admit new States, they were conferring upon the Representatives of the Amer- 
 ican people, the power of tacking these United States to the skirts of Great 
 Britain, or joining them as an appendage to the Russian empire. Yet, if the 
 position assumed by the advocates of this measure be correct. Congress has such 
 a power; for the same power which would authorize the addition to our Union 
 of a province on this continent, would furnish equal authority for the addition 
 of a State or an empire in Earope. We have the same power to pass a bill au- 
 thorizing the people of Great Britain to organize themselves into a State Gov- 
 ernment, and be admitted into this Union, that we have to extend this privilege 
 to the people of Texas. The doctrine that Congress possesses such a power is 
 of modern origin. It has been produced by the' extreme anxiety which exists 
 in a portion of the Union to acquire possession of Texas. 
 
 The acquisition of Louisiana and Florida are relied upon as precedents to jus- 
 tify this measure. It must be recollected, however, that they were acquired by 
 the exercise of the treaty-making power, which, by the Constitution, is confer- 
 red upon the President and Senate. No statesman at that period was visionary 
 enough to suppose, that the Legislative Department of the Government was vest- 
 ed with power to acquire foreign territory. At the time of the purchase of Lou- 
 isiana, in 1803, not only was the constitutional power of the Government to ac- 
 quire it even by treaty doubted by Mr. Jefferson, the then President, but it was 
 
expressly denied, and the measure was only jtistified from the extreme necessity 
 of the case, and the great importance to this country of securing the navigation 
 of the Mississippi, and the important market of New Orleans. The opinions 
 of Mr. Jefl'erson upon this question were expressed in a letter written by him to 
 Mr. Breckenridge, after the treaty for the purchase of Louisiana had been signed. 
 Speaking of the treaty, he uses this explicit language : 
 
 " This treaty must of course be laid before both Houses, because both have important func- 
 tions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their duty to their country in ratifying; 
 and paying for it, so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their 
 power. But I suppose they must tlien appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Con- 
 stitution, approving and confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The 
 Constitution has made no provision for our holding toreign territory; still less for incorporating 
 foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much 
 advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The legislature, 
 in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves, like faithful servants, 
 must ratify and pay for it, and tiirow themselves on their country for doing for them, unauthor- 
 ized, what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it." 
 
 This opinion of Mr. Jefferson, of the onconstitutionality of that measure, is 
 clear and explicit, and no statesman of that day controverted its correctness. The 
 idea that we could acquire this territory by legislative action, was never sug- 
 gested, never entertained. 
 
 The great importance to the country of Louisiana and Florida, and the unani- 
 mity of public sentiment in regard to the necessity of their acquisition, induced 
 all parties to waive the constitutional question, and acquiesce in tlie nn^'pure. 
 If any argument in favor of the acquisition of foreign territory can be drawn 
 from these precedents, it cannot be in favor of the mode of acquisition now pro- 
 posed. The annexation of Texas by either bill or joint resolution of Congress, 
 would, in my opinion, be a clear and palpable violation of the Constitution. 
 
 I shall now, Mr. Chairman, direct my remarks to the question of expediency ; 
 and upon this ground, I find objections to the proposed annexation numerous and 
 insuperable. This measure is urged upon us as a means of extending " the area 
 of freedom.''^ The oracle of the Hermitage has pointed to annexation as the 
 means of extension. Is Texas now in a state of vassalage? Is shejiow borne 
 down by the weight of Mexican oppression? Is she suffering under the tyranny 
 of Santa Anna? Is our aid invoked to relieve her from a condition of servitude 
 and extend " the area of freedom'/'^ Why, sir, in the same breath in which we 
 are called upon to extend ^^ the area of freedom,^^ we are assured that Texas 
 achieved her independence in the battle of San Jacinto, and, since that time, that 
 she has been free from all control of Mexico. We are told that she is now en- 
 joying the full benefit of *republican government, under a constitution modelled 
 after our own, and that she is fully competent to sustain her independence against 
 all the powepof Mexico. If this be true, how can " the area of freedom^ ^ be 
 extended by annexing her territory to ours? The mere adding of one free State 
 to another cannot extend the bounds of human freedom. If Texas is indepen- 
 dent, let her continue to enjoy her independence. Let her furnish lo the world, 
 in her own example, evidence of the advantages of civil liberty, and a republican 
 form of government. 
 
 A strong objection to the annexation of Texas in the manner proposed, is 
 found in the relative position of Texas and Mexico. An acknowledged state of 
 war exists between the two countries, prosecuted on the part of Mexico for the 
 purpose of re-establishing her authority over Texas. No matter what may be 
 our feelings in reference to this contest — no matter how strong msy be our sym- 
 pathies with the people of Texas — we cannot, without a violation of the treaty 
 subsisting between our CTOvernment and Mexico, interfere, either to terminate 
 
the contest, or to appropriate Texas to ourselves. The battle of San Jacinto, 
 by which it is claimed that Texas rendered herself independent of Mexico, was 
 won by citizens of the United States, who, in violation of the obligations of our 
 Government to Mexico, went to Texas to aid her citizens in their struggle. 
 Many of those who aided in defeating the Mexican army in that battle, have 
 since returned to the United States, and are now living among us. It was a por- 
 tion of our own citizens who achieved the victory by which Texas was rendered 
 temporarily independent. Their interference in the contest was unjust to Mex- 
 ico, and a gross violation of the good faith whi^h the American people should 
 have observed. Yet it is now insisted that, as one of tlie fruits of that victory, 
 we shall take possession of Texas, and appropriate the country to our own use, 
 in utter disregard of the wishes or remonstrances of Mexico. 
 
 During the course of this discussion, much has been said of the efforts which 
 have been made at different times, and under different Administrations, to ac- 
 quire possession of Texas. It is true, our Government has, at different periods, 
 attempted to acquire a portion of Texas, by fair and Open purchase from Mexico. 
 Negotiations have been resorted to for. the purpose of inducing her to part with 
 the title, whicli we acknowledged her to possess ; but now, and now for the tirst 
 time, it is proposed that we shall rob Mexico of her province, and establish a ti- 
 tle in ourselves by force. It is proposed that this Republican Government, shall 
 embark in a war of conquest, and imitate the spirit and career of ancient Rome,, 
 when her conquering legions were subjugating Europe and prostrating the world 
 at her feet. Should tlie measure now proposed be consummated, ~the honor of 
 this nation will be indelibly tarnished, and the condemnation of the civilized 
 world must rest upon this people and Government for an act of unholy spolia- 
 tion. 
 
 The Government of Texas, in 1837, proposed to annex that country to the 
 United States. The Democratic party were then in the ascendant. Mr. Van 
 Buren was President, surrounded by a Democratic cabinet. The united opin- 
 ion of Mr. Van Buren and his cabinet was, that it would be dishonorable to this 
 Government to even entertain the proposition for consideration. That opinion 
 -was announced to the Texan minister by Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State of the 
 United States, in a very able letter, from v/hich I will beg leave to present an 
 extract : 
 
 " So long as Texas shall remain at \var, while tlie United States are at peace with her adversa- 
 ry, the proi^osition of the Texan Minister Plenipotentiary necessarily involves the question of 
 war with that adversary. The United States are bound to Mexico by a treaty of amity and 
 commerce, which will be scrupulouslv observed on their part, so long as it can be reasonably 
 hoped that Mexico will perform her duties, and respect our rigliie under it. The United States 
 might justly be suspected of a disregard of the friendly purposes of the compact, if the overture 
 of General Hunt were to be even reserved for future consideration, as this would imply a dispo- 
 sition on our iiart to espouse the quarrel of Texas with Mexico ; a disposition wnolly at variance 
 with the spirit of the treaty, with the uniform policy, and the obvious welfare of the United 
 States." 
 
 "The inducements mentioned by General Hunt for the United States to annex Texas to their 
 territory are duly a{)preciated. but, powerful and weighty as they certaiiily are, they are light 
 wiien opposed in the scale of reason to treaty obligations, and respect for that integrity of charac- 
 ter by wliich the United States have sought to distinguish themselves since the establishment of 
 their right to claim a place in the great family of nations." 
 
 Mr. Van Buren, in a letter which he addressed to a member of this House, 
 (Mr. IIammett,) on the 20th of April last, speaks of that proposition to annex, 
 and tke decision of thr Government in relation to it, in this language : 
 
 " I have already referred to an application for the accomplishment of the same object that was 
 made to this Government by Texas while I was President. 
 
 N " It can scarcely be necessary to say that the apj)lication was considered with that attention 
 *nd care which was due to so grave a proposition, and under Uie full ijifluer.co of feelings of sin- 
 
cere solicitude for the prosperity and permanent welfare of a young and neighboring State, whose 
 independence we had.been the first to acknowledge — feelings which constitute, and I sincerely hope 
 ever will constitute, the prevailing sentiments of the people of the U. States. In coming to the 
 decision which it beceune my duty to make, I was aided, m addition to the other members of my 
 Cabinet, by the counsel and constitutional advice of two distinguished citizens of your own sec- 
 tion of the Union, of the first order of intellect, great experience in public affairs, and whose de- 
 votion to their own, as well as every other section of the Union, was above all que.stion. The 
 result of our united opinions was announced to the Texan Minister (General Hunt) in a com- 
 munication from the late Mr. Forsyth." 
 
 " The correspondence was, very soon after it took place, communicated to Congress, and al- 
 though the public mind was at the time in a state of the highest excitement, and the Administra- 
 tion daily assailed through every avenue by which it was deemed approachable, I am yet to see 
 the first sentence of complaint upon that point, in any quarter of ihe Union." * * # 
 
 "I return now to the question, has the condition of the contest between Texas and Mexico, 
 for the sovereignty of the former, so far changed, as to render these principles now inapplicable ? 
 What is the attitude which these two States now occupy towards each"other? Are they at war, 
 or are they not? We cannot evade this question if we would." 
 
 Mr. Van Buren here argues at length, and quotes from Mr. Tyler's message, 
 to show that war is actually existing, and then adds : 
 
 " But what, my dear sir, is the true and undisguised chai-acter of the remedy for these evils, 
 which would be applied by the 'immediate annexation of Texas lo the United Siates?' Is it 
 more or. less than saying to Mexico, we feel ourselves aggrieved by the continuance of this war 
 between you and Texas ; we have an interest in seeing it termiiiated ; we will accomplish that 
 object by taking the disputed territory to oiu'selves ; we will make Texas a part of the United 
 States, so that tiiose plans of re-conquesi which we know you are maturing, to be successful, 
 must be made so against the power that we can brii-.g into the contest ; if the war is to be con- 
 tinued, as we understand to be your design, the United States are to be regarded henceforth as 
 one of the belligerents." 
 
 Those who urge most.strenuously this measure, have heretofore paid greal| 
 deference to the opinions of Mr. Van Buren. " 
 
 I wish here, Mr. Chairman, to refer to a few editorial articles, published in the 
 Globe, less than one year ago, upon this question, which I presume will be ad- 
 mitted as good Democratic authority. On the 29th of April last, Mr. Blair 
 speaks thus of Mr. Van Buren's letter : 
 
 " We say, without reserve, we do not think Mr. Van Buren has ever presented to the country 
 a production more creditable to his talents, his patriotism, or his cliaracter as a statesman, thai^ 
 is this letter ; and we are perfectly convinced that his demonstrative argumeiit miiijt satisfy everyB 
 sincere friend of the annexation, that the difficulty he interposes against instant action has its 
 foundation in a great principle, which no statesman can overlook or disregard, and which our, 
 Government ceai never safely violate." 
 
 Again, we find in the Globe of the 1st May, 1844, the following editoria] 
 article : 
 
 " We concur with Mr. Van Buren fully and cordially in this view, and say it is the only wise 
 honorable, safe, and jiraclicable course. Mexico and Texas are now at war ; the armistice ad- 
 mits it, (a circumstance of which we were not apprised when we wrote our first article on this 
 subject;) and to adopt tlie Texaiis as our citizens at this time, is to make ourselves a party tc 
 the war, and to take upon ourselves the business of its conclusion, either \)y negotiation or bj 
 arms. It requires no declaration of war from Mexico to_involve us. From the moment we ad 
 mit Texas, we make her a territory of the Union ; and it would be unlawful and punishable m 
 her to treat with Mexico, or to fight alone with Mexico. The United States alone could treaty 
 or fight; and thus, from the day of the ratification of this treaty, the United States and Mcxic< 
 would be at war ; commerce between them would cease, and they would remain at war, an< 
 commerce remain broken up, until the negotiations or the arms of the United Slates terminate! 
 the adopted war. This is clear common sense, and no one can deny it." 
 
 On the 4th May, 1844, the editor of the Globe again says : 
 
 " We have been looking a little further into the published documents which accompany th< 
 treaty, and every step amazes us more and more. We fiii,d that Lord Aberdeen., and the British 
 Minister-here utterly deny the Duff Green story, sent from London in August last, of the de« 
 signs of England upon Texas, which is made the foundation of this whole proceeding. We be^ 
 Ueve it can easily be proved that the whole scheme of getting up the Texas question, precisely 
 as that question now is, existed long before Duff furnished that pretext, and that all this story o 
 British interference, now put forth as the pretext for the movement, has been invented since ih( 
 movement was ojrganized." 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
Who does not know that tlie great rallying cry of the Texas party has been, 
 
 annexation to resist the ambitious designs of England? That our "natural 
 
 enewiJ/" was about stretching forth her hands to grasp Texas. Our patriotism 
 
 : has been appealed to to resist the ambitious designs of Great Britain upon that 
 
 I country ; and yet we find the organ of the Democratic Texas party, only a few 
 
 I months ago, declaring ^in the face of the whole country that this hue and cry 
 
 ■ about British interference was a mere " raw head and bloody bones'''' — a hum- 
 
 I bug — held out to frighten the country into the support of annexation. The 
 
 1 -Globe certainly never came nearer the truth than in this statement. A few days 
 
 later, on the 15th May last, the Globe again refers to this subject, as follows : 
 
 " If the General Government should take this step, in violation of the treaty Avith Mexico, 
 would the character of oirr country be left to our posterity, the same noble and honorable inheri- 
 
 I tance which was handed down to us by Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson? 
 
 ' " We do not believe the great mass of our countrymen are willing to sacrifice the honor, the 
 renown, and the real glory of this country for any earthly acquisition ? If, then, Texas has 
 admitted by a solemn proclamation the existence of a war between her and Mexico ; if the 
 
 ; Government of the- United States has by a solemn official document declared its full knowledge 
 
 ' that this is the state of relations between Texas and Mexico, how can the President and Senate 
 of the United States, without sacrificing the honor of the coimtry, adopt this war with Mexico, 
 in the face of our treaty of peace with that country ?" 
 
 The question was well asked by the editor of the Globe, whether, if this step 
 were taken by the General Government, the character of our country would be 
 left to our posterity the same noble and honorable inheritance which was handed 
 down to us by Washington and Jefferson ? Sir, this question might with great 
 propriety be now asked. If we, at this enlightened age of the world, boasting 
 ourselves to be the freest nation on the earth, should violate our treaty of amity 
 with Mexico, as the resolution now under consideration proposes, can we hand 
 down to our children our national character marked by the same untarnished and 
 unsuspected honor with which we received it from our fathers ? Would Wash- 
 ington or Jefferson, would the pure-minded Madison, have recommended a 
 measure so fraught witli national dishonor ? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I might quote numerous other articles from the Globe, as well 
 as from the leading Democratic papers of most of the States in this Union, ex- 
 pressing the same opinions as those which I have quoted, and showing in the 
 strongest terms the common sentiment of the country, that the course which we 
 now propose to pursue was unjust to Mexico and dishonorably to ourselves. 
 The expression of diflerent opinions at the present time from the same source 
 furnishes striking evidence of the influence of party discipline iii changing the 
 opinions of men, 
 
 I object again, Mr. Chairman, to the annexation of Texas, because by that act 
 we should assume her debts. Many of the States of this Union are largely in- 
 debted, in consequence of their enterprising efforts to improve and develope the 
 resources of the country, by means of works of internal improvement. Some 
 of them have asked the aid of the General Government, through the proceeds of 
 the public domain, to assist in paying their debts. Those who have denied this 
 aid, and who now denounce in the bitterest terms any proposition to extend it, 
 now propose by this measure to pledge the resources of this Government for the 
 payment of the unknown millions of the debts of a foreign Government. 
 
 We all know, Mr. Chairman, with how much zeal and earnestness it has 
 been contended by the Democratic party that an assumption of the debts of the 
 States by the General Government would be a violation of the Constitution. 
 Where now is their regard for that sacred instrument ? Where now iheir hor- 
 ror at the idea of a violation of its provisions ? Sir, will any sane man contend 
 that the Constitution denies to this Government the power to assume the debts 
 of one of the States of this Confederacy, and yet authorizes the assumption of 
 
tlie debts of a foreign nation ? *Band it is a right they will sutrender only witbl 
 spring, and which is now proposedf ef"ni'£'»GtJo a^v^tj/i-ji^xationy interference with 1 
 is pledged for the payment often iiillions of the debts of Texed to love or admire 
 which we should be compelled tofpay ? It is true, sir, the CTOverirmei.evil, they 
 be sued by the creditors of Texis, and payment of her debts coerced; but \v\}i- 
 cannot shut our eyes to the important fact that every principle of law, of honor, 
 of common honesty, and common justice, will require us to pay the last farthing 
 of the debts of Texas, no matter what may be their amount. By annexation we 
 merge the Government of Texas within our own. We destroy her separate 
 and national existence. We appropriate to ourselves all her public domain, her 
 customs, her revenues, and resources of every description. We take all her 
 means to which her creditors have a right to look for the payment of her debts ; 
 and can we, sir, avail ourselves of all these, and refuse to pay her debts, without 
 being branded by the common consent of the civilized world with infamy and 
 dishonor ? 
 
 Sir, the fair fame of the American Government has already been tarnished by 
 the repudiation by some of the States of their honest debts. Shall we add to the 
 disgrace already resting upon us — shall we make our name a by-word and a re- 
 proach among all civilized people — by appropriating to ourselves Texan wealth 
 and repudiating Texan debts ? If we annex Texas, we must choose between 
 paying all her debts, and national infamy and disgrace by repudiating them. 
 
 Ought we not, Mr. Chairman, to know the amount of those debts before we 
 are called upon to consummate this measure ? Has any information been given 
 to us of their amount ? They have been variously estimated from twenty to one 
 hundred millions. Without'attempting to fix any estimate, I do not believe they 
 amount to less than fifty millions, and very probably to more. Why have not 
 the authorities of the Texan Government furnished us some statement, some 
 data, by which we can determine the amount of liability we assume in the event 
 of annexation ? I can account for it upon nO other principle than that they are 
 conscious if the true amount was known, it would so shock the American peo- 
 ple as to arouse them against the proposed annexation. This information is 
 carefully withheld from the country, and we are called upon blindly to rush into 
 this measure, without knowing the extent of. our responsibilities until they are 
 fixed bevond the power of retraction. 
 
 But again, Mr. Chairman, I object to the annexation of Texas, because we are 
 not informed of the existing relations between that Government and the Govern- 
 ments of Europe. What treaties, commercial or otherwise, have been entered 
 into between her and Great Britain ? H(5\v far will we be required to carry out 
 the provisions of such treaties ? It has been asserted that 'Sexas has surrender- 
 ed to England the right of search upon the seas- Whether this is so we are un- 
 informed. These are matters upon which the Government of Texas might 
 give us full information. That information should be given; we should be 
 made fully acquainted with her financial condition, with the state of her foreign 
 relations, \vith all the obligations she has assumed, and all the concessions she 
 has made to other nations, with the full amount of her liabilities, and the full 
 extent of her resources, that we may know, before it is too late to retract, the 
 full length and breadth of the liabilities we assume by annexation. 
 
 I come now, Mr. v^liairman, to speak of a question connected with this sub- 
 ject, which I know is one of great delicacy, and calculated to produce much ex- 
 citement. It is one, however, which we are bound to meet, and which, for one, 
 I am disposed to meet firmly and promptly. I refer, sir, to the question of 
 slavery. The honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Afiairs, (Mr. 
 C. J. Ingersoll,) in the opening of this discussion, informed us that this was x 
 
"Who does not know that tlie great rallying y*told that the annexation of Texas 
 annexation to resists Souuj,'£xv«;niis ^lesJ^-wj nf'engthening their peculiar institu- 
 enemy" was about si a Southern question — if it is to be carried for the purpose of 
 has been &ning\n^ institution of slavery, we should know in advance what addi- 
 ca?A)nal power, and weight, and influence is to be given to that institution. Nu' 
 merous propositions to annex have been submitted, yet they all leave this ques- 
 tion open. The friends of Texas desire to leave this matter unsettled until an- 
 nexation is completed. Will it be safe to leave this matter open I The history 
 of the Missouri question— a question whtch shook this nation from its centre to 
 its circumference, should warn us of the danger of renewing a contest of that 
 character. If Texas is to be annexed, our only safety will be found in settling 
 that question now. If there is to be a contest on the question of slavery, let it 
 be determined now, while it may be done without sundering the ligaments 
 which bind us together. If Texas is to be annexed, let us know in advance 
 whether her soil is to be the soil of freemen or the soil of slaves. If slave and 
 free States are both to be made from her territory, let us know in advance the 
 number and strength of each. Let us know how much is to be added to the 
 slave power of this Union. Let us leave no adjourned Missouri question to 
 convulse the Union hereafter. 
 
 But, sir, if this measure is to be pressed as a Southern measure — if the an- 
 nexation of Texas is to be demanded as a further guaranty for slavery, we have 
 a right to meet its friends in the examination of the question, whether they have 
 a right to demand such additional guaranties ? Is it right, is it fair, I would ask, 
 in view of the relative positions occupied by the free and slave States under the 
 Constitution, to make such a demand I Can they with propriety or justice de- 
 mand of us the admission into this Union of a large amount of additional slave 
 territory, for the avowed purpose of strengthening the interests of slavery ? We 
 all know the great difficulties which grew out of this subject in agreeing to a 
 Constitution for our common government. But, great -as were the difficulties, 
 our fathers, guided by patriotism, and inspired by a wisdom apparently not their 
 own, succeeded in giving to this Republic that glorious and immortal instrument, 
 in which the compromises then agreed to, were embodied, defined, and perpetu- 
 ated. By that instrument we have agreed, that the institution of slavery, as" it 
 then existed in the slave States, should be secured to those States, and guarded 
 from all encroachments. We have agreed that they shall enjoy upon this floor 
 a representation upon three-fifths of what they are pleased to term as mere pro- 
 perty. These are the compromises of the Constitution, and to them we are 
 willing to adhere. We do not ask to diminish their security ; we do not seek 
 to interfere with the^^ njoyment of their rights. Northern representatives come 
 into this hall from a free people. Our friends of the South meet us here with 
 equal rights and equal power, as the representatives in part of their own property. 
 We are willing to meet them upon that ground. It is the compact which our 
 fathers made, and we will religiously adhere to it. But I would ask, Mr. 
 Chairman, is this not enough ? Have the Southern States a right to demand still 
 more ? Have they a right fairly to insist not only that we siiall protect them in 
 the enjoyment of their constitutional rights, but that we shall adopt measures to 
 strengthen, to extend, and to perpetuate the institution of slavery ? 
 
 Much has been said about the danger of Northern incendiaries, and the evils 
 likely to result from the discussion of slavery by Northern abolitionists. Sir, 
 let me tell my friends of the South, in all candor and good feeling, that the dis- 
 cussion of slavery, as an abstract question, is a matter they cannot check or con- 
 trol. As American freemen, the people of the North, as well as the people of 
 every section of the country, have a right to express their opinions upon that 
 
as well as upon all other subjects, and it is a right they will surrender only with 
 their lives. We are bound by our compact to abstain from any interference with 
 the institution of slavery in the States, but we have not agreed to love or admire 
 it. " 'Tis not in the bond." If Northern men say that slavery is an evil, they 
 say no more than has been said by the best and noblest patriots of the South. 
 When they express their firm and honest conviction that it is an institution 
 fraught with all evil, they but declare that which Washington and Jefferson have 
 taught them, and which has been declared by Virginia's immortal Marshall in 
 words of burning eloquence. The opinions of Mr. Jefferson on the subject of 
 slavery were often and freely expressed. He expressed niuch anxiety for it» 
 abolition at different periods of his life. I will quote here two passages from\ 
 his notes on Virginia : 
 
 " Under the mild treatment onr slaves experience, and their wholesome though coarse food,.- 
 this blot in our country increases as fast or faster than the whites. During the regal Govern- 
 ment v/e had at one time obtained a law which imjjosed sucli a duty on the importation of slaves 
 as amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate Assembly, placed undej; a peculi- 
 arity of circumstances, repealed the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then Sove- 
 reign, and no devices, no expedients which could ever after be attempted by subsequent Assem- 
 blies, and they seldom met witliout attempting them, could succeed in getting the royal assent to 
 a renewal of the duty. In the very first session held under the Republican Government, the 
 Assembly passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of thf importation of slaves. This will in 
 some measure stop the increase of this great political and moral evil, while the minds of our citi- 
 zens may be ripenin*:;- for a complete emancipation of human nature. 
 
 " Indeed, I trenil)le for my country when I reflect that God is just ; that his justice cannot sleep 
 forever; that, considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of 
 fortune, an e.Kchar.ge of situations, is among possible events; that it may become probable by 
 .supernatural interference. The Aln^hty has no attribute which can take sides with us in such 
 a coHtest. But it is impossible to be temperate, and to pursue this subject through the various 
 considerations of policy, of morals, of history, natural and civil. We must be contented to hope 
 thejr will force their way into every one's mmd. I think a change already perceptible since the 
 origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating; that of the slave rising- 
 from the dust — his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the au.spices of Hea.- 
 ven, for a total einancipation, and that this is disposed in the order of events to be with the con 
 sent of ihe master, ratiier than by their extirpation." 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, although the citizens of the free States may •ntertain 
 these opinions in regard to this institution, they are ready and ful^ resolved to- 
 stand by the compromises of the Constitution. They hold firmly and steadfast-j 
 ly to the conditions of the national compact. They are prepared to defend the 
 South in the enjoyment of all her rights, and if Ihe day of trial should come, they 
 are willing to do it at the expense of their treasure and their blood. No attempt 
 has been made to disturb the compromise agreed upon. The free States have 
 large majority upon this floor, and yetno attempts have been made to encroach upon 
 the rights of the Southern Stales. There may be individuals in the free States- 
 who have transcended the just limits of a free disctissionupon this question; bu 
 shall the people of those States be held responsible for their opinions? 
 
 It is an old remark, that extremes often meet, and it appears to me that it is 
 fully verified by those who are ultra in their views upon both sides of this ques- 
 tion. The extrenle slavery men of the South and the extreme anti-slavery men- 
 of the North meet upon the ground of a desire to disturb the compromises of the- 
 Constitution. Upon one side the aid of the Government is invoked for the im- 
 mediate and forcible abolition of slavery, while upon the other side it is asked to 
 interpose for the purpose of extending and strengthening it. Neither are con- 
 tent to leave it in the position in which it is placed by the Constitution. But 
 sir, the great body of the people of the free States occupy tiie true conservative 
 ground. Their doctrine is to let the Constitution stand as it is, and let there be 
 no interference with the balance it has established. They will resist any at- 
 tempt to extend or perpetuate slavery, or to increase the relative political power 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
of those who have an immediate interest in it. If the influence of the slave 
 States is diminishing, it is one of the inevitable consequences of their position. 
 When the balance between these two sections of the country was settled by the 
 Constitution, each agreed to take its chance for an increase of its strength from 
 its own resources ; and if one section now finds itself growing weaker, it has no 
 right to demand concessions from the other, for the purpose of adding to its 
 strength, much less has it the right to call in the aid of a foreign Government to 
 increase its power and secure its ascendency. No such thing was asked for, no 
 such thing was contemplated, when the compact was entered into. It is true 
 that, since the adoption of the Constitution, we have at two different times made 
 accessions to our territory. In both those instances the agquisition was urged 
 by Southern men, was made by Southern administrations, jmd its effect was to 
 extend and strengthen Sonihern interests. Louisiana was acquired under the 
 administration of Mr. Jefferson, and Florida under that of Mr. Monroe, both 
 Virginia Presidents. From the territory thus acquired three slave States have 
 been formed and admitted into the Union, and are now represented in both 
 branches of Congress — Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri ; while not a single 
 «free State has been added from territory acquired since the adoption of the Con- 
 stitution. Iowa, it is true, a part of the territory since acquired, is now asking 
 admission as a free State, but. to counterbalance her power, Florida is knocking 
 at our doors with her institution of slavery, and it is even proposed to divide her 
 territory, and form two slave States from it. 
 
 I regret, Mr. Ciiairman, that the debate upon this question should have as- 
 sumed any thing of a sectional character; but, sir, it is not from those who op- ♦ 
 pose annexation that this character has been given to the discussion. The mea- 
 sure has been pressed and urged by its advocates on sectional grounds. The 
 gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. Yancey,) not satisfied with commending the 
 South, and urging annexation as a measure calculated to promote the interests of ^ 
 that section, in the fury of Iris eloquence, has arraigned the people^of the North 
 as wanting in patriotism. Their patriotism, he says, is not sufficiently enlarged 
 to embrace territory bnyond the limits of their own country. In that gentleman's 
 estimation, a drsire to annex Texas evidences the possession of an " enlarged 
 patriot is?n.'" * Sir, it is the first time I have ever learned that patriotism was a 
 virtue Avhich required its possessor to look beyond the interests of his own coun- 
 try. I have supposed that patriotism was but another name for the love of one's 
 own country, and not an attachment for foreign lands; I did not suppose that 
 one who loved his country, and desired to cherish, protect, and preserve it, 
 could be charged with wanting a patriotism sufficiently enlarged, because it did 
 not embrace the whole world. Sir, the patriotism of the North is sufficiently 
 enlarged to embrace our whole country, in all its parts and all its interests. 
 
 There is, I fear, Mr. Chairman, a pixtriotism which can look at no interest but 
 that which lies beneath a Southern sun — a patriotism (I will not undertake to 
 say how enlarged it is) which cannot extend tiie scope of its vision north of 
 Mason and Dixon's line — a patriotism wiiich can embrace within its affections 
 jio section of this country where slavery is not found, which considers no inter- 
 est worthy the protection of the Government, that is not calculated to strengthen 
 and perpetuate the peculiar institutions of the South. If the honorable gende- 
 man from Alabama considers a patriotism of that character sufficiently enlarged 
 for him, he is welcome to the enjoyment of it, I wish not to participate in the 
 enjoyment of such a feeling. 
 
 I regretted much, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Alabama, in his de- 
 sire to eulogize the South, had not omitted the taunts and reproaches which he 
 has thought proper to cast upon New England. He has told us that " her plains 
 are made fertile and her villages are springing up by the bounties wrung 
 
13 
 
 I 
 
 from the people of the South.'''' Sir, the plains of New England, and her flour- 
 ishing villages, are indebted to no bounties from the South, or any other section, 
 for their prosperity. They are indebted only to that indomitable energy and 
 untiring industry which has always characterized her hardy sons. When the 
 gentleman tells us that the people of -New England are more noted for their keen 
 pursuit of lucre than for their patriotism, he furnishes evidence that he has read 
 the history of his country to but little advantage. Has the gentleman forgotten 
 that long line of illustrious patriots, to whom New England has given birth, 
 whose history has shed a halo of glory around the' A[||erican name ? Has he for- 
 gotten her undying devotion to liberty in the days of the Revolutien ? Has he 
 forgotten Lexington and Bunker Hill ? Sir, I have no wish to detract from the 
 well-earned fame of the distinguished men of the South, whom the gentleman 
 has selected as the subjects of his eulogy. In his high-wrought encomiums upon 
 Virginia's Washington, her Jefferson, and her Madison, he has but uttered the 
 sentiment of every American heart. But the fame of these illustrious men does 
 not belong to the South. It is the common property of us all. They were not 
 Southern men in their feelings or their views. They were Americans, in whose 
 hearts no mere sectional feelings could find a resting place. Their patriotism 
 was deep and broad, and embraced every interest, every section of their country. 
 The gentleman might have contented himself with honoring the great merit of 
 those men, without accompanying it with the effort to cast odium upon the vene- 
 rable gentleman from Massachusetts now upon this floor, (Mr Adams,) who has 
 occupied the same distinguished station. And, sir, let me assure that gentleman, 
 that, when the passions of the hour have subsided, and the busy actors whom 
 they now agitate shall be silenced in the passionless slumber of the grave, the 
 administration of that eminent man will be pointed to with pride and exultation, 
 as one of the brightest epochs of- our national history. It will be quoted as a 
 model administration, for its rigid economy, its strict integrity, and its eminent 
 fidelity to all the momentous trusts committed to it; and, however calumniated 
 now, it will receive the lasting respect and gratitude of the people, and the ad- 
 miration of the friends of free government throughout the world. Sir, the fame 
 of that man is safe, and far, very far, from being lessened by any petty sneers of 
 party malignity or sectional prejudices. 
 
 The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Yancey) has told us in terins of reproach, 
 that no Northern President has ever had the confidence of the people to a suSi- 
 cient extent to secure a re-election. It is true, Mr. Chairman, that in the divi- 
 sion of the honors and emoluments of this nation, the South has been able to 
 secure to herself the lion's share. Other causes than any want of merit or pop- 
 ularity on the part of Northern men might be shown for this. But surely, sir, it 
 comes with a bad grace from Southern men, after the highest offices in the Gov- 
 ernment have so long been filled by them, through favor of the North, to re- 
 proach us with a want of popularity. Does the gentleman intend to intimate 
 that there is no merit north of Mason and Dixon's line? Does he suppose that 
 genius, learning, valor, and patriotism, is confined to the South alone ? 
 
 But Mr. Chairman, Massachusetts has been singled out as an object of special 
 attack. She has been charged with cherishing in her bosom " schemes of trea- 
 son, going directly to effect disunion.''^ Sir, the history of Massachusetts 
 down to this day is a sufficient refutation of this charge. Her sons are animated 
 by the same spirit and the same love of liberty which characterized her Adamses, 
 her Hancock, her Warren ; that spirit which sounded the first manly note of 
 alarm at the encroachments of the Government of Great Britain, and roused the 
 people to resistance. The adoption by her Legislature of the resolution asking 
 
14 
 
 an amendment to the Constitution on the subject of slavery, which has beea 
 made the subject of so much complaint, was but the exercise of a right express- 
 ly given by the Constitution. The Constitution itself points out the means by 
 which it may be amended. The provision that it may be amended by the ac- 
 tion of three-fourths of the States, is itself one of the compromises of that in- 
 strument. Was it supposed by our fathers, when they framed the Constitution, 
 that when at a future day one of tlie States should ask to avail herself of this 
 provision, to propose an amendment in the manner there pointed out, that she 
 should be charged with cherishing " schemes of treason?''^ Upon the question 
 of slavsry she has always manifested a firm and consistent course. As early as 
 1773, before the separation of the colonies from the mother country, she made 
 strenuous efforts to remove the evils of slavery. I will quote here a short para- 
 graph from Grahame's history of the United States, showing her course upon 
 this subject : 
 
 "Among otlier subjects of dispute with the British Government and its officers, was one more 
 creditable to Massachusetts than even her magnanimous concern for the liberty of her citizens 
 and their fellow colonists. Negro slavery still subsisted in every one of the American provin- 
 ces ; and the iHghappy victims of this yoke were rapidly multiplied by the progressive extension 
 of the slave trade. Georgia, the youngest of all the Stales, contained already fourteen thousand 
 negroes ; and in the course of the present year alone, more than six thousand were imported into 
 South Carolina. In New England the number of slaves was very insignificant; and their treat- 
 ment so mild and humane as in some measure to veil from the public eye the iniquity of their 
 bondage. But the recent discussions with regard to liberty and the rights of human nature 
 were calculated to awaken in generous minds a juster impression of negro slavery ; and during 
 the latter part of Gov. Bei-nard's administration, a bill prohibitory of ail traffic in negroes was 
 passed by the Massachusetts Assembly." 
 
 Sir, treason can find no foothold upon the soil of Massachusetts. She will 
 stand by this Union, and defend and sustain it with as much zeal as any State, 
 North or South. I have referred to her because slie has been so unceremonious- 
 ly dragged into this debate. I might have left her defence to her own eloquent 
 Representatives upon this floor, who are fully able to vindicate her fame and de- 
 fend her course. But, sir, I could not forbear the expression of my opinions, 
 after listening to the assault which has been made upon her, I could not but 
 recollect that she is my native State. I look with feelings of pride and venera- 
 tion at her illustrious history, and treasure up the remembrance of her long line 
 of patriots, heroes, and statesmen, as a part of the glory of our common country. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Alabama was denouncing the 
 North as hostile to the Union, he miglit have learnt a profitable lesson by casting 
 his eyes upon the other extreme. Sir, have we heard no notes of disalTection, 
 no threats of disunion, from that quarter ? I might refer to the numerous reso- 
 lutions and speeches at public meetings declaring tliat Texas should be annexed, 
 or the Union dissolved. The editor of the Globe, in this morning's paper, in 
 commenting upon the speech of the gentleman from Alabama, with great force 
 points him to tl>e spirit manifested there. As the Globe, I know, is regarded as 
 good authority with my Democratic friends, I hope they will pardon me if I 
 make a short quotation from it : 
 
 '• But was not Mr. Yancey wanting in the even-handed Justice with which he began his speech, 
 when omitting to brand the spirit of disaffection to the Union nearer home, to which the pros- 
 pect of re-annexing Texas has given birth ? Has he heard of no resolutions, no organization of 
 meetings, no inflammatory harangues, all governed by the predominant sentiment, ' Texas, 
 WITH OR WITHOUT THE Union?' He should have administered rebuke to this spirit of revolt at 
 one end of the Union, lest it might (although originating in different personal interests) be con- 
 sidered as a tolerated co-oj>eration with the same dispodilion to dissolve the Confederacy which 
 he had denounced at the other end." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, any attempt to dissolve the Union or weaken the ties by which 
 we are united, should meet with indignant rebuke. In the coHtinuance of the 
 
15 
 
 Union lies our only prospect of safety. We, sir, who oppose the annexation of 
 Texas, are satisfied with the Union as it is. We desire no change ; we ask for 
 no extension. Our territory is already sufficiently extensive to promote the 
 welfare of all. The constellation upon our country's flag needs not the addition 
 of the lone star of Texas to increase its brilliancy, or add to the glory of our 
 Republic. 
 
 
 >\\ . 
 
1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 g 
 
 r 
 
 LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 646 932 2 
 
 C^ 
 
 
 / ^^ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 646 932 2 
 
 ^