F 390 
 . W88 
 
Class rEiaii 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. WOODBURY, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 
 
 IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, 
 On the Treaty for the Rearoiexation of Texas to the United States. 
 
 Delivered in the Senate of the United States, June 4, 1844. 
 
 Mr. WOODBURY said: 
 
 If I understand the substance of all the objections 
 to the ratification of the present treaty, whetiier ex- 
 pressed in resolutions or debate, it is this: 
 
 First, that the government of the United States 
 ■does not posses the constitutional right- or power to 
 purchase Texas, and admit her people into the 
 Union. Next, that the present government of Tex- 
 as alone has not the right or competency to make 
 such a cession of her territory and sovereignty. 
 And, finally, that it is not our duty at present to 
 complete the cession, even were the right on both 
 sides clear. 
 
 This soems to me to be the whole case, when 
 stripped of details and perplexing appendages. I 
 shall examine these positions separately, and I 
 trust with that fairness and dispassionate spirit 
 .•which belong to a question so momentous to our 
 own country, as well as a sister republic — a ques- 
 tion, too, on which I speak as the organ of no ad- 
 niinistration or party, but above and beyond them 
 all, as an independent senator, of an independent 
 State, and trying to regard her interests, and those 
 ^f the whole Union, in the long vista of the future, 
 1:0 less than at the present moment. 
 
 Some deny the constitutional power to purchase 
 .any territory situated without our original limits; 
 ■while others deny not only that, but Uie power, 
 at any tunc, to adinit such territory and inhabitants 
 into the Union as States. 
 
 Both of these powers have been exerci.sed in the 
 cases of buying Louisiana and the Floridas, and af- 
 terwards of admitting the three States of Louisiana, 
 Arkansas, and Missouri, carved out of the former 
 territory. They have, therefore, long been regard- 
 ■ed as settled questions, till the opposition to them in 
 .this chamber, by tlie senators from New Jersey, 
 Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, [Messrs. Mil- 
 ler, Choate, and Simmons,] has burst forth with 
 such vehemence, that it may be well to advert to a 
 few principles and authorities in their support. 
 
 I do this the more readily, as the pretence that 
 such a purchase and admission into the Union are 
 wnconstitutional, is the only plausible justification 
 for the otherwise treacherous or fanatical cry of 
 
 DisirxiuN, which so often deafens our ears. That 
 cry originated on an occasion almost identical with 
 this, when the act for admitting Louisiana as a State, 
 in 1811, was pending. 
 
 In the debate on that occasion, a member from 
 Massachusetts overflowed with such threats, till he 
 was called to order for his violence, and escaped 
 censure on an appeal from the Speaker's decision 
 against him, only from a conviction in some of his 
 opponents, that his threats would prove harmless. 
 It was then the memorable saying was first uttered, 
 which is now ringing again in our ears from the 
 same class of politicians and from the same State, 
 but with Ipse point and elegance iu these degenerate 
 days. Mr. Quincy said: 
 
 "If this bill passes, it is my delibci. opinion that it is 
 virtually a dissolution of the Union— that it will free the 
 States from their moral obligations; ami that, as it will then 
 be the right of all, so it will be the duty of .some, definitely 
 to prepare for separation— amicably if they can, forcibly if 
 they must."— (See National Intelligencer Jan. 19, 1319, and 
 Lambert on Rules, 74th page.)' 
 
 It is true that the madness of faction can threaten 
 distmion on the smallest, as well as greatest occa- 
 sions, and may at times venture on it, unless deter- 
 red by a dread of the halter; but it is equally true 
 that there is no more real occasion or justification 
 for it now, than there was when so much vaporing 
 " oflf harmlessly in 1803 and 1811 about Lou- 
 
 ''The democratic pafty, notwithstanding, passed the 
 bill by a vote of 77 yeSs to 3i3 nays. The former inclu- 
 ded those sterling republicans— the Crawfords, Macons 
 Calhouns, Bacons, Cutts, Fiskes, and even Clays and Roots- 
 while the latter were made up of the Quincys and Whea- 
 tous, and the Hales and Wilsons, who then stood at the 
 head of the federalism of the East. The original treaty- 
 had been ratified in a like manner by 27 republican yeas 
 and 7 federal nays. How is the divisio.n of opinion on this 
 subject now? At a %vhig anti-annexation meeting in Worces- 
 ter, Massachusetts, a re.solution was recently adopted "to 
 separate the free States from the others if annexation pre- 
 vailed." And ten members of the House of Representatives 
 headed by Messrs. Adams, Giddings, and Slade, issued 
 a manifesto, last year, declaring that annexation "would be j 
 identical with dissolution of the Union."— (See it in Niles's 
 Register, 17.5th page, for May 13th 1843.) 
 
 The Boston Times of the 1st inst , which arrived herethi.t.' 
 morning, says, likewise, "the abolitionists passed a vota^^ 
 last evening to dissolve the Union." 
 
 ,D' 
 
isituia, or than there was in liie purchase of Florida 
 in 1819, or the admission of Missouri in 1822. If 
 those purchases and admissions were constitutional, 
 so are these: and in order to allay the renewed ex- 
 citement on this point, (honest with many, I have 
 no doubt,) the patience of the Senate is asked a few 
 minutes. 
 
 The words of the .3d section, article 4th of the 
 constitution, are: "New States may be admitted hy 
 the Congress into the Union." This is the whole 
 that bears on the point now under consideration, and 
 is broad and explicit enough to cover all cases 
 deemed expedient and proper by Congress, whether 
 situated without or within our original limits. 1 
 admit that Mr. Jefferson, not having been a mem- 
 ber of the convention which framed the constitution, 
 did at first consider it doubtful v;hether, Ijy con- 
 struction, this power ought not to be confined to 
 States witliin our former limits; and he even went so 
 far as to have a clause for the amendment of the 
 constitution prepared, "to cover the case of Louisi- 
 ana. But, after full examination, and conferences 
 with others, it is inferable as cei-tain that he became 
 convinced such an amendment was unnecessary, as 
 it was abandoned, and he not only completed the 
 treaty, but signed the act of Congress establishing 
 territorial government over what had been pur- 
 chased; and Mr. Madison, with his republican co- 
 adjutors in 1811, became convinced that the power, 
 now, and then, questioned, clearly existed, or they 
 never could have supported the act for the admis- 
 sion of Louisiana as a State. In truth, so fully had 
 their opponents become of a like opinion on this 
 point, that the admission neither of Missouri nor 
 Arkansas was resisted on this account; and the pur- 
 chase of Florida in 1819 was approved as constitu- 
 tional by every senator, federalist or republican. 
 
 The reasons for a change in opi)iion with some 
 undoubtedly were, that the words in which the 
 power was conveyed to Congress were uueiiuivocal 
 and explicit in favor of its widest scope — that they 
 had been made more so in the progress of the con- 
 stitution through the convention; and that this was 
 known to have been done so not only to include one 
 foreign territory, in the case of Canada, which had 
 been specially provided for in the articles of the old 
 confederation, but to embrace all the contiguous 
 British, or Spanish, or vacant regions whose future 
 union with us might afterwards be mutually desira- 
 ble. 
 
 The framers of the constitution were men who 
 looked deep into the future, and had no design to 
 strip themselves of any high national powers or 
 destinies. 
 
 When it was objected by some, in debate in 1811, 
 that, on this construction. States might be admitted, 
 not only contiguous, but in the West Indies, South 
 America, and even Europe, the reply seemed sensi- 
 ble and pertinent, that on the American theory of 
 self government, no reason existed why we should 
 not be allowed to admit any State that would con- 
 form to our representative s^^ stem,. and whose union 
 with us should, by the majority of both countri< s, 
 or the proper authorities, be considered mutually 
 advantageous, and that we might well wish to extend 
 the blessings of our government as widely as prac- 
 ticable. 
 
 So far as convenient and beneficial, the whole 
 world may thus become partners, says Mansfield's 
 Political Grammar, p. 143 and 144. This ex- 
 tended construction of the power has proved a sala- 
 .-iary one.— (Siory's Constitiuijnal Class Book, p. 
 
 96.) It is settled beyond practical doubt.— (Duer"s 
 Outlines of Constitutional Jurisprudence, p. 166.) 
 
 Such is the view in Tucker's Blackslone, Ap. v. 
 1, p. 278. And the Federalist itself looked to the 
 clause for admitting new States generally <s design- 
 ed to include foreign territories adjoining us. (See 
 43d No.) 
 
 So Mr. Macon said in the debate as to Louisiana, 
 that the constitution was designedly made broad, so 
 as to admit such a foreign territory and government 
 as Canada, when agreeable to both; because the ter- 
 ritory and people within our limits were already 
 within the Union, and entitled to be, under old com- 
 pacts, treaties, and cessions. 
 
 Such also was the view of Mr. Jefferson, under 
 the confederation, (v. 1, Life ,p. 398.) 
 
 Indeed, how could wars be prosecuted for wrongs 
 inflicted, and just indemnity obtained, if any con- 
 quests of territory made could not be held- They can 
 be and become apart of the nation. — (1 Feters's R. 
 p. 542.) And if so, are we to treat them in due time, 
 and when fit, as equals and component parts of the 
 Union.' or exhibit the shameful injustice as well 
 as impolicy of keeping them in a disfiarchised and 
 humiliating servitude.' 
 
 In 3 Story on Con. 193, it is laid down that "the 
 general government possesses the right to acquire 
 territory by conquest or by treaty." Again, 190-1: 
 "The constitutionality of the two former acquisitions, 
 (Louisiana and Florida,) though formerly much 
 questioned, is now considered settled beyond any 
 practical doubt." 
 
 it was objected in 1803, that, "under the form 
 of a cession, we may become united to a more pow- 
 erful neighbor or rival, and be involved in European 
 or other foreign interests and contests to an inter- 
 minable extent. — (p. 157.) 
 
 But the reply was, that "the right to acquire terri- 
 tory is an incident to sovereignty." — (p. 159.) 
 
 Every government that ever yet existed possesses 
 a competency to add to its territory. It ceases to 
 have the functions of an independent nation, if it can- 
 not, by treaty or discovery, obtain new boundaries 
 for convenience, ornew lands for culture, or new ports 
 for commerce; and, as before suggested, it is stripped 
 of the national function of acquiring territory, when 
 assailed by unjust war, and holding it eitlier for in- 
 demnity, or profit, or security. And if sve can acquire 
 it, reason, as well as the words of the constitutioi), 
 requires us, in due time, to make Stales out of it, 
 and admit them into the Union. — (160.) Story says, 
 in a note to this page, that the Hartford convention 
 proposed to prevent such admission, unless by a 
 vote of two-thirds of both houses; and by a report in 
 that body, indirectly denied the authority to admit 
 States or any territory without our original limits. 
 But this doctrine has slept with that convention 
 since, it is believed, till revived by Mr. Adams in 
 i his Texas speech, in 1838, in Congress, and his po- 
 I litical address in JNew York in 1839. 
 
 How little ground exists for such a doctiine, even 
 in the opi ^'on of th greatest constitutional lawyer 
 i of his own party, may be seen by looking to 3d 
 Story, pages IGO, 161. 
 
 "Sue. 12S.3. The more recent acquisition of Florida, 
 which has been universally approved, or acquiesced in by 
 all the States, can be maintained only on the same princi- 
 ple, and furnishes a striking illustration of the truth, 
 I that constitutions of government require a liberal con- 
 1 struction to eflcct their objects; and that a narrow- inter- 
 1 pretation of their powers, however it may suit the views of 
 I speculative philosojihers, or the accidental interests of po- 
 litical parties, is iucompatable with the permaaeut interest 
 
of the State, and •subversive of The grrat oids of sll govern- 
 ment, the safety and independence of the people." 
 
 This construclioii does not, ss tlie senator from 
 New Jersey argues, prevent the hlesdngr, <f lihertij 
 from being enjoyed liy the posterity of our fathers 
 as liiey designed. IJeeaiise tiiere is enough at tjie, 
 bounteous (able for all that posterity and any n(^v 
 associates. All such can participate v, nli i;ii m m 
 that freedom as they do in the air, w; ti i. .; 
 without loss to either, and without (_;- ii si \ ,,: ,< 
 and misanthropy. 
 
 In truth, our whole history rerves to demonstrate 
 the wisdom, on general as well as constitutional 
 priiiciples, of expanding our limits with the vast 
 increase of our population and wealth. Such expan- 
 sion prevents many of the evils of too dense a popu- 
 lation, and secures the p-.-edor.inianco of I'le s-afe, vir- 
 tuous and republican pursuit of agi iculture. his said 
 that we have a Sparta, and let us adurn it. But is 
 there never to be an escape f/om the infant shell? 
 nor any enlargement of the shell itself to suit the 
 growth of the animal within? Is our Sjiarta to be 
 confined forever to a garden spot, or single planta- 
 tion? a single city? ora few barren aci'cs, as in Greece, 
 Avith iron only for money, black broth only for foi:>d, 
 and our sons iavght stealing as an accomplishment — 
 instead of spreading over half a continent, improv- 
 ing the sciences and the whole arts of civilized world, 
 covering remotest oceans with our commerce, and 
 lielping to spread abroad and at home superior edu- 
 cation and a purer religion? Thank God! the scales 
 
 fell from our eyes on this subject more than a quarter 
 of a century ago, when Louisiana was purchased; 
 and instead of trying to replace them, if we are able 
 to preserve Oregon — gained both by discovery and 
 purchase — and to recover Texas; we can, in another 
 half century, not only again, as has been done, 
 double our States, and nearly quadru]jle our wealth, 
 numbers and power, but adorn, improve, and secure 
 forever all the fair inheritance with which we are 
 blessed. 
 
 When we look to analogies abroad of cases of 
 whole territories and governments being ceded and 
 annexed to other governments, whether monarchies 
 or republican confederacies, they cluster thickly. 
 
 France heiself is made up of a union of what Vv-as 
 once different kingdoms; so of Spain; so of Great 
 Britain; so of Germany. Indeed, England not only 
 reannexed Wales — the favorite find just term now — 
 but admitted Scotland as well as Ireland into a 
 union with her, including government aiid the 
 whole t(»rritory. The v/ord reannexed, as now applied, 
 is as old as Elackstone, v/ho says: ^^The territnry of 
 Wales being then entirchj reannexed (by a kind of feu- 
 dal resumption) to the dominion of the crown of 
 England."— (Vol 1, 94 p ) 
 
 But in confederacies, Switzerland has added and 
 rejected various seperate cantonments, with their 
 whole government and territory; so of Holland or 
 the Netlierlands; and so of the Mexican confedera- 
 cy itself, now including one State formerly attached 
 to Guatemala; so of Colombia; so of Buenos 
 Ayres; sometimes adding new States, both territory 
 and government, and sometimes amicably or violent- 
 ly separating. Indeed, several of tlie old thirteen 
 colonies, now States, were originally obtained by 
 England by treaties of cession. 
 
 In the Mexican constitution, (See 2 Kennedy, 
 427,) the power of their Congress is no broader 
 than ours: It is to admit new States to the federal 
 union or territories, incorporating them in the nation; 
 
 and under it one has been admitted, which never 
 before belonged in any sense to Mexico. 
 
 Hence, whether we look to tlie words of the con- 
 stitution, or to the practice under it, or to the anal- 
 ogies of other governments, whether American or 
 European, the constitutional right to aimex i.3 
 undoubted. 
 
 All wliich tlie constitution requires to admit 
 I Statef-, is the assent of Congress. Whether a treaty 
 IS also necessary to annex a territory seems que.?- 
 tionable, unless it is regarded as done by a contract 
 with a foreign power, which is usually commenced 
 in the form of a treaty,' and the terms thus settled 
 with more convenience in the first instance. But 
 there can be litde doubt that, while the assent of 
 Congress is alone sufficient, and is alone necessary 
 by our constitution to admit a new State, it is proper 
 to be given after a territory is bought by treaty, to 
 the i-iayments to be made under it, and to the organi- 
 zaiicii (if its new government and relations; and, if 
 s>i ■_;i\' ;i v.itliouta treaty, may answer every object 
 (if icasciii and principle involved. 
 
 IjiU the idea that, in these cases under our constitu- 
 tion, it is necessary to have the assent of each State 
 in the Union as a separate Slate, or the people of 
 each, (and indeed, as Mr. Adams supposed in 1804, 
 of conventions in each State, — 4 Elliott's Debates,) 
 except as both are represented in Congress, and then 
 only a majority of their representatives in each 
 branch to a law, or of two-thirds of the Senate to a 
 treaty is not justified either by any language or pre- 
 cedent. No dificrent assent than this last'was ask- 
 ed in 1803, or 1811, or 1S19, or any other occasioa 
 whatever. And the only analogy in support of it 
 seems to be a practice in Holland to require the as- 
 sent of the States separately to the admission of new- 
 States — when in truth the practice there originated 
 in an express clause in the confederation to that ef- 
 fect. (Sec it in 2d Davics' Ilittorv of Holland, 76 
 P"ge.) 
 
 So another express clause in the old confederation 
 required the assent of nine States out of thirteen in 
 certain cases. When annexation was declined in 
 18.37, it was on other grounds; and this point is ex- 
 plicitly stated by Mr." Van Burcii, who was then 
 President, to be no objection. In a constitutional 
 point of view, the opposition "of a considerable and re- 
 spectable portion of the convnumtij,''' as others argue, 
 cannot rightfully defeat annexation, if there be a 
 majority of Congress in t';ivor of the measure; 
 though such an opposition, an(.I their reasons, would 
 be entitled to respectl'id cmsidrration, as in all other 
 controverted cases. I admit, that the wishes of the 
 people should possess much inHuence, and it is desi- 
 rable to know them betbre action on important meas- 
 ures; but they are not, by the constitution, required 
 to be first consulted before Congress or the treatyf 
 making power can negotiate for territory. It was 
 never dreamed of in the purchase of Louisiana and 
 Florida, nor in the former attempts to purchase Texas 
 in 1825, 1829, and 1835. 
 
 But, if it were otherwise, the senator from Mis- 
 souri admits that ten or twelve millions out of fif- 
 teen of our free population are in favor of the annex- 
 ation. A majority of more than two-thirds here, 
 and of all the voters in Texas but 93, as stated by 
 their commissioners, would then seem quite enough 
 of the people themselves in both countries to satisfy 
 the most fastidious. 
 
 How much some gentleman are likely to obtain 
 by the advice of the people before they act — however 
 it ia wished — can be ascertained from the extraordi- 
 
nary resolution, to throw 20,000 copies of the treaty 
 and correspondence before the public, because "tite 
 will of the people ought to be consulted on them;" and 
 yet refusing to wait a reasonable time to learn that 
 will; and proceeding — the very next day, before a 
 single copy was printed for the people — to discuss 
 and decide on the measure. 
 
 On motion by Mr. Walker, to amend the amend- 
 ment proposed by Mr. Crittenden, by adding at 
 the end thereof, the following: and that a reasonable 
 time should be given to hear from the people after this 
 pvhlicalion before the final decisioii of the Senate upon 
 the treaty — 
 
 It was determined in the negative — yeas 15, nays 
 28. 
 
 Having endeavored to show our constitutional right 
 to purchase tlie territory of Texas, and to unite its peo- 
 ple in our government, and having thus tried to remove 
 the great obstacle to the ratification, which blocks 
 up the threshhold of our inquiries, I shall consider 
 the next point, which is the right of Texas to make 
 the cession, and enter into the Union. The objec- 
 tion to the form of doing this business on both sides 
 I will examine hereafter — as I am at present looking 
 merely to the great principles involved in the au- 
 thority to take and to cede. 
 
 It is contended by several who oppose the treaty, 
 that Texas is not in a competent condition to make 
 this cession without the assent of Mexico or Spain — 
 some former master or tyraimical step-mother. 
 Spain, it is believed, is pretty well silenced on this 
 point by the great lapse of time since she lias made 
 any war on the territory of Texas, and any claim to 
 govern her; or she is silenced by her recognition of 
 the independence of all her American provinces. 
 But how is it with Mexico? On what rest her 
 claims to be consulted before the cession, so far as 
 regards the power and capacity of Texas? 
 
 In the first place, the right of Mexico to Texas 
 as ever having been an integral portion of her 
 territory, and much less a portion of it since the 
 independence of Mexico herself was acknowledged 
 by Spain, is very questionable. 
 
 According to the opinions of such jurists and 
 diplomatists as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe; 
 of Livingston, Clay, and Adams, (in 1818,) Texas 
 was within the limits of Louisiana, when bought 
 by us in 1803, as clearly "as the island of New 
 Orleans." I shall not fatigue the Senate with de- 
 tails on this. But Texas had been discovered, and 
 settled by the French in JG85, five years previous to 
 any Spanish settlement. — (Marbois' Hist, of Lou- 
 isiana, 107.) It had been viewed as "the cradle of 
 Louisiana." — (4 Jeff. Life, 60.) It was in the grant 
 by Louis to Crozat, in 1712.— (1 Laws, 439.) After 
 ceded to Spain, in 1761, its boundaries became un- 
 important; but when retroceded to, and occupied 
 by, France in 1800, she claimed as formerly, and 
 delivered it to us by her officers in 1804, as extend- 
 ing west to the Rio del Norte. It was boasted ):)y 
 Don Onis, the Spanish minister, who negotiated the 
 treaty of 1819, after his return, that jjy his ability 
 and tact it had been procured from us. Mr. Forsyth 
 to Adams, July 30, 1820, says that Don Onis "en- 
 deavors to show that the treaty of cession of Flor- 
 ida ought to be considered as a treaty of exchange 
 of Florida for Texas, a country more extensive, 
 fertile, and valuable." The Spanish government it- 
 self seems lo have instructed their mijiister tliat we 
 might retain it, if no better terms could be pro- 
 cured. — (See Erving's Expose.) And Mr. Galla- 
 tin, after laborious reseai-ch, before 1810, became 
 
 convinced the territory was ours; and our posts 
 had therefore, as early as 1806, been extended be- 
 yond the Sabine to Nacogdoches, one of the re- 
 motest settlements of much size. — ( 1 Laws, 437.) And • 
 Galveston itself was temporarily occupied by us in 
 1817.— (4 State Papers, 297. See more fully on this, 
 Marbois' History of Louisiana. 4 State Papers. 
 4 Jeff. Life, 60. 2 Foot's History of Texas, 397, 
 376: 1 Do. 194. 2 Kennedy, 445. 'l Clay's Speech- 
 es, 82 and 93.) 
 
 Under what pretence, then, can Mexico claim it' 
 In 1819 we cetled it to Spain, not Mexico; and if, 
 as some incorrectly maintain, Mexico was then rev- 
 olutionised, she of course got nothing by this sub- 
 sequent cession to Spain rather than herself. But 
 if, as was the truth, Mexico never became independ- 
 ent of Spain, even by declaration, till February 24, 
 1821, though before torn by intestine divisions, all 
 avowing loyalty to Spain, she claimed her inde- 
 pendence only two days after the treaty of 1819 
 was finally ratified by us, and before Spain was no- 
 tified thereof, or had taken possession of the terri- 
 tory, or had annexed it to Mexico; and months be- 
 fore Mexico got possession of the government of 
 the country. 
 
 This is one view of the weakness of the claim of 
 Mexico. Another is, that Spain had previously 
 made claim to Texas; and, "under the Spanish gov- 
 ernment, Texas was a separate and distinct province. 
 As such, it had a separate and distinct local organ- 
 ization." — (See 1 Foot's History of Texas, p. 62.) 
 When, therefore, her people, between 1821 and 
 1824, revolted from Old Spain, and declared them- 
 selves independent, and formed a new constitution 
 and political organization, whether always before 
 belonging to Spain or given to her by our cession in 
 1819, they acted as a separate, free, sovereign, and 
 independent state, as much as did New Hampshire 
 or South Carolina in 1776. Then, 15,000 people, 
 probably, (besides Indians,) occupied her territory. 
 As such, she continued in a revolutionary condition 
 till, Iturbide being shot, she joined the Mexican con- 
 federacy with Coahuila, in 1824; and, with her, as a 
 separate independent state, continued in the confed- 
 eration under certain specified terms till 1834 and 
 1835; though she wished a separate state govern- 
 ment in 1832, having, in October of that year, held a 
 separate convention from Coahuila, to form a 
 separate constitution, and blocked one out; and sent 
 Austin with it and a petition to Mexico, setting 
 forth the reasons for separation. — (2 Kennedy, 19 to 
 22.) He proved unsuccessful, and was im poisoned; 
 and, in 1834 and '35, when the confederated rights 
 of Texas were violated by Santa Anna, her people 
 oppressed, her state legislature abolished, and the 
 confederacy dissolved, a consolidated government 
 was erected on its ruins, October 5th, 1835, and she 
 refused, as was her sovereign right, to enter into the 
 new government. — (See the decree, 2 Kennedy, HI, 
 89, 61.) She conthiued during 1835 to contend man- 
 fully against the usurper, and to sustain her inde- 
 pendent rights till the final victory of San Jacinto in 
 April, (26th,) 1836, crowned her efforts. 
 
 Her constitution — early as March 11th, 1827, and 
 while in the confederacy with Mexico — used this 
 emphatic language: Texas "is free and independent 
 of the other United Mexican States, and of every 
 other foreign power and dominion." — (See 2 Ken- 
 nedy's H. 444 p. Ap.) And again: After stating 
 that she has joined the confederacy fbr certain 
 specified purposes, the constitution declares that, foe 
 
all others, Texas "retains its liberty, independence, 
 and sovereignty." 
 
 What justifiable pretence, then, lias there been 
 since for Mexico to attempt to dragoon a separate 
 and independent state into a new form of govern- 
 ment, or into subjection to her tyranny? What 
 right of Mexico has she violated? The wrong is on 
 the otlier side; and it is Mexico, to whom she owes 
 neither duties nor allegiance, that is usurping a con- 
 trol over her affairs not justifiable either by sound 
 principles of constitutional law, or the great axioms 
 on which the i-ight of our own States and their peo- 
 ple rest. 
 
 Let it be remembered, also, that Texas, beside 
 being an independent sovereign State ever since 
 the original revolution in 1821, and the first Mexi- 
 can constitution of 1824, iiad entirely separated 
 from the confederacy, when it was dissolved in 
 1835, as she had a right to, one to two years before 
 tlie independence of Mexico herself was acknow- 
 ledged by Spain in December, 1836. 
 
 Texas had attempted independence, and half a 
 year after, at San Jacinto, resisted Mexican occupa- 
 tion and control; and hence may not have been in- 
 cluded in Spain's recognition of Mexico alone. 
 
 Bring these facts home to our own system of 
 government. Look at the analogies and rights. Read 
 the eloquent and indignant remonstrances of Texas 
 against the assumed authority over her,' in her new 
 declaration of independence, and new constitution 
 in 1836, and our hearts cannot but burn within us 
 at the worse than British dictation and oppression 
 which are claimed and attempted to be exercised 
 over her: and if cause of just war exists at all, it 
 is on the part of Texas, and against Mexico, 
 rather than the reverse. 
 
 Bin if any consider this v'^wofihc crise ns in 
 some respects not tenable, we iiivilc tlitir ,!ii(iiiinri 
 to another aspect of the subject, \\liii'ii siiriii;tlirii.s 
 jTiuch the right of Texas to make thi.s cession, and 
 be received into the Union, and enjoy all its bene- 
 fits, as proposed by this treaty. 
 
 When we purchased Texas within the limits of 
 Louisiana in 1803, we engaged, by treaty with 
 France, to perform the solemn duties set out in the 
 3d article, 1st Laws, p. 136. 
 
 'The ir.hobitants of the ceded territory shall be incorpo- 
 rated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as scon 
 aspossiHe, accnidiof/ tn tlie principles ofthe federal constitu- 
 tion, to all T.' 1 1-; :- i/ .Mifages, and immunities of citi 
 zensoftUc' i- -i ;i..d.intl;c mean lime, they shall 
 
 be maintaiii. .i . -jm i....i. f ,! in tlie fiee enjoyment of their 
 liberty, preiii-ii\ . .mil tin- religion wliich tiiey profess." 
 
 Now if any ofthe people of Texas reside on ter- 
 ritory then within the boundaries of Louisiana, this 
 obligation remains in full force, unless France has 
 released us from it, or those people have relinquish- 
 ed it, and do not now desire its fulfilment. 
 
 I concede that v.-e may have done acts which bar 
 or estop us, both morally and politically, from ma- 
 king any farther rightful claim over tliem against 
 their consent; but have they ever become constitu- 
 tionally divested of their right under that treaty pro- 
 vision? 
 
 I have already proved that the territory of Texas 
 v/as geographically within the limits of Louisiana, 
 and whatever may be her present true boundaries, it 
 is well known that the people of Texas, now ask- 
 ing admission, reside on that part of iter territory 
 conceded by all not to be west or north of her old 
 limits. 
 
 The obligation imposed on us in 1803, then — how 
 hate we become exonerated from it' In no way, I 
 
 apprehend, unless by the treaty made with Spain in 
 1819, ceding all our ten-itory west of the Sabine, and 
 thus ceding away Texas herself. To understand 
 the precise character of that treaty, it is necessary to 
 notice that it was not, as many have hastily sup- 
 posed, a treaty merely defining, with particularity, 
 limits before general and uncertain, between contigu- 
 ous nations. 
 
 But, turning to the third article, (6 Laws, 616,) it 
 will be seen that, after describinga line north from the 
 mouth of the Sabine, and then northwest and west 
 to the South sea, "the United States hereby CEDE 
 to his Catholic Majesty, and RENOUNCE forev- 
 er, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the 
 territories lying west and south of the above-de- 
 scribed line; and, in like manner, his Catholic Ma- 
 jesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, 
 claims, and pretensions to any territories east and 
 north ofthe said line; and for himself, his heirs, and 
 successors, renounces all claims to the said territo- 
 ries forever." 
 
 Besides fixing some boundaries before doubtful, 
 the treaty of 1819 was thus manifestly one of ces- 
 sion; as much so, on our part, of Texas, as, on 
 the part of Spain, of the Floridas, the same 
 language being used in both cases. The territory 
 then being very large, and its inhabitants sev- 
 eral thousands, it was neither constitutional 
 nor right to cede them away, and deprive them 
 of their claims to be admitted into our Union und<a' 
 the Louisiana treaty, without first asking and obtaiii- 
 ing tlieir consent. Neither of these was done; 
 and whatever acts they have since passed, under a 
 supposition that their claim had by us been legally 
 extinguished, are not to injure or debar them in fo- 
 rum conscientkv. — in sound morals or just principles 
 — from now requesting, as they virtually do by this 
 treaty, a reunion and admission to all the privileges 
 before stipulated to be allowed them. These posi- 
 tions are so important as to justify some further 
 proofs that the treaty of 1819 was then regarded on 
 both sides as one of cession. The message of Mr. 
 Monroe, in December, 1819, says "we had ceded val- 
 uable t*e»TJicri/;" and Mr. Clay, in 1820, declares that v/e 
 unadvisably ceded the country west ofthe Sabine to 
 the Rio Del Norte. So, Mr. Adams, before the ratifi- 
 cations were completed, (May 3d, 1820, 4 State Pa- 
 pers, 684,) says ofthe United States, "their right of 
 territory was, and yet is, to the Rio del Norte;" and 
 (in February, 1821,) "these concessions on the part 
 of the United States were great; and the treaty 
 was a treaty of '■'■mutual cessions;'''' (4 State Papers 
 703;) in the words of Don Onis, it was a treaty of ex- 
 CHAKGE of Florida for Texas — a country more ex- 
 tensive, fertile, and valuable. 
 
 Tjte propriety of that exchange or cession is a 
 very different question; and however proper most 
 of it may, as early as 1806, have seemed justifiable 
 to one House of Congress, and the whole of it ad- 
 visable to all of the other House, and the President, 
 in 1819, yet with the knowledge we now possess of 
 the value of Texas, and the laiid ceded on the 
 sources ofthe Red river and the Arkansas, as well as 
 of the better terms which might probably have 
 been procured of Spain," the cession is much to be 
 regretted. 
 
 But before complaining too severely of those 
 who participated in the making of the treaty, and 
 in its ratification, by having obliged us not only to 
 pay five millions of dollars for Florida — a country 
 that has been called mere sand banks and swamps — 
 but to cede the whole of Texas, larger and richer 
 
6 
 
 than three Floridas, it may be well to advert to one 
 or two considerations. The title of what we ceded 
 was controverted, however improperly; but that of 
 what we obtained was uncontro verted. The extent 
 and character of Texas were then little known or 
 appreciated; while the importance of tli£ possession 
 of Florida by us, with a view to the free naviga- 
 tion of the Mobile and Apalachicola was thoroughly 
 understood, as well as its benefits to the rich coun- 
 tries above, of having American dcjiots and out- 
 lets for their produce near the ocean, and additional 
 guards to the domestic tranquillity of the South, ar.d 
 the security of her peculiar pi'operty and institutions. 
 These circumstances induced Mr. Jefferson, as 
 early as the attempt to buy Louisiana, to seek to 
 obtain the Floridas also. — (4 State Papers, 738 — 9.) 
 
 It is not a little curious that, in the original in- 
 btructions, they extended only to the buying of that 
 part of Louisiana consisting of the island of New 
 Orleans, or all east of the Mississipjii, and including, 
 at the same time, the Floridas; but neither Texas 
 nor anything else west of .the Mississippi. — (See 
 Doc. 102, 19th Cong., 1st session, to tlie Senate, 
 dated 20lh May, 1824. The following immbers re- 
 fer to letters in that document: Nos. 4C2, 460, 466, 
 463,47], and 476. See also 2 State Papers, pages 
 537,541, 516,520, and 529.) 
 
 The value put there on the different objects of 
 purchase is significant, as for New Orleans alone 
 the minister was to give three-fourths of the whole 
 sum, and for the Floridas the other fourth; but only 
 half as much for East as for Vv^est Florida, if ob- 
 taining but one of them. — (See page 743, Doc. 102.) 
 At one time we even proposed to guaranty to Spain 
 the west side of the Mississippi, (Madison to 
 Pinckney, May 11th, 1802, No. 46i!, as above,) 
 should she cede to the east side. 
 
 The cession of the whole province of Louisiana 
 was rather a proposal from Bonaparte than ours;i 
 fearing lest, in an approaching war with England, 
 she might seize the rest; and urging, as a reason 
 for it, that the rest, if not v, anted iDy us, could be 
 sold by us to some other power. — (2 State Papers, 
 552, Livingston to Madison, No. 476, in document 
 above.) How fully and authentically does this fact 
 repel all the libellous imputations then and since 
 made agaijist Mr. Jeflerson and us, for seeking 
 Louisiana (including Texas) from ambition and the 
 love of aggrandizement. But after Louisiana was 
 obtained without Florida, the latter was still re- 
 gai-ded as so essential, that, on a message by Mr. 
 Jefferson of a confidential character, in January, 
 1806, Congress itself, in secret session, matured a 
 law appropriating $,2,000,000 to enable him to make 
 the purchase; and the object of the law was con- 
 cealed from foreign scrutiny and intrigue, by en- 
 tithngit "An act to defray any extraordinary ex- 
 pense which may be incurred in the foreign" inter- 
 course between the United States and foreign na- 
 tions." — (4 Laws, page 5, February 13, 1806.) 
 
 In order to aid in that negotiation, the following 
 memorable resolutions were passed in the House of 
 Representatives, in secret session, and are, in truth, 
 1 apprehend, the whole foundation of the subse- 
 quent cession of Texas in 1819, whose demerits 
 have been the object of so much animadversion. 
 There had been instructions before to make the 
 Colorado the western boundary, if every difficulty 
 could thus be adjusted with Spain, and the Floridas' 
 obtained; but an absolute re fu .sal to cede any part' 
 of Texas or Louisiana cast of the Colorado. — (See 
 fully on this 2 Stale Papers, pages 626 to 666, con- 
 
 tainmg letters from July, 1803, to May, 1805, to 
 and from our ministers at Madrid.) 
 
 Here are the resolutions: 
 
 "licsnlred, That dollars be aiipropriated t;y law to- 
 wards delraj ing the e.xpenses w hich may be incurred in 
 the jmrchase ol the .S[iani>h territories lying on the Atlantic 
 ocean ;i;i.l 'iiill nl Mexico, and eastward of the Mifsissippi, 
 to l)e 1^ I - , , ,11, \ in the treasnry not otherwise 
 ajipn , :. ,1 under the direction of the 
 
 I'resi - -.who shall have authority, if 
 
 ncccs..:-.. ;u I ;■.,, t.iu .-uiisuni, or any part thereof, in 
 behalf of the Ljutod States, at a rate of interest not exceed- 
 ing six per centum per annum, redeemable at will; and 
 shall cause an account thereof to be laid before Congress as 
 soon as may be. 
 
 "Rcsol: eii, 1 hat an exchange of territory between the 
 United States and Sjiain is deemed by this House to be the 
 most advantageous mO('e of settleiiieiit of existing differ- 
 ences respeclilr; !'■ ;-'■•.■..!' :li. T ..I'.l States and the 
 
 court of Mai'uiM i- , ■ :,. .i , 'ween the two 
 
 goveinmentr- ., ' : ■ i, ■ •, i,, i, ample barrier 
 
 on the side of M -.i' , i,:' -it:,- 1 ;;.•, i S\.:\ulie countries 
 u-nfered inj the iV//s,s,',,,-:/;:n/, and to the eastv.ard of it, will 
 meet the "approbation of of this House " — (See House jour- 
 nal for January 14, 1306, appendix, pages 437 and 458 ) 
 
 The negotiation was at once renewed, with a 
 view to buy the Floridas, or get them in exchange, 
 on tho.se or better terms. — (See 3 State Papers, 
 pages 539 and 540, March 13, 1806, Madison to 
 Bowdoin.) 
 
 In truth, so vital to self-presservation and peace 
 was the possession of them regarded, not only in 
 1806, but .in 1811, that the forcible occupa- 
 tion of it in the latter year was authorized By 
 Congress, as will soon be more fully explained. 
 And again in 1820, Mr. Monroe advised another 
 forcible occupation if Spain longer refused to rati- 
 fy the treaty of cession in 1819, which the Sen- 
 ate had already ratified unanimously. After this 
 retrospect, and much more that need not now be 
 detailed, I can readily conceive that, not only in 
 1806, but in 1819, when the extent and value of 
 Texas were less known than now, and v.-hen the 
 Floridas were so much nearer, some of the old and 
 v.'ell-settled States and their possession so highly 
 appreciated on other accounts than their soil — that 
 such a resolution could be easier passed by Con- 
 gress, and easier complied with by the executive, 
 than now. 
 
 In the then infancy of the republic, and the com- 
 parative ignorance of the sources of some of the 
 tributaries of the Mississippi, and the vast western 
 extent of Louisiana, the west side of that river was 
 much lower appi'eciated that it deserved; and only 
 one State was contemplated to be established on 
 that side, and a large reserved territory to be held 
 for the Indians.— (4 Jefl:'. Life, 51.) 
 
 But we had harldly parted with Texas before the 
 explorations and enterprise of our people, under the 
 blessings of peace, unfolded more as to the extent 
 and fertility of that region, and the remote sources 
 of many of our beautiful rivers; and it was soon 
 discovered that we had failed to retain even what 
 Congress had originally intended in the resolution 
 should not be ceded — that is, all the land on all the 
 tributaries of the Mississippi. 
 
 A large and valuable tract on the Red and Ar- 
 kansas rivers was parted with, either through want 
 of correct geographical information, or other causes 
 now unknown, and conflicting with the resolution. 
 
 Hence in a few moiuhs inquiries arose in Con- 
 gress whether more had not been ceded than was 
 proper; and a resolution was offered by Dr. Floyd 
 to ascertain if Spain hari not empowered hermmister 
 to go farther west with the line, and if that fact was 
 not known to the Secretary of State. — (Journal of 
 
House of Representatives, January 27, 1820, p. 
 176-7.) 
 
 Hence, too, as soon as April, 1820, Mr. Clay of- 
 fered tlie resolutions now in my hands, calling in 
 question the legality of the cession, as well as its ex- 
 pediency. I will read the first one: 
 
 '■Reaolrcd, That tlu; constitution of the United States 
 vests in Congress the power to dispose of the territory be- 
 longing to them; and that no treaty purporting to alieiiate 
 Huy part thereof, is valid without the concurrence of Con- 
 gress." 
 
 Hence, not only were efforts made by him 
 and Mr. Adams, as early as 1825, to regain the 
 whole country by a purchase from Mexico, and 
 again in 1827, and again in 1829 by General Jack- 
 son and Mr. Van Buren^ and thenceforward till 
 1835, when Texas declared her independence, but 
 in the Senate Mr. Preston, in 1838, offered another 
 resolution, that tlie original cession in 1819 was "o/' 
 evil precedent, and queslionahle constUutionaUty.'''' 
 
 Without going further now into the hi.storical 
 data connectrd with this branch of the inquiry, it 
 must 1)0 evident tl-.at if the cession in 1S19 was void 
 from any rau/', 'rrx:(s, liein- v.itliin the original 
 limits of I;<Mii.-:;:ii;a, (ui;;l!i iiDw t;> I'l', under the stip- 
 ulations of the Licaty u{ 1S03, proiected in her re- 
 ligion, indulged in all tlie riglits of American citi- 
 zens, and, as soon as possible, admitted into the 
 Union on equal terms with all otlier new States. I 
 do not go fir technicalities for or against this vicv/ 
 of the subject; nor am I disposed to allov.- little 
 special pleading, by estoppels or forms, to prevail 
 against her moral claims on us — her substantial and 
 legitimate rights. How are the merits, tlicnr France 
 has never released us from tlie obligation, in tlii', 
 treaty with lier, to admit into the Union all the territo- 
 ry then witliin the limits of Louisiana. Texas has 
 never been asked to release us. Could we, then, 
 become exonerated by our own acts alone? Cer- 
 tainly not, as we are but one party to the contract. 
 
 No principle is better settled, tiian that a govern- 
 ment of limited powers, having once acquired terri- 
 tory, or admitted States into its Union, cannot sell 
 portions of them to foreign powers. There is no 
 such grant in the instrument — there is no such prac- 
 tice. The disposal of the fee in wild land to indi- 
 viduals and companies, is all the power m selling 
 territories or States, which has been exercised in 
 other cases, under this authority. But in no 
 case has the jurisdiction or so\'ereignty over 
 the people in territories and States, v/heiher few 
 and small, or numerous and large, ever been 
 exercised without that express assent of the parties 
 in interest, previously obtained, which, on elemen- 
 tary principles, can confer any right, or ratify 
 any transaction. Here the territory was large enough 
 to be consulted, and its population — it being, be- 
 side Indians, quite 15,000, probably, in 1819. It 
 had been 7,000 when Pike visited there twelve years 
 previous. Hence, whde Vermont would be admit- 
 ted into the Union by the assent of a majority in 
 Congress, after 1789, yet we did not con.sider Con- 
 gress, or the President and the Senate, competent to 
 cede a part of the territory of Maine in 1842, with- 
 out asking her previous consent. Hence, early as 
 1793, Mr. Jefferson, and others of General "Wash- 
 ington's cabinet, doubted whether any part of the 
 northwestern territory could be ceded even to the 
 Indians, and mucli less its jurisdiction to any foreign 
 power. — (See 1 JciTerson's Life, page 409. 4 Jef- 
 ferson's Life, page 479.) 
 
 The old Congress of 1786, (4 Secret Journal, 
 page 100,) held that the United States possessed no 
 
 po^\er, by a treaty, to convey a part or parts of the 
 territory of the United States west of the Allegha- 
 nies; and Vattel, book 1, chapter 21, section 260, 
 holds, that only the nation, or its representatives, 
 ' and not the prince, or treaty-making power, can 
 I cede territory. And it seems well settled in Eng- 
 land, that no part of the realm can be dismembered 
 or alienated without the consent of Parliament, as 
 we'll as of the King.— (Book 116, chapter 2, sec. 10.) 
 Mr. Shefiiey, in debate, (National Intelligencer, Jan- 
 uary 5, 1811,) pronrmiiced the opposite view, as to a 
 part of a State, "a doctrine sjun-ned at by alL" 
 
 Mr. Clay maintained, in 1820, that it could not be 
 done without the assent of Oon'^ress; but the better 
 opinion is that the territory or State ceded niust cou- 
 se)it, and not Congre.-s alone. 
 
 The cession, then, .irii.ii:) iiiisdirtion and soil in 
 Texas, in 1819, wi:!..^:,! tii ■ jwr'.i.m.s consent of its 
 actual inhabitants or t.iri.'.'i-ia.l government, was ir- 
 regular and imperfect. Vy'hatever subsequent acts 
 )night lie regarded as a technical acqtiiescence in the 
 cession, it v/as still, in point of law, erroneous, and 
 must be a departure Um: i freaty stipulations, unless 
 we now, when re(|n;'si.d, a.iiait them to all the 
 ]3)-ivi!eges originally jironub^J. There can be no 
 doubt, if these positions are well supported, that 
 they are fully competent to ask our assent to the 
 retrocession and reunion; and thus, without regard 
 to forms, do in substance all which is necessary ©a 
 their part to perfect the measure. But while contend- 
 ing tor this in their behalf, on great principles of 
 moral and political obligation, I would not do in- 
 justice to any other power with whom we inadvert- 
 ently made new and incompatilde engagements. 
 Though those engagements are, according to Vat- 
 tel, inoperative, the first treaty being valid over a 
 subsequent one v.hich conilirts with it. yet any 
 iiijuvy d'ine i)y nniiidling the subsequent ces- 
 sion o\i'_>lit to be renii.iiicrated to the party sujfer- 
 ing. But that party, whether Spain or Mexico, 
 have now no cause of complaint, and sufler no loss 
 by this construction; because, since that cession in 
 1819, and while it remained (/f/«c^o m force, Spain, 
 in DecemVier, 1836, rehnquished all her claims over 
 Mexico, if not Texas; and the latter has been inde- 
 ]'.endent of Spain for more than twenty years, and 
 for more than ten years has resisted the usurpations 
 of Mexico over her rights as a separate and sove- 
 reign State, and for eight years has declared and 
 maiiitained her independence as to the whole v/orld. 
 
 There will be then a great moral fitness and beau- 
 ty in the disposition of fiuman affairs, if now, after 
 the lapse of a whole generation, we should be able, 
 by the reannexation of Texas, to meet the wishe.s 
 of her people in being admitted to the blessings of 
 our Union, and should, at the same time, fulfil our 
 own previous treaty stipulations in their favor; and, 
 
 ithout injury to any rights of others, should re- 
 ^ tin a territo 
 sections, and 
 
 gain a territory so vital to so many interests of alf 
 sections, and so long and so devoutly sought for by- 
 such a succession of statesmen and patriots, 
 
 by 
 
 The solemnity or inviolability of the treaty of 
 1803, is quite as great as that of 1819 or 1828, or 
 any other since, and its obligations on this subject 
 are both prior and paramount. 
 
 But, supposing that both these views are 
 untenable; and, for the sake of argument, in- 
 dulging a moment in the idea that Texas was not 
 embraced within the hmits of Louisiana, or, if so, 
 was legally ceded to Spain, and afterwards became 
 an integral part of the Mexican empire : had she 
 not, when the terms of her confederacy with that- 
 
8 
 
 ■government became wantonly violated, her citizens 
 imprisoned, and her privileges outraged — had she 
 not a right to assert and maintain her independence? 
 "Would she not have been false to her American 
 blood, not to have done it on the field of San Jacin- 
 Jo, as well as down to the present moment? 
 
 Among the long list of grievances and usurpations 
 set out in the declaration of her independence, (Sen- 
 <ite document, No. 415, June 23, 1836,) was this: 
 that Mexico "has dissolved, by force of arms, the 
 State Congress of Coahuila and Texas," as well as 
 denied liberty of conscience, and committed piracies 
 on her commerce. For such as these she made that 
 declaration, and has since sustained it with the rifle 
 and the bayonet. 
 
 On the American system of politics, had she not 
 a right to separate for such abuses and violations of 
 duty on the part of Mexico? Listen to the doctrine- 
 -which some seem to forget, but — which is laid down 
 in our own declaration of independence on this sub 
 ject, penned by Jefterson, and sanctioned by 
 Franklin, Hancock, Adams, and their patriot coad- 
 jutors: 
 
 "When alongtraiuof abuses and usurpations, pursuing 
 invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce 
 Ihem (the people) under absolute despotism, it is tlieir right 
 it is their duty, to throw oft' such government, and to pro- 
 Tide new guards for their future security." 
 
 What is the American system as adopted by my 
 3fiative State, and most of the others in the Union? 
 
 'The 'people of this State have the sole and exclusive 
 right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and in- 
 <]ependent State," kc. 
 
 •■All government i.t I iL, I.: > n-i ...tes from thepeojile." 
 "Whi-nevi-r the civi ' . ii.. _. ,< :,imentare perverted, or 
 public lil'City m-ai.iii i cd, and all other modes 
 
 of redress are incriLciu.l, i,.- | i uple may, and of right 
 ought to, reform the old, or c.-^taldi-h a new government." — 
 (See the New Hampshire constitution.) 
 
 See also 2 Barkmaque, p. 128, stating that a 
 people may, for a good cause, always revolt and 
 change their government. 
 
 Mr. Clay's speech, on the recognition of the in- 
 dependence of South America, and Mr. Webster's 
 on that of Greece, are full of these doctrines, how- 
 ever heretical their views may be on some other 
 Cjucstions. 
 
 By this (the true American sj^stem of politics) 
 man is regarded as a free agent, possessing a right 
 to self-government. We hold that communities 
 may not only change their form of polity, but di- 
 vide and erect a[separate institution, when oppressed 
 and driven, by a series of wrongs, into revolution 
 and independence. Mankind, in our theory, do 
 not hold their rights from kings or royal charters, 
 or holy alliances, but from God; and far from its be- 
 ing proper to sympathize with, and defend, op- 
 pressive governments in reconquering revolted sub- 
 jects, it is false to our own course in the revolution 
 to dream of it; and the hearts of tlie whole Ameri- 
 can people should burn at tyranny — should sympa- 
 thize with the suffering, invigorate public opinion in 
 their favor; and, as soon as duty may permit, af- 
 ter their independence has become in fact established, 
 through a new government instituted, and new 
 Jaws and rulers selected, and stability and quiet 
 given to their national affairs, we ought to acknov/- 
 leJge both their de fiiclo and tie jure existence — 
 iheir full right to come into the family of nations, 
 and exercise all the powers of independent sover- 
 eignties. The other side of this question is tl 
 British or European side. Theirs is the doctrine of | 
 «terna] a!le.giance. Ours that of free agency and 
 
 self-government. Theirs is the doctrine of the di- 
 vine right of kings. Ours that of the divine right 
 of the people. Theirs is the doctrine of tyranny 
 over the mind and conscience — the reign of it up- 
 held by the bowstring, the inquisition, and standing 
 armies. Ours is the doctrine of liberty, upheld by 
 i-eason, intelligence, and sound morals. In some 
 respects, the^ struggle between these principles has 
 been going on since civilization has been much dif- 
 fused, and especially betv,-een colonies and their 
 parent country — the former striving for privileges 
 commensurate with their growth and rights. 
 It is the child become a man, and claiming the au- 
 thority and immunities of a man; and is to be coun- 
 tenanced, rather than proscribed. All people thus 
 situated, in all time — whether Carthagmians from 
 Tyre, Greeks from Egypt, Marsellois and Syracu- 
 cusans from Greece, Spaniards from Rome, North 
 Americans from England, or South Americans from 
 Spain — all have thus acted, and been thus recognised 
 and sustained; and so must be Texas. But we were 
 destined to open the drama on the new continent. 
 
 The colonial system thus prostrated here in 1776, 
 and a new government like our own springing up 
 on its rufns, astonished the powers of Europe, as 
 well as all the Old World, as much as the original 
 discovery of America by the great world-findtr who 
 breathes in marble by Persico in front of the Cap- 
 itol. Yet, forsooth, we hear it now gravely argxied 
 that a people like those in Texas cannot, de jure^ 
 cede their territory, or unite with us in government; 
 but must first, with due humility, ask leave of Mex- 
 ico, or submit to be reconquered by her, and have 
 the conveyance emanate from her, in order to have 
 it suit our opponents' modern American notions of 
 self-government: and all this, though Texas revolted 
 for as good cause as we did from England, though 
 she has established as good a constitution and laws, 
 and though she has maintained them all firmly and 
 unimpaired for years, and has been recognised and 
 negotiated with as a sovereign and independent na- 
 tion by all the great powers of Christendom! Yes: 
 kings, at the Congress of Vienna, may cede princi- 
 palities and powers, extinguish old or create new 
 governments, and transfer the people like sheep in the 
 shambles; or kings alone may partition Polands, 
 and blot out obnoxious dynasties and empires from 
 the map of the world — as England does over and 
 over again in India; — but a sovereign people and 
 their established government, by a vote almost unan- 
 imous, are to be held incompetent to cede their terri- 
 tory and change their government. And this is to 
 be held, also, by us Anglo-Americans and Spanish 
 Mexicans, who exist as nations only by revolts and 
 changes of their own governments; and, further- 
 more" that, if we dare only by peaceful negotiation 
 to take the cession, it ought to call down on our 
 presumptuous heads all the horrors of foreign war. 
 
 What are the more specific points in this objec- 
 tion interposed by senators in debate? 
 
 First, that, though independent and sovereign, the 
 republic of Texas is not competent to cede its whole 
 territory, though it might be to cede a part. And it 
 is urged that, in the case of Louisiana and Florida, 
 only a part of Spain and Fiance was ceded. 
 
 But how absurd does such an objection appear, 
 when, if Texas owns 200,000,000 of acres, she 
 might legally cede 199,999,999 acres, but not that 
 and the other acre; or she might legally cede a quar- 
 ter of it at one time, another quarter at another, and 
 so through the whole, except the last! No, sir; she 
 is neither entirely independent nor entirely sever- 
 
eign, if incapable of conveying the whole. Such 
 are the principles of national law. 
 
 "A free people, or a king, may alienate their territory, in 
 part or in full."— (Grotius, '2 b., ch. 6, sec. 7.) 
 
 And if in full, then the union of their people with 
 onr form of government follows* as a matter of 
 course, unless they choose to emigrate elsewhere, and 
 join some other government, or form a new one, on 
 ^?ome vacant portion of the earth — like that of iEneas 
 and his companions from Troy, or Dido from Tyre. 
 And if the people and the independent republic of 
 Texas are, for this reason, not as competent to unite 
 with us entirely as they are to cede only a part of 
 their territory, then the absurdity would seem to 
 follow that they never can be competent for admis- 
 sion into the Union, though recogni.sed by Mexico, 
 and no shadow of war existing, till they become 
 (jv.alified by abandoning their indepoidence, repudi- 
 ating republicanism, and, as a servile dependency or 
 reconquest of the monarchs of Spain or Mexico, be 
 sold merely as a portion of their territory to the 
 United States. 
 
 When senators contend that this ces.sion of the 
 whole destroys the ceding government or nation, 
 and is hence impracticable and unprecedented, they 
 forget that the nation may still hold together and 
 migrate, or may agree to unite witli the neighbor to 
 whom their territory has been conveyed; and that 
 this is neither unusual or unreasonable. Pray tell 
 me, did not Rhode Island unite with us — all her ter- 
 ritory, and all her people, and all her goverrmient — 
 rather than a part; and thus became annexed to that 
 Union whose constitution she before had refused to 
 aid in forming, and refused to adopt till, in all quar- 
 ters, denounced and reproached by your fathers, and 
 • ill legislative penalties and burdens were threatened 
 to her by the administration of Washington him- 
 self.' But, notwithstanding this, does the senator 
 [Mr. Simmons] admit, as he argues about Texas, 
 that Rhode Island was incompetent to unite with us.' 
 that she came in only under the threats of Congress, 
 and hence it was void.' or that her "Zoiie's^ar" (all the 
 cfher old States being then under a new constitution 
 without her) became, by a junction with them, 
 blotted out, extinguished, and her sovereignty de- 
 stroyed.' Just as much in her case as in that of 
 Texas; and, as 1 have shown before and will ere 
 long again, just as much, and no more, as new 
 provinces and their whole governments were de- 
 stroyed by uniting with Holland, and others with 
 Switzerland, and others with Central America, and 
 others with us. ' 
 
 It is true that, if the republic thus ceding and 
 uniting, is under obligations to others, she cannot 
 thus become rid of them; but they remain on her, or 
 the whole government to which she is joined.' Such 
 are her obligations by treaties, and her liabilities or 
 exposures for wrongs, or for claims, however un- 
 just, by other powers. But that does not impair 
 the full right to make a cession, though it may affect 
 the expediency and duty of us to take it, if the lia- 
 bilities are very onerous, or her belligerent dangers 
 very imminent or unjustifiable. 
 
 We will look into that soon, after disposing of 
 tJie question of the right to cede the whole. The 
 only other point in the objections, I have heard 
 urged against that right, is the claim still set up by 
 Mexico to rule over Texas. But, however that 
 claim may be obstinately persisted in, I contend 
 that, after all which has taken place, and now ex- 
 ists, it does not impair the right of other natioAs 
 
 to take such cession, or of Texas to make it. Please 
 to note the distinction. 
 
 The incident that a war may be waged by any 
 belligerent against any purchaser of territory from 
 the other belligerent, does not impair the right to 
 sell; for the vender may have owned the territory 
 for centuries, and been recognised by its antagonist, 
 as well as the rest of the world. But it does influ- 
 ence the expediency of buying, and more especially 
 if the belligerent conveys all his territory, and unites 
 his government with another; because, in that event, 
 I admit that the risk of such claims, and such hos- 
 tilities as exist — .all the incumberances are assumed. 
 Yet this is the whole, and is no impeachment of the 
 independent and sovereign right to convey; that 
 right Texas has, if she possesses the usual attri- 
 butes of a nation. 
 
 "She is one, as before explained in a recent 
 letter of mine on this subject, in such manner 
 and form, no less than substance, as, in my ap- 
 prehension, justifies other nations in treating her as 
 a de jure as ■well as a de facto government, and com- 
 petent, under the principles of popular liberty, and 
 the soundest international law in both hemispheres, 
 to cede her territory, or unite her government to 
 another, without asking the consent, or giving just 
 cause of v/ar to any power. 
 
 "What are the common-sense tests on this subject.' 
 If size of territory, she is as big as France, and as 
 large as any four of our own States. If population, 
 she has one ranging by different estimates from two 
 to three hundred thousand people of all kinds. If 
 a regular consitution of government and code of 
 laws, she has both. If a uniform administration of 
 justice and the rights of conscience secured to all, 
 rather than the protection of the Catholic religion 
 alone, r.s in Mexico, she enjoys them. She has 
 troops and ships of war. She has had her inde- 
 pendence acknowledged by the United States, by 
 Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, and, in- 
 deed, all the great powers of Christendom, not un- 
 der the sway of the Holy Alliance; and she has 
 treaties of commerce and international agents with 
 most of them. 
 
 "No towns, castles, or counties, have there been 
 held by her old enemy in doubtful or divided em- 
 pire. Her revolution is not in embryo, but full 
 grown. Not going on by preparatory steps, but 
 finisljed — stable. Not distracted by rival constitu- 
 tions, rival chieftains, and rival armies, such as long 
 desolated many Spanish provinces, but domestic 
 harmony and peace reign throughout. Their pris- 
 ons are not filled with political victims. Order, and 
 law, and the rights of property, are respected; and 
 neither taste, nor education, nor sympathies of any 
 kind, are lingering round their former government, 
 and smoothing the way to the remotest thought at 
 reconciliation. But Texas has other qualities and 
 characteristics as a nation, showing her competent 
 to enter into any contract or arrangement with other 
 nations, as fully as the oldest power of Europe. Be- 
 sides having been for several years admitted, in all 
 respects, into the great family of nations, she is lia- 
 ble for her own wrongs to them, and is held so, and 
 not Mexico, as appears by her treaty of indemnity 
 to us in iS.SS. She is authorized to seek redress for 
 injuries to herself, and not Mexico for her; and she 
 has, in this way, and by treaties binding her com- 
 merce, limits, soil, and jurisdiction, been much wi- 
 der acknowledged, and longer in the independent 
 government of herself, than had Bonaparte in 
 France when he sold Louisiana to us. Such, I ad- 
 
10 
 
 mit, -ft lis not the position of her eiffairs when an- 
 nexation was proposed and declined in 1837; but 
 their afiairs have made great strides since; and one 
 unfortunate mistake with some, in the consideration 
 of this topic, appears to be in not reflecting enougli 
 on the changes in her relations and national maturity 
 ty and stability, made by the progress of tmie and 
 events during the past seven years. It is manifest, 
 thaX if a peojilc have, by sound principles, a right to 
 self-government, and, when oppressed, can, like the 
 United States, properly revolt from England, or 
 Mexico from Spain, or Texas from Mexico, and 
 having declared their independence, do maintain it 
 till they give, as in this case, all the usual indica- 
 tions among nations of manhood — discretion, pow- 
 er, justice, and order, the question of their de jure 
 sovereignty tlius becomes as clearly settled in re- 
 spect to all tliird persons as their de facto sovereign- 
 ty. The assent or acknowledgment of their old 
 masters does not constitute the right, but merely ad- 
 mits it; as the minors or apprentices, claiming to be 
 adults and free, and acting as such, derive their 
 rights from the facts of the case, whether acknov/l- 
 edged'or not !)y those to whom they were once in 
 subjection. I'he world must otherwise become 
 divided into mere holy alliances, with all their mo- 
 nopolizing dogmas on the one hand, and on the oth- 
 er only such as they consider mere rebels, pirates, 
 and banditti; breaking up in this way all reform or 
 progress, and yielding to the claim of the divine 
 right of kings over all the human race, till voluntarily 
 relinquished. The war of opinion on this question 
 was settled in favor of the people, after sixty years 
 of desolation and carnage on the plains of Holland; 
 again at Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown; again in 
 Europe, after deluging France in blood; again and 
 again on botli slopes of the Andes, as well as in 
 Mexico herself, on a basis never again to be shaken 
 in the New Vvorld." 
 
 Moreover, she has a body of intelligent and tal- 
 ented men of the true Saxon race. And if all these 
 do not constitute a State, what does? Not kings, 
 garters, and titles of nobility — not high-walled bat- 
 tlements, nor moated gates — but "men — high-minded 
 men — who know their rights, and knowing, dare 
 maintain." 
 
 The last objection under this head is, that, though 
 she may be a de facto State, she is not one de jure; 
 and therefore possesses no competency to make the 
 cession . 
 
 What is a de facto government as contradistin- 
 guished from a dejure one? It seems to be argued 
 that one merely possesses power, regardless of right 
 or without reference to right. The other not only 
 ]>ossesses it, but rightfully, under good authority, 
 reasons, or laws; for jure means only one or the 
 other, as occasion requires. Thus, Cromwell's gov- 
 ernment has been called a de facto one. But with- 
 out reference to his ultimate rights in respect to the 
 Stewarts, many other nations made treaties with 
 him, as rightful head of England, in less than one 
 year after he became ])rotector. Such as that with 
 Denmark September 15th, 1654, when he had been 
 protector only since December 16, 1653, and in 
 1654 with Sweden, Portugal, and France.— (3d 
 col. of treaties, 67.) 
 
 The possession of power, I grant, must not be 
 merely momentarij, and unsettled or changing, but 
 apparently firm. (Martin's Laws of Nations, b. 7, 
 chapter 1.) And he was well known to multiply 
 his treaties in order to strengthen his claim of right. 
 
 In this way, lie soon became so fully sealed in 
 
 power, and the nation so acquiescent, and the Stewarts 
 so incapable of disturbing him, that his treaties of 
 alliance and cessions, as well as other treaties — like 
 those of Bonaparte to us of Louisiana, in less than 
 two years from his acknowledgment by other pow- 
 ers — must be regarded as right and valid. What 
 Stewart or Guelph since have dared to violate any 
 of Cromwell's treaties as not made by a de jure gov- 
 ernment, so far as respects all foreign powers? 
 What Bourbon has, since 1803, ventured to attempt 
 to vacate Napoleon's treaties of cession with us as 
 well as other powers, for not being made by a de 
 jure government, looking to the rest of the world? 
 
 But there is much more in the present case as to 
 the (Ze jure government of Texas, if we regard its 
 origin and our own system of politics. Texas has 
 been, as we before intimated, an independent and 
 sovereign state, with an excellent separate constitu- 
 tion, near twenty years. Her union, during a part 
 of this period, with the Mexican confederacy, does 
 not alter this. She has since broken no obligations 
 as to that confederacy, but they have all been bro- 
 ken by her oppressors; and these last are the real 
 rebels and overthrowers of the confederacy, and not 
 she. Texas had reason, authority, and law — all to 
 resist the assaults of Mexico for enslaving her to a 
 new and consolidated system. She had never en- 
 tered into any such system. Her efforts to maintain 
 her inde])endence imder those assaults have been as 
 riglitful as ours in 1776. She has, since 1836, been 
 independent even of the confederacy, and been a de 
 jure, as well as de facto, sovereign government; and 
 though, in 1837, the union with her might have been 
 more likely to expose us to war, and hence not pru- 
 dent, it would, in the other viev/, as de jure, have 
 been perfectly justifiable, if her government then 
 had appeared to be settled, mature, and efiicient. 
 
 It is most extraordinary, that tlie right of Texas 
 to cede to us her territory without the consent of Mex - 
 ico, should now be made by those, who, in 1825 and 
 1829, did not question the right of Mexico, dejure as 
 well as de facto, to cede Texas wittiout the consent of 
 Spain. 
 
 How stood the facts then as to details? Mexico, 
 though revolutionary, and with internal disturbances 
 under Spanish supremacy between the Creoles and 
 others, from 1810 to 1821, yet never sought nor 
 asked independence of Spain; and both parties vied 
 in loyalty to her, till Iturbide's defection, and 
 the declaration of independence, made at Iguala, 
 24th February, 1821.— (4 State Papers, 848, 835, and 
 1 Foot's History, 94, 96, 99.) The troops and 
 power of Spain were driven from the capital and 
 most of the cities during that year; but the castle of 
 Ulloa, at Vera Cruz, continued in the possession of 
 the mother country, when we recognised her inde- 
 pendence in 1822, and when we first applied to re- 
 purchase Texas in 1825, as extending to the Rio del 
 Norte. The constitution of Mexico admits that her 
 independence never commenced till 1821, being 
 ^'given in Mexico Alh October, ]82A, fourth year of inde- 
 pendence."' — (2 Kennedy, 443.) Yet in only one 
 year after the adoption of this constitution — only 
 four after her independence was declared, and but 
 three after it was recognised by us, all short of what 
 prevails in Texas now — Messrs. Adams and Clay 
 thought she had the de jure right to cede territory to 
 us, without asking the consent of Spain, and without 
 heeding the adoption of any war then existing. 
 
 Flow could that be legitimate, if Texas, after 
 being an independent State near twenty years, and 
 separated from Mexico eight years, cannot now be 
 
11 
 
 allowed as de jure competent to negotiate for selling 
 her territory without the consent of Mexico? Like 
 facts apply to 1829; and tliey are appealed to now, 
 not for taunt or recriminatioii, but as evidence tliat 
 the aolest minds then, and the most experienced 
 diplomatists, had entire confidence that such a ces- 
 sion as is now before us could l-ie accepted with 
 propriety, and vindicated before the morality, re- 
 ligion, and law of the whole civilized world. 
 
 The only other dilfei-ences material to the argu- 
 ment are, that in 1>^25, Mexico had been recog- 
 nised by not half so many other f.ation.s a.s Texas 
 has how, and had maintained her indcjieudeiirc 
 for only abon: iialf as long a ]< riod: -.wxl that 
 the revolution in Mexico was then indi^rcssin;^-, mn 
 'hi ail respects fmished — her indtpeMilrine miscttled, 
 not firm — her soil invaded and occupied i'v her en- 
 emy, not fiee from hostile feet — iier laws de:s]iof;c, 
 not liberal — her jieople agitated by internal Ijroils 
 ar.d factions, not miited or peaceful; and Santa 
 Anna's government much like what Bolivar consid- 
 ered his in Pern — not settled, but a camp; for (said 
 he") "fi!j/ «(/);;,■(. r'i'((,'(,",'i riiA imhihr itii''d a cirnpaign.^'' 
 ^ifi:ritori,{U< i:, ■;inTfxa;<r, Avanw i!, /ic-e, if P,Iexico 
 could then. Imi: ainilhcr (lilhrciiv-c, siil! more poten- 
 tial in its inflnen/e rath.crthnn argumentative in force, 
 is, I admit, tha.t nobody then stood behind Spain to 
 back her u;/; vvliile iiov/ we see, or seem to see, tlie 
 shaihnss nr' Iv inland's thousand ships of war in the 
 wake of r\ic\:-o, and hostile to our success from 
 othf-r rau.^e^ n.o deeply v/ell known to need reca- 
 pitn'ation. 
 
 What (hi gi ;n;tmen on the other side, as lawyers 
 and }iublic:;=;s, lioid as the true doctrine on this sub- 
 ject of a'e fticlo and de jure governnicnts.' Let us be 
 plain and explicit with each otlier. Was not Crom- 
 well's Protectorate, after established and recognised 
 by other pov/ers, a dejiire as well as dc facto govern- 
 ment in respect to them.' And could he not l-^gally 
 have ceded territory, as well as received cessions, 
 until the Stewarts and their partisans renounced 
 their claims.^ Did foreign powers treat with him or 
 with the exiled family.' So with Napoleon: was he 
 not de jure as well as de facto emperor, as to the 
 rest of the v.-orld, until th.e Bourbons and their parti- 
 sans should recognise him.' Was he acknowledged and 
 treated with, or Louis the 18th in banishment." Keither 
 he nor Cronnvell was ever able to transfer territory 
 and impose obligations on either England or France, 
 by the doctrines on the other side, thougliaH history 
 and national law have settled the fact the other v.-ay. 
 Some doubted the de jure right of Don Miguel, wlicn 
 in power de ,f(tc<o, and others that of Joseph Bona- 
 parte in Spain, and even of Louis Philippe, now in 
 France; but were they, and are they not all, regard- 
 ed as de jure to make and receive cessions while in 
 power, and acknowlgedged by other nations, how- 
 ever soon most of them, as well as Cromwell and 
 Bonaparte, became dethroned.' 
 
 But the senator from Massacliusetts says there are 
 three stages in rcachhtg de jure power. First, a rev- 
 olution; second, a recognition by others; and thirdly, 
 an acknowledgment by the old authorities, or an 
 utter abandonment by them of their claims. But 
 neither such acknowledgment nor such abandon- 
 ment took place by the Stewarts as to Cromwell, or 
 the Bourbons as to Bonaparte; and yet their acts 
 have Jejtwe bound both England and France as to 
 all other nations. 
 
 It is just so as to a revolution like Holland, 
 IMexico, or the United States, or in one view Texas; 
 separating a portion from the old government, and 
 
 forming of It a new one, and declaring us mdepen- 
 dence. Does nothing but the acknowledgment of 
 the parent power, or an utter abandonment of its 
 claims, enable the sejiarated and independent por- 
 tion to perform dejure acts as a nation, and bind its 
 people and acquire righ.ts for them of the rest of the 
 world, as if a dejure government.' Ccitainly. Cer- 
 tainly Holland, RIexico, and the United States, all, 
 as well as Texas, liave claimed to be de jure long 
 before such acknowledgment or abandonment. Hol- 
 land dated her independence seventy years before 
 Spain recognised it. 
 
 Our independence dates from 1776, and not its re- 
 cognition by England in 1783. So that of IVIexico, 
 frrmi 1821 and not 1836, its recognition by Spairr. 
 So Belgium, from 1830 and not afterwards, when 
 I n-cd Tiiiscd by Holland. And so does Texas from 
 ' ]fi2G and n<i't anv future nericd, when Mexico may 
 'admit it. 
 
 I All of them have acted on such a claim liefore a 
 I recognition by the parent government as right; and 
 our assumed power to resist oppression and estab- 
 lish new forms of government, without the consent 
 I of our oppressors, is mere vapor, and the American 
 I system Ijaseless, if that assent, express or implied, 
 i iv" ,,,,,.r- :irr ;ii make our acts as to the rest of man- 
 iKi.iii (' ;i:,' . Popular governments are never in- 
 'lii.-^i ;.i s'liii jiiro distinrtions, cspeciidly when 
 
 1 admit 
 or the 
 
 ]]■ 
 
 ■\v ^1 
 
 condition, does not require other iiatitv,;.-; to go 
 farther unless they ;)h'ase, and depart tV :.!n a neutral 
 position, or by any act, not required I'y pn!i!:c duty, 
 become exposed to act'ial \v.\i\ and that it has been 
 customary with other natHuis, mcluding ourselves, 
 not to go 'any farther. — ,4 .State Papers, 846,848.) 
 But thTs grows out of the absence of any mnlire usu- 
 ally to go farther, and out of the penibMc-y of a 
 belligerent State between the old and nev/ nation, in 
 which we might become uselessly involved; and not 
 from the fact '.hat the new nation is not, de jure as 
 well as defdcloa sovereign power as to all other 
 nations, and, as such, comiietent de jure to do ^11 
 
 j w:i!'-!i other belligerents may. Herein lies the 
 
 I erro.- or fallacy of the reasoning on the other side. 
 
 I Martin's Law of Nations, p. 77, substantially con- 
 firms tiiese views, by holding that if a government 
 
 ' is established defirlo, foreign powers have no right 
 
 w It ;s 
 
 ju> 
 
 I A recogmta)!! of independence of another power, 
 I standing alone, obliges our courts to treat them so, 
 and to give them and their citizens all rights of prop- 
 erty and jurisdiction, and sovereignty, as in any 
 other case. It is de jure as well as de facto, in the 
 most critical and solemn forum of another nation. — 
 (1 Kent, 25.) 
 
 Yet some senators, after all, seem to think it but 
 ^'■an armed insurrection,''^ or, as Russia denominated, 
 the independence of Mexico and South America, 
 but "■criminal comhinalions^'' of seditious subjects 
 against their legitimate kings. But it is neither the 
 American side of the question, nor that espoused by 
 Mr. V/ebster himself. 
 
 ".Mexico (says he) may havechosen to consider, and may 
 still choose to'consider, Texas as having been, at all times, 
 since ISS.i, and as still continuing, a reheuious province; hut 
 the world has been obliged to taiie a very diflerer.t view of 
 the matter. 
 
 "And it must be added that the constitution, public trea- 
 ties, and the laws,, oblige the President to regard Texas as 
 an independent State, and its territory as no part of the ter- 
 ritory of .Me-vico."— (See Letter of July, 19« ) 
 
12 
 
 Nor is this merely theoretical. On two occasions 
 "we have practically recognised the power of the de 
 Jacto governments on the west of us to be dejure, so 
 .18 to make permanent compacts with us concerning 
 the boundaries of their territory, long before they 
 v/ere acknowledged as sovereign by the parent 
 country. 
 
 Thus, 12th January, 1828, we completed with 
 Mexico a treaty regulating the limit of the territory 
 contiguous to us, without asking the consent of 
 Spain, though she then made urgent claim to Mex- 
 ico, though the latter had been independent but 
 seven years, and though her separate sovereignty 
 had not then been acknowledged by Spain, and was 
 jnottill 1836. 
 
 So, again, in 1838, April 25, we made a similar 
 treaty of limits with Texas, as to lier territory, with- 
 out consulting Mexico, and when her de jure rights 
 "were as much in question as now. Some have 
 asked if the right to cede was clear in 1837 as well 
 as now, why the proposal then was not accepted? 
 Simply, because tlie danger of war was then greater, 
 and the hope of permanent independence was less. 
 
 The character and prospects of the war with 
 Mexico in 1837 were very different from the condi- 
 tion of things now; and our exposure much greater 
 then to be involved in difficulty of taking a cession 
 so soon after one great invasion, and amidst the 
 pro.spcct of another, and without any long abandon- 
 ment, as now, of a regular war on Texas for many 
 years. 
 
 f'The government of Texas was then, also, less 
 settled; less firm; less hkely to be permanent; less 
 ripened; less recognised by all Christendom; and 
 her claims less on the sympathies and interference 
 of other friendly powers, by alliances or cessions, 
 to put an end to barbarous marandings, as well as 
 oppression; and the authority of Mexico was less to 
 enforce any pretensions over a territory so much 
 longer independent, acknowledged by others, ma- 
 tured in her institutions, and, by the lapse of time, 
 emancipated from her vain efforts at control. The 
 statute of limitations bars most debts and claims in 
 iive or six years; and much more than that has 
 elapsed here. 
 
 The whole real difficulty resolves itself into 
 one, not of a right now to sell or cede on the one 
 part, and we to buy on the other, but one as to the 
 just and probable consequences of the transaction, 
 considering the relations actually existing between 
 Mexico and Texas, whether belligerent or not; and, 
 if belligerent, whether justly so or not. It follows, 
 then, that, if an independent sovereignty, Texas can 
 cede rightfully her whole territory, as well as a part, 
 and unite her government, as well as territory, with 
 "US, if she pleases. Such acts are done constantly in 
 Europe, and here, both in republican confederacies, 
 and monarchies, as befoi-e shown; and Vattel, as 
 cited by the senator from Illinois, [Mr. Breese,] 
 recognises the principle fully. 
 
 Having discussed the right to receive and the 
 right to cede Texas, the next question is, whether, 
 as a duty, the treaty for the annexation ought not to 
 be ratified. Are the reasons for it not ample, and 
 our duty clear? The presumption certainly would 
 be that, unless strong public objections exist, no na- 
 tion would decline the offer of a large addition to 
 its territory, population, and power. More espec- 
 ially does such a presumption arise, when the terri- 
 tory is contiguous, and convenient, if not necessa- 
 ry; ha.s been long sought for under three or four dif- 
 erent administrations; is governed by institutions 
 
 and laws similar to our own, and inhabited by si 
 people, most of whom have a like origin, edu- 
 cation and religion with ourselves; and concentrate 
 their affections and wishes on a reunion with the 
 great national family from which they sprang. 
 
 I am not one of those disposed to exaggerate the 
 advantages of such an union to us; nor would I, on 
 the contrary, scoff at the objections which are enter- 
 tained — and honestly, without doubt — by many 
 against it. But, in weighing the latter, I trust that 
 we may be able to free ourselves from some pre- 
 judices and apprehensions suited to other forms of 
 government rather than a representative confedera- 
 cy; and be a little less local in policy and timid in 
 action than if we were, as once, but three millions of 
 people, and had confined our explorations to Lake 
 Champlain and Cape Cod, rather than stretching 
 west on our own soil to the Rocky mountains and 
 the Pacific ocean. 
 
 Not forgetting the enlarged duties, as well as in- 
 terests, that have devolved on us by our new posi- 
 tion, let us examine, dispassionately, both the rea- 
 sons for and the objections against the annexation 
 proposed, as a moral and political duty. For, 
 though the right to take and to make the cession 
 may on both sides be clear, our duty may not re- 
 quire an assent to the ratification; and I am frank to 
 say, that if I regarded the treaty as a mere pecu- 
 niary speculation, like the calculations of the sena- 
 tor from Rhode Island, [Mr. Simmoks,] my hopes 
 would not be great for profit or credit; or, if I 
 looked at some of the reasons assigned for the 
 measure in the correspondence, or the prudence of 
 some of the agents employed, or th.e patriotism of 
 some taking deep interest in the question. But 
 these and many formal exceptions, seem scarcely 
 suitable to the magnitude of the subject, and the 
 high duties and national honor and interests which are 
 at issue. One of the most prominent of these inter- 
 ests is the importance of Texas to the United States 
 for security to the commerce of the West and South- 
 west, through the mouth of the Mississippi river. 
 The freedom of that commerce was a topic which, 
 as long ago as under the old confederation, agitated 
 the whole country. It then introduced the first geo- 
 graphical division of parties between the South and 
 the North; in which the latter, unfortunately, was 
 quite as strenuous in resisting efforts and sacrifices 
 to obtain that freedom, as it is now in resisting 
 those to secure it, after having been obtained. 
 
 A few circumstances in the agitation of that age 
 indicate strongly prejudices and contests not very 
 unlike the present one. 
 
 Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, "avowed his 
 opinion, that the shutting the Mississippi would be 
 advantageous to the Atlantic States, and wished to 
 see it shut." — (Madison Papers, p. 609.) 
 
 But Virginia extended over Kentucky, and claim- 
 ed all the Northwest; while North Carolina also 
 crossed the Alleghanies into Tennessee. Hence the 
 South, at that early day, became the champions of 
 western interests, no less than southern ones. 
 
 And though Mr. Aymer, apjiarently concurring 
 with Gorham, "thought the encouragement of the 
 western country was suicide on the part of the old 
 States, — (3 Madison papers, 1446 page;) — and 
 though the vote of seven States was at first procured 
 to proceed in the negotiations with Spain, without 
 insisting on the free navigation of the Mississippi, — 
 yet Mr. Jefferson wrote that the navigation of the 
 Mississippi we must have — (1 Jefferson's Life, 
 433 page.) And Mr. Jay at last admitted our right 
 
13 
 
 to it was good. — (4 Secret Journal, 451.) And the 
 old Congress, before breaking up, in September, 
 1788, soleinnly — 
 
 Resolved, That the free navigation of the river Missisi?- 
 sippi is a clear and essential right of the United Siates, and 
 that the same ought to be considered and supported as 
 such."— (4 Secret Journal, 403, Septemlier 16, 1778.) _ 
 
 In the convention, while forming the constitution, 
 Governeur Morris frankly stated that "the fisheries,'''' 
 and the '^Mississippi" security to them, were "the 
 two great objects of the Union." — (3 Madison 
 Papers, 1523.) 
 
 The whole question, as a national one, was then 
 settled. That was the embryo of the present crisis. 
 The duty to secure became as imperative as had 
 been the duty to obtain. A million and a half of 
 square miles of territory, and what are now nine 
 millions of people on the waters of the Mississippi 
 and her tributaries, were foreseen, and were to be 
 shielded in peace as in war; and tranquillity to their 
 institutions, no less than safety to their property of 
 every kind, were in advance solemnly guarantied, 
 and were never to be neglected. On this implied 
 pledge your public lands have been sold there and 
 settled. 
 
 It is not necessary, at this part of our inquiry, to 
 detail all the steps since taken under the constitu- 
 tion to carry out faithfully one of those great 
 •objects of the Union connected with the Misssissip- 
 pi. Spain resisted and intrigued against all this. 
 She was one of the last to accede to our indepen- 
 dence, and to make any .treaty of limits on the 
 south as to the Florida line, from fear of our revolt 
 proving an example contagious to her American col- 
 onies. It is said by one of our most learned his- 
 toi-ians, that a document exists, in which she was 
 advised by her prime minister then to allow the 
 whole of them to become independent, except her 
 West India islands; and if that advice had been 
 'followed, which subsequent events, with the loss of 
 millions of life and treasure, show to have been so 
 wise, our present difficulties as to Texas would 
 probably never have arisen. She pursued the op- 
 posite policy, and, after the peace of 1783, sought to 
 push her claims even on the Mississippi, as high up 
 as the Ohio river, and as far east as the Alleghanies. 
 Andafterdrivingher from these pretensions, and then 
 from Florida and Louisiana, her descendants hold 
 ■on upon Texas with a death-gripe; and long 
 after their ability to subdue it, or its value to them 
 can make it an object in itself at all desirable. Both 
 .freedom and security to the navigation of that 
 mighty river were once placed wholly within our 
 grasp by the purchase of Louisiana. 
 
 I say this under the impression that the western 
 boundary of Louisiana, on the Gulf of Mexico, 
 truly extended to the Rio del Norte, as heretofore 
 shown. Any border enen.y was then flung off to 
 .a safe distance from the great outlet of near 
 half the exports of the whole Union. New Orleans, 
 the magnificent depot of the entire valley of the 
 Mississippi, was then shielded from hostile sur- 
 prise. Our trade with the West Indies and Eu- 
 rope, left more open and unannoyed, and the 
 vast population on the western waters, now 
 nine, and ere a century more to be ninety, millions 
 of people — treble the numbers of either France or 
 England, and more than treble their size in territo- 
 ry — was thus to be better protected, not only in 
 their commerce, but in their lives and honor, from 
 both the hostile tread and hostile machinations of 
 an encroaching enemy. The security thus gained 
 from the Indian scalping-knife was an additional 
 
 motive, and every cradle in the West witnessed ec 
 sounder sleep when the tomahawk could be re- 
 moved farther off, and forts and greater distances 
 were interposed between the log cabin and the sav- 
 age torch. 
 
 I say that all this was accomplished with the 
 boundary then obtained, and was in some degree 
 lost without it, having, as we had, a foreign foe 
 and foreign Indians s"o near us as the Sabine and 
 the Red rivers. The great American captain of our 
 age, with hundreds of others, have staked their 
 skill and reputation on this; and hence that boun- 
 dary, if once owned by us, should never have been 
 parted with in 1819; or should be regained the 
 first favorable and just opportunity, as has been 
 since constantly attempted again and again, and as 
 is now amicably within our power, by ratifying the 
 treaty under consideration. We have already seen 
 that it is no new idea that freedom of commei'ce is 
 of little value without its security. 
 
 It is no new project that aline farther west than 
 the Sabine is vital to its security, as well as impor- 
 tant for protection in war, both against civilized and. 
 savage foes. 
 
 It is no new vagary, that when our fathers, in 
 1786, finally resolved on their rights to the free nav- 
 igation of the Mississippi, the)', also, in the same 
 act, and by the same dauntless spirit, meant to en- 
 force that right till successful, and to defend it, also, 
 whence once acknowledged, as they afterwards did 
 in many an Indian war, as well as on the bloody 
 fields of New Orleans. It is no new principle of 
 national law, that it then became the duty of the 
 whole Union to look over the luxuriant regions west 
 of the Alleghaniesi with the same affection and aid, 
 and lavish on them a like deference and regard as on 
 other parts of the Union; and that only half our ob- 
 ligations would be discharged in procuring a free 
 navigation of the western waters, if not following it 
 up with procuring security to that navigation and 
 the immense interests connected with it. Such men 
 as Messrs. Gorham and Clymer had, or ought to 
 have, outgrown their more narrow views and sec- 
 tional prejudices. The West and the Southwest 
 were, by the tide of emigration, becoming bone of 
 our bone and flesh of our flesh. In taking honest 
 panis to give them protection as well as prosperity, 
 the position of things has so changed, that the North, 
 and East, and Middle States, are in truth giving 
 them to their own families, or the playmates of their 
 youth. Even if selfishness prompted a different 
 course in 1785, it will, if enlightened, concur in 
 the coui-se recommended in 1844. Let me 
 particularize a single illustration of this among 
 thousands of like cases scattered over the Easf, 
 and, indeed, the whole Atlantic States. 
 
 On one of the hill-tops in the interior of New- 
 Hampshire, only two generations ago, dwelt a true, 
 enterprising, industrious New England family. Are 
 they still confined to their native mountains, and 
 their interests and affections centred only there.' Oa 
 the contrary, sir, some of them are felling the forests 
 in the mighty West; others plant in the sunn)r 
 South; one is pushing his fortunes in the Empire 
 State; another in Michigan; another in Mississippi j 
 another on the rich soil of Alabama; and thus their 
 homes and their fortunes, their anxieties and their 
 patriotism, cu-e limited only by their country's ex- 
 tent and welfare. The next generation will proba- 
 bly see some of their descendants in Oregon or 
 Texas, and breathing the balmy air of the Columbia 
 or Rio del Norte. 
 
u 
 
 Such, sir, is the destiny of most of the people of 
 this leading republic of tlie New World, presenting 
 a form of gotcrnment as novel and striking as was 
 the continent itself, when discovered by Columbus, 
 and developing a mission on earth by this branch of 
 the Anglo-Saxon race, which, while tlie school- 
 house and village church, side by side, mark their 
 frogress, will never be co/npleted till they i-each the 
 'acific. The mass of them are not, as they wan- 
 der, either fanatics or bigots, but conform to all lo- 
 cal institutions like peaceable citizens, till reason 
 and experience are able to v/ork salutary changes. 
 
 How much more is it our duty to receive these 
 persons into the Union, when an opportunity 
 offers, than the French of Louisiana, or the Span- 
 iards of -Florida! However worthy, in many respects, 
 the character of the latter, yet all must see tliat the 
 moral fitness, the education, habits, and religion of 
 most of our kin in Texas, render them more suitable 
 for an intimate alliance with us; and that their re- 
 publican form of government makes the Union more 
 appropriate than what we have already overcome in 
 receiving those in Louisiana and Florida, educated 
 under monarchies. Another important consecpience 
 of the purchase of Louisiana, was to give greater quiet 
 to the commerce and people on all the tributaries of 
 the iVIississippi, as well as on its own great chan- 
 nel. But parting with Texas, we lost in the same 
 treaty the sources of the Arkansas and Red rivers, 
 as well as large tracts of land adjoining; and unless 
 reannexed, a door is opened for constant annoyances 
 and collisions between us and those higher up on the 
 stream; and one cardinal boieiit of the original pur- 
 chase ;s entirely relinquished. 
 
 The treaty presents at the same moment a fortu- 
 nate occasion to do that, as well as enforce better the 
 guaranties of the constitiUion to promote ^'domestic 
 iranquillity'''' in the South and Southwest, no less 
 than the West and East. The property and do- 
 mestic institutions of the former, however difierent 
 from those at the North, were secured as amply 
 under the old confederation as those of any other 
 region; so are they by the present constitution; so 
 are they by all our legislative and judicial decisions; 
 and so must they continue to be, till the compro- 
 mises of the constitution are wantonly violated, or 
 the Union dissolved. Hence the losses or capture of 
 their property in slaves have often been indemnified; 
 their escape into other Slates has been redressed by 
 a surrender of them; and the domestic Iranquillity de- 
 signed for all the States, as set out in the preamble 
 of the constitution as one paramount object for its 
 adoption, has again and again been sought to be se- 
 cured, in times of excitement and peril, precisely 
 as they are likely to be by the ratification of this 
 treaty. 
 
 In 1811, the executive was empowered by Con- 
 gress, after careful deliberation in secret, to take 
 possession of Florida by force, with a view to pre- 
 serve, more undisturbed, the domestic relations and 
 quiet of the South. So, in 1810, Mr. Madison, of his 
 own motion, took possession of the country east of 
 Lake Pontchartrain to the river Perdido; for this, 
 among other objects that need not be repeated. 
 Though his course was then denounced as war by 
 his opponents, yet Congress, by an act in 1812, rati- 
 fied it, and annexed that tract to the State of Louisi- 
 .ina; and did this without asking the consent of 
 Spain, or of the people of the United States, or of the 
 inhabitants of the soil, and while many of them 
 were in a state of actual revolt. 
 Again; in 1^20, for the same, among other ob- 
 
 jects, when the treaty for the cession of the Floridas 
 remained wrongfully unratified by Spain, Mr. Mon- 
 roe recommended to Congress the immediate occu- 
 pation of that country by virtue of legislation; and 
 tliis v/as prevented only by the subsequent ratifica- 
 tion and peaceful delivery of it, without rendering 
 an actual resort to violence, on our part, necessary, 
 after it had been proposed. 
 
 In short, the South stood shoulder to shoulder 
 with us in tlie revolution with this property and 
 these institutions. They came into the Union with 
 them on equal terms; they have so rem;-Jned for half 
 a century, and .so must they continue, till injustice 
 or fanaticism or treason violate all the sacred com- 
 promises of all we hold dear. 
 
 The ratification of this treaty is also vastly im- 
 portant to our whole people in an industrial point of 
 view. It gives to us enough additional territory for 
 four or five large States, immediately contiguous; 
 and some of them, by their location on the ocean, 
 with fine bays and immense rivers, virtually Atlan- 
 tic States in tlieir habits and intercourse; an in- 
 crease of near a third of a million in our population; 
 and a near and rich outlet for the ovenlowings of 
 the other States; swelling, as they must in the next 
 fifty years, to more than most of the kingdoms of 
 Europe in their mighty )nasses. The annexa- 
 tion of Texas, in its influence on all the great 
 branches of industry, is not merely a western or 
 southern question, but one deeply interesting to eve- 
 ry Cjuarter of our common country — whether it pro- 
 motes that industry by opening to agriculture more 
 fertile soils and genial climates, or by forming a 
 wider home market for manufactures, or by furnisli- 
 ing new articles of commerce, and new bays and 
 rivers for the free navigation of western steamers, as 
 well as coasting and freighting vessels from the East. 
 Our independence of other countries by more lands,, 
 more fitted to sugar, fine cotton, and rice, and even 
 coffee, would thus be greatly promoted. 
 
 On this and other kindred topics I shall not, on 
 this occasion, eitlarge; believing that a very strong 
 case of duty to take the cession is made out, unless 
 it be counterbalanced by some of the objections 
 which have been urged in this debate. 
 
 I proceed at once to examine, in some detail, the 
 most prominent of these objections: 
 
 The annexation is opposed by some, on tlie 
 ground that it will make our territory too large; 
 but experience has evinced that a representative 
 republic can, with convenience and eificiency, ex- 
 tend over limits far wider than from the St. Croix 
 to the Rio del Norte. Indeed, by the aid of rail- 
 roads and steam, the Union, with Texas included, 
 will be far more accessible in all its parts, either for 
 business or government, than il was at the revolu- 
 tion with only thirteen States, and those all situated 
 on the narrow belt of the eastern -declivity of the Al- 
 leghanies. And this objection, if tenable, should 
 have been urged, and prevailed, before we purchased 
 either Louisiana or the Floridas. 
 
 How groundless, in connection with this, is the 
 objection by some senators, [Messrs. Miller and 
 CiioATE,] that duty does not require assent to the ces- 
 sion, because it is the lustfor "territorial aggrandize- 
 ment" which now pirompts us — when the whole we 
 seek was not only obtained two generations ago, but 
 was justified tlien by such men as Jefferson, 
 Madison, and Monroe, and advocated since, and 
 attempted to be regained, by such men as Adams, 
 Clay, and .Tackson.' Or because, as imputed by the 
 .senator from New Jersey, we wish to sieze Texas 
 
15 
 
 now as "spoils of victory," '■•as a conquest by treaty,'''' 
 when, in trutli, she comes into an equal union of 
 rights and privileges, from friendship and muti-al 
 interest — from choice — and smtcu fo. it by ed.ir.Mion 
 and punciples, and i^amii'^- quite as nun h 
 we, or as Rliode KKuid £,i"icd l>y upums' \ 
 after 17S9, or as Scotland ^^)nicd '^y hei iiiiK 
 England near the commencement of the last c 
 
 To repeat again some of my remaiks on a foi.nei 
 occasion. 
 
 "The annexation has h^( n >| .-, (] , !,,,[ j ('ntv, 
 because inclining the lial i ( < pnl n al | < \n in 
 our s^'-tcm too much in i \ n oi il, Wi t nnd 
 South But the bame (oui i <t i is > i i > ,. ! 1 
 stiip us of all oui gieat di >,, i u c.,i I'li x u w t i . i 
 — a countiy nevei to be -I Ki iiil( K (' iJii'i an \i i > - 
 ican \\halei Mfcits Its \v U( s, ,n an .Vmcii \n tini- 
 grant chooses to fisli, hupt, oi pUnt on the banks of 
 . the Columbia. It wou'd als-), tiom b'le appicJien- 
 sioas as to the bilf nee oi piwu n tl e Noi'th, pic- 
 vent any futuie \ '^acoab'c an-ir \at on of the ^'ana- 
 das, so ardently contcm|.L»td by oni fath^is fio.n 
 the commencement of tlie ie\olntion, and it would 
 lieretofore ha\< dt'eatcdiho pnul.dSt of ihf- Flon- 
 das by Mr. ^ilonroc, and of Lou s ain, ni lud 
 Texas,by Ml. Jefteison, and would not only ca^t 
 censure on them and their venerable cuadju.ois, for 
 thus deiangnig the balance of power then, but 
 would add upioach on Messis Adams ..ml Clay 
 for attempting to rcgun Tc\ is m Js25 and ls27, 
 and on Geneiai Jackson and Mi Van Euicn toi a 
 like attempt m 1821, ind,\»l,. t 's st.U woisp, by 
 thiscouise of leisnnin i, i i tking, as was done 
 in 1835 by Grnei.d .i i. 1 sun nd Mi. Fois-yth, to 
 obtain a \ast tiact of idditic nal countiy sMll fauhci 
 •south and west, fiom the foity-second degree of lati- 
 tude to the thiity-se\cuth, and stietching towaids 
 the setting sun over that degree across the entire 
 continent. But, in truth, the durable interests of 
 the whole Union are believed to Jiave been looked to 
 on those occa.^ions as ii.iv.-; and the theoretical bal- 
 ance of power, if adv. itc.i t,, at all, can never en- 
 danger the practical workiii-s .,r our system, which 
 wdl always proUuce great, st lia.rmony wlien least 
 influenced by any sectioiuil j. alnii.-,ics or local oreju- 
 dices; and which will akv.iy.s be most attiaotive 
 strongest, and most flourishing, where freest, unless 
 liberty and progress are mere phantoms of the im- 
 agination." 
 
 More than all tliis, Texas, if added to the Union 
 may well be rc-aided, for ages if not forever, quite 
 as much northern as western and southern in many 
 of her principles and tastes. Her position on the 
 ocean— her numerous and large rivers near— her cul- 
 ture of sugar and rice, as well as cotton — her easy 
 intercourse with the West Indies and the North— 
 make her an Atlantic State for most purposes, and 
 will connect her people, in their intercourse .and 
 commerce, and views of political economy, very 
 closely with the Atlantic portion of the Union; and 
 perhaps more intimately with the northern parts of 
 it than many now imagine. 
 
 "It is opposed by others on account of the badness 
 ot some of the reasons assigned for it; as if a good 
 measure ought to be rejected because any one may 
 please to urge some weak reasons for it. By others, 
 because a few of its advocates are suspected of be- 
 ing interested in the question; as if that could im- 
 pair the usefulness of the annexation itself, or was 
 not always an incident to almost every question of 
 great m.ignitude. And by others still, because the 
 auspices under which the measure is now proposed 
 
 .are disliked; as if the necessity or value of a gift or 
 purchase depended upon the character of the agents 
 employed. 
 
 It lo resisted by many for the le.ason that slavery- 
 exists in Texas Th i ^ oi institution, to be sure, 
 s which most people, \< u t ih North, aie, like 
 nwith nnseif, aveise to. Ei t i i s v ' ., lespect the con- 
 stitmion and the Union u nr m'ui tli u it is an insti- 
 tution whi bout paient counfiy, befoie i'^e revolu- 
 tion, foiled upon both the Noith ml t a '^'o r'•'• 
 \^ hif'i, after be 'nu nmif deeply nit \ , cr}^ 
 the SOI i.d and political systems ot i 'V 
 Hst of the State, did not hesita.t « 
 
 .s, h 
 
 h^l Ling 
 1 with he; 
 
 / 
 
 ^ Ho\.'e\ei depiecatid by ma.iy of as, we knovir 
 till' none c.-'ii leg.illy .-holish the iiistitu'ion bat 
 those who possp's it, and that whih this ha*- already 
 been done since the ic\olini(in 1 y neaily half of the 
 old S'tates, It may coiit nue tj be done by Texat; 
 heiself, as well .-i'^ ol'iei 
 then sense of duty a id i 
 tianqiully to the e\( mis 
 ^Vh. t titetr flu anncxatu 
 ha\e oi tin n.iasiue, 
 iiy sciine ut 
 
 most distinguished 'thinks it will ,dd inoie fiee 
 i'mu sla-ie St.ites. But how<\er that may be, 
 the fuends of annexation belie\p that, whne 
 a Hjtction of It must lea.\p the iiistitut,on of 
 skntiy just .as It IS, ■\Mthout mitigatio i. t le accept- 
 ance id' It r moot add to the whole niunbei of sla\e'3 
 now in Texas and the United States together; and 
 ifdi ■ ' " 
 
 sionei oi : ,ter, when 
 'y m ly )ieimit it, if Jefl 
 lit thru oun lights. 
 1 ofTe^".s wdl really 
 steins ;t be dom ted 
 opponents, aimng whom the* 
 
 rad L 
 
 ;pcrsiiio- Ilia! number over a wdder space, will 
 Liaily teiid to make their freedom less expensive 
 .anel more easy in any one State; or, if concentrating 
 them iurtlier Soutli than now, will render voluntary 
 emancipation more nortliwardly still, speedier and 
 safer. Whetlier such considerations have prepon- 
 derated before in overcoming this oiijf-ctlon with 
 many of our most eminent 'friends „i liberty and 
 philanthropy, I know not; but certain it is, that it 
 did not pre^•ent ]\Ir. Jefferson and his northern dem- 
 ocratic friends from purchasing Louisiana, includ- 
 ing Texas li.is.!;-. ,:: ]S03; nor'Florida from being 
 bought by .\!rss|; . Aionroeand Adams in 1819; nor 
 Te;xas again !pi.:] being negotiated for by Messrs. 
 Adams and Clay in 1825 and 1827; and by Gcjieral 
 Jackson and Mr. Van Buren in the summer of 1829- 
 the decree of Mexico for abolishing slavery in her 
 possessions not being issued i;il S.-ptemberlo 182!)." 
 —(See 4 Blum's Ainiual Itcgisur, p. 147.)' '. ~ 
 
 It did not prevent us fi-om'k-ceping Texas with ail 
 her slavery for sixteen years, and then exchanging 
 her for another slave territory. Is it not safer to 
 act vyith such men on a great national question? men 
 of all parties, coincident on this single measure, not- 
 withstanding the objection as to slavery.' Mu h 
 safter than to indulge rashly in a disregard of evt / 
 precedent and principle adopted in respect to it dur- 
 ing half a century. 
 
 International interferences, or encour.agements to 
 destroy the domestic or political instiutions of each 
 other, are .alike mischievous, whether attempt- 
 ed by us against her church-and -state sys- 
 tem, and monarchical government, or by England 
 or the world'3 convemion, in sight of her Par- 
 
16 
 
 liament against any of our institutions. Without 
 
 foing into details on this unpleasant topic, these 
 cious complaints about us tend to plunge the world 
 into a state of constant warfare, rather than promote 
 durable peace and civilization. 
 
 Even the despot, Santa Anna, talks of keeping u^: 
 hostilities against Texas, in order to put down do- 
 mestic slavery there; and Ali Pacha in Egypt, while 
 amidst all his tyrannies he has the address towards 
 England to profess the emancipation of his slaves, 
 renews yearly a frontier slave hunt to recruit his 
 armies, navies, and household. 
 
 What is this objection, when made among our- 
 selves so pertinaciously, but a violation of 
 Washington's farewell injunction against en- 
 couraging sectional prejudicies and sectional 
 divisions; and of Jefferson's deprecations in the 
 Missouri controversy, against the drawing of "a 
 geographical line, coinciding with a marked prin- 
 ciple, moral, and political;" and which, if counte- 
 nanced, would, in his opinion, constantly sink deep- 
 er and deeper, and never be obliterated, except by 
 disastrous results, which he did not wish to live 
 long enough to witness.' — (4 Jefferson's Life, 324 p.) 
 
 Declaring, as we have so often, that Cuba shall 
 never be allowed to go into the possession of another 
 power, I should like to know what is to be done 
 with slavery there, if the island is ever occupied by 
 tis? And if becoming a territory or a State, on what 
 principle is it to be so, except that applied to Louis- 
 iana, Florida, and therefore to Texa.s.' Are we to 
 have whites under our dominion not free.' nor ever 
 to be admitted into the Union on equal principles? 
 
 I will only add, in order to avoid misapprehen- 
 eion, that so far from feeling opposed to the termi- 
 nation of slavery by all legal, safe, and constitu- 
 tional means, none could rejoice more lieartily than 
 myself to see it thus ended the world over; and 
 among the whites, ax well as blacks; among the dis- 
 franchised, the serfs and paupers of Europe, and 
 even the dark Hindoos, as well as the sable sons of 
 Africa; not confining my sympathies to color or 
 r.ame, but to real degradation among the whole 
 human race, and to their relief, by introdu- 
 cing gradually a superior state of intelligence, 
 religion, and rights, rather than by a rash crusade 
 against law and order, and the public peace." 
 
 Others still object to the form of the cession, 
 holding it to be insufficient, unless made by 
 an act of Congress, and hence it is not our duty to 
 take the cession by this treaty. Various technicali- 
 ties as to the power of treaties have been 
 ■urged against the present proceeding — such as the 
 want of existing parties till the act is completed, and 
 the absence of legislative as well as executive sanc- 
 tion to the union of the two countries. But the peo- 
 ple of Texas still continue a separate, independent 
 government, competent to contract and hold their 
 rights, not only till the treaty is ratified by our 
 government and their own, but till an act of 
 Congress, there and here, passes to enforce many 
 provisions, which, in their nature, as in many other 
 treaties, are imperfect and inoperative till that 
 takes place. And if the sanction of their peo 
 iple to a union like this, given at the same 
 vtime their constitution was adopted, by an al- 
 most unanimous vote, was supposed to be ol;so- 
 lete, I should think it prudent to take their o[)in- 
 lon again before the proceedings are deemed com- 
 plete. Then, and not till all this is concluded, an 
 actual delivery of possession takes place, and is ne- 
 cessary to the validity of the cession. — (1 Kent's 
 
 Com., 177.) Nor even after that is Texas extin- 
 guished, as some have argued; she is still in politi- 
 cal being, as a territory of the Union, and with full 
 claims to enforce her rights, in due time and on 
 equal terms, to become a State. 
 
 An act of legislation in the form of a compact is 
 no stronger than a law of Congress carrying the 
 treaty into effect by estalblishing a territorial govern- 
 ment, and making the proper appropriations and 
 provisions. If these are done, then our people have 
 assented through their proper and accustomed agents 
 for such purposes, and Congress has assented, as well 
 as Texas, both its government and people. We shall 
 stand towards each other in all these respects, and shall 
 continue to as we and our new separate States and ter- 
 ritories do. The matter has thus duly commenced with 
 a treaty. We take by it one step. A treaty, too, 
 is the usual instrument for making agreements with 
 foreign powers. It is defined to be "a compact of 
 accommodation relating to public affairs." And if 
 enforced by an act of Congress carrying its provi- 
 sions into effect, it will have all the form' and 
 substance in its course to- completion, whicii 
 any legislative compact of union between countries 
 before in domestic relations could possess in Eng- 
 land or here. 
 
 Some confusion has arisen on this point, I ap- 
 prehend, from not adverting to the circumstance 
 that, in this case, the ceded territory and its govern- 
 ment are foreign, and not like those using legisla- 
 tion alone, already in some degree connected as do- 
 mestic members of the same sovereign — like Scot- 
 land and Ireland. And so far from Texas being 
 thus conquered, or annihilated, or degraded, or de- 
 frauded, she is elevated to our own platform; her priv- 
 ileges gained ore quite equal to ours; her star is 
 l>laced in our galaxy, rather than extinguished; and 
 the union is alike honorable and advantageous to all 
 concerned. 
 
 Another new objection has been pressed, that the 
 cession contains too much land, and is thus not a 
 duty, but a wrong, and exposes us to unavoidable 
 collisions with other powers. But, unfortunately 
 for this ground, the cession does not describe any 
 particular quantity of land, or extend the limits of 
 Texas to any specified boundaries whatever. It 
 merely, in speaking of its extent, says, "all its terri- 
 tories." We can hold, then, or claim, only "all its 
 territories," its true and rightful boundaries, be they 
 more or less. So was it with the purchase of Lou- 
 i.siana, without any other limitations; and Bonaparte 
 declined to make any specific ones, when asked, 
 (see Marbois's History of Louisiana,) but for a 
 reason directly the reverse to that which existed 
 here, "the boundary being left without specifica- 
 tion" here, in order to avoid difficulty. — (See the 
 Texian documents.) 
 
 The better opinion certainly is that the old Texas 
 
 n west to the mouth of the Rio del JYorte on the 
 Gulf, though Mr. Jefferson, as a compromise, was 
 willing to stop at the Nueces or Colorado, and even 
 the Gaudaloupe; and General Jackson, in 1829, 
 proposed to buy only to the centre of the desert be- 
 tween the Nueces and the Rio del Norte; but in 1835 
 he wished to go quite to the latter, as did Messrs. 
 Adams and Clay in 1825 and 1827.— (Doc. House 
 of Reps., Sept. 1837, on Texas, 2 Foote's History, 
 393.) 
 
 Most people considered the line to run north on 
 that river only to the mountains, though the legisla- 
 ture of Texas, by a law, have claimed to run to its 
 source. But Texas, by a mere law, could acquu ;■ no 
 
17 
 
 title beyond what she conquered from Mexico, and 
 actually governed. Hence, though her law includes 
 more than the ancient Texas, she could hold and 
 convey only that; or, at the uttermost, only what 
 she exercised clear jurisdiction over. As to that, 
 there is, and can be no eventual contest; and the 
 deed of cession, like one by an individual at common 
 law, would practically pass no more than was 
 owned; and under it the grantee would get no more 
 if he could, and could not if he would.* 
 
 Another reason assigned why it is not c ur duty to 
 accept this cession is, that the Senate, by ratifying 
 the treaty, do, in conjunction with the President, de- 
 clare war; when, by the constitution, it cannot be 
 declared without the consent of the whole of Con- 
 gress. This entirely falls to the ground if my 
 views are right, that all treaties like this are inoper- 
 ative till a law of Congress passes to carry them 
 into effect. For then, before its validity is perfected 
 so as to produce war, the whole of Congress assents. 
 Even in England, an act of Parliament is necessary 
 to give effect to some treaties, as was held here in 
 Jay's treaty in 1796; and in other treaties after the 
 late war — as well as in the treaties for purchasing 
 Louisiana and the Floridas. Whenever money is 
 to be paid, or officers appointed, and a territorial gov- 
 ernment organized, an act of Congress is indispensa- 
 ble to complete its operations. Hence, without going 
 into the question, how wide a range of discretion 
 exists in passing or not passing such an act, war is 
 not declared, nor waged, till Congress choses to do it 
 by a subsequent act. If, before that, it is commenced 
 against us wrongfully, as it may be on this or any 
 other occasion. Congress still retains the power to 
 repel it or negotiate. On the very theory upon the 
 other side, the act of the President and Senate alone, 
 so far as regards war, is beyond its authority, and 
 negatory by the constitution. How, then, can the 
 President and Senate alone make or wage a war? 
 
 ' The law of Texns, including in her claim more 
 than she actually occupied, doubtless originated very inno- 
 cently in the folio"ving section of the compact by Santa An- 
 na with President Burnet in 1S36, agreeing solemnly that 
 Texas sliould extend not only to the mo\ith of the Rio del 
 Norte, but thence to it.s source: 
 
 ".5tli. That the following be, and the same are hereby, es- 
 tablished and made the lines of demarcation between the two 
 republics of Mexico and of Texas, to wit: The line shall 
 commence at the estuary or mouth of the Rio Grande, on 
 the western bank thereof, and shall pursue the same bank 
 up the said river, to the point where the river assumes the 
 name of the Rio Bravo del Norte, from which point it shall 
 proceed on the said western bank to the head waters, or 
 source of said river— it being understood that the terms Rio 
 Grande and Rio Bravo del Norte apply to and designate one 
 and the same stream. From the source of said river, the 
 principal h«ad branch bein^ taken to ascertain that source, 
 a due north line shall be run until it shall intersect the boun- 
 dary line established and described in the treaty negotiated 
 by and between the government of Spain and the govern- 
 ment of tlie United States of the Noith: which line was sub- 
 sequently transferred to and adopted in tlie treaty of limits 
 made between the government of Mexico and that of the 
 United States; and from this point of intersection the line 
 shall I.G the same as was made and established in and by 
 the several treaties above-mentioned, to continue to the 
 mouth or outlet of the Sahine river, and from thence to the 
 Gulf of Mexico."— (See 2 Foofs His., 314, compact between 
 Texas and Santa Anna in 1836 ) 
 
 And some articles in the newspapers, very ablv written, 
 in 1929, had also insisted, that the country- ceded and lost 
 by us in 1S19. contained -225,000,000 of acres. Whereas the 
 whole land claimed by Texjs, rightfully or wrongfully, and 
 in actual possession or not, and whether too much or too 
 little, IS only 203.320,000 acres according to the Olhcial map 
 before u--. and that number of acres claiiiied in 18iQ, cannot 
 be obt.iined without going to the utmost limit of the boun- 
 daiies -s.n.-.' laid down on this mip, on the South and North 
 and East a« well as V/est. 
 
 and how ill-grounded are the fears that, by ratifying^ 
 the treaty, the Senate compromises the country in 
 hostilities? 
 
 The Senate and President can form a treaty of 
 alliance; but the country cannot, and will not, there- 
 by be plunged into a war, unless Congress assent- 
 So, on the other hand, they form a treaty of neu- 
 trality or of peace, and yet the country will not 
 and cannot be retained in a state of peace, if Con- 
 gress pleases to declare war. — (See 4 Jefferson:'* 
 Life, page 498.) 
 
 At the utmost, in this case, the President and th* 
 Senate cannot adopt any thing which does not exist; 
 and, therefore, as only a liability exists to war» 
 they can adopt but a liability, and not war itself; 
 and that liability is neither just in itself, nor con- 
 tenanced by the rest of the world. The utmost 
 which the ratification accomplishes, even were 
 the treaty operative without an act of Congress, ia 
 to adapt or expose ourselves to the state of things 
 which exists now between Mexico and Texas. 
 
 We will soon endeavor to shojv that this state ia 
 now but CONSTRUCTIVE war; that its actual renewal 
 would be unjust; that the conducting of it, if as for- 
 merly, is contrary to the law of nations; and hence, 
 so far from assuming what is either dangerou.s oc 
 just, we shall perform a national duty to interfere 
 in this matter, by negotiation, and hazard some- 
 thing if necessary, to prevent a recurrence of more 
 such bloodshed, as well as restore tranquillity and 
 durable peace to this quarter of the globe. 
 
 Some have magnified the danger of war, and evert 
 proclaimed it as war itself, that the President has or- 
 dered a portion of our army and navy to the points 
 which will be most exposed in case Mexico com- 
 mences threatened hostilities against us, or the re- 
 newal of old ones against Texas. 
 
 But these movements are all v/ith a view to the 
 preservation of peace, rather than the waging of 
 war. They are precautionary and prudent, rathec 
 than belligerent. The officers are in all cases 
 expressly forbidden to engage in hostilities, but 
 required merely to watch and report facts. The 
 same was done in 1829, by General Jackson. — 
 (See 2 Kennedy, 242, 265, and 276.) And in 
 1837, by Mr. Van Buren, and at the East on the 
 disputed territory, as well as in Texas beyond 
 the Sabine, The chief difference is, that in this 
 case, more forbearance arid caution appear, and 
 not a single line of boundary is allowed to be crossed, 
 nor a gun fired, without authority of Congcess, nor 
 a single dollar of new expense incurred. — (See the 
 official document.) In 1810 we had the first editioa 
 of this cry of war, for marching troops. That was 
 a much stronger case; for Mr. Madison theft 
 marched troops into a disputed territory, and usedl 
 force to get possession of it. He was met with the 
 same complaint of war and assumption of the powers 
 of the two Houses. 
 
 Mr. Horsey, one of the ablest federalists, -ex- 
 claimed: i 
 
 "Sir. what is the nature and import of this proclamation^' 
 In my humble conception — both legislative and wa.T~wai-^< 
 because it directs the occupation of this territory by a mili-- 
 tary force. The regular troops of the United' States are# 
 orderiid to march, and aid the militia if necessary. 
 
 "Leghlntii'e, by-annexing it to Orleans territory."- (SeM 
 Nat. Int. 1st January, 1810.) 
 
 But no impeachment was ever presumed on for 
 that or other supposed misbehavior, except that:. 
 James Madison, the great expounder and prticti- 
 tioner, under the constitution in our most try— . 
 ing times, was, by Cyrus King, denounced as, m hia ' 
 
 DliPUGA TF"] 
 
18 
 
 estimation, deserving a halter; and by Jo&iali duiocy, 
 who, 1 believe, obtained one vote, solitary and alone, 
 in favor of his impeachment. 
 
 The use of the army and navy by the executive, 
 jn time of peace, may often expose the country to 
 war; but it is not, and cannot be, a declaration of war 
 on our part, as that can only be made by Congress. 
 True, in 1831, the administration sent a part of the 
 navy around the globe, and attacked and burnt a 
 town at the antipodes; but it was not a declaration 
 of war; on the contrary, it was provident protection 
 in peace of our citizens and their commerce. And 
 though it might have been'deemed by others a cause 
 of war on us, and a matter of impeachment here, as 
 was threatened, yet it was, in truth, none the less 
 jight and justifiable, both under our own constitu- 
 tion and the laws of nations. I advised it then, and 
 gave the order, and would do it again, under like cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 The next and the most alarming objection, with 
 many, to its being our duty to take the cession of 
 Texas is, that we are thus astnuningan actual Vv-ar, 
 or are in danger of becoming involved in actual hos- 
 tilities. If this were the truth, it would then surely 
 behoove us not to risk these without counting the 
 cost, or finding, after careful examination, that our 
 duty to take the cession was, under ail the circum- 
 stances, paramount to all such dangers. 
 
 Though war be undoubtedly a great calamity, 
 standing by itself, yet it is often much preferable to 
 dishonor; is often expedient for self-preservation; 
 and, at times, is demanded by the highest obliga- 
 tions of national honor and duty. 
 
 Let us, then, first see whether the danger to which 
 we are exposed, by taking the cession, has hereto- 
 fore been deemed sufficient to prevent our taking it. 
 In 1825, Spain and Mexico were at war, and the 
 former in actual possession of the most important 
 fortress of the country; and in 1829 poured her 
 troops into Mexico in flagrante hello. And that state 
 of things viras even urged by our government as an 
 additional inducement to Mexico tdone to cede Tex- 
 as, rather than regarding it, as would seem now, an 
 insuperable obstacle to a proper cession without the 
 consent of both belligerents, or without our becoming 
 involved in hostilities, which it may not be our duty 
 to risk. 
 
 Some seem to doubt the existence of as much war 
 then as now, and would thus break the great and 
 acknowledged force of these tvi'O cases, as precedents 
 directly in point. 
 
 But how are the recorded facts.' 
 
 Beside many statements in the public press, cited 
 by the senator from Mississippi, showing the actual 
 -\\iM then, there are many other proofs. 
 
 Mr. Clav May lOih, 1825, while negotiating, 
 exhorted Russia to make Spain acknowledge 
 the independence of her colonics, and restore peace, 
 instead of the war then known to be raging. He 
 threatened that otherwise the provinces should 
 send privateers on the coast of Spain, and capture 
 Cuba, "towards terminating the existing contest be- 
 tween Spain and her colonics." — (Blount, 83 p.) He 
 ■urged the Emperor to lend his aid towards the ''con- 
 clusion oj the war between Spain and her colonies." — 
 (Letter to Middleton, 89 p., Aug. 27, 1825.) The 
 castifc of Ulloa-=-//te key of Mexico — was then in pos- 
 session of Spain; and yet no forbearance nor objec- 
 tions were then entertained on account of the claims, 
 interests, or complaints of Spain. 
 
 Further than this: how stood the ca.se in 1829? Then, 
 our Secretary speaks of the particularly threatening 
 
 attitude of Spain, and the "policy to part with a por- 
 tion to obtain means to defend the residue.— (p. 15, 
 House Doc, No. 40, Sept., 1837.) The Presi- 
 dent not only admitted the existence of actual 
 war with Spain in September, 1829, (Niles's Regis- 
 ter, 71,) but our government, beside the above argu- 
 ment, founded on the existence of hostilities, de- 
 spatched a naval force to the coast of Mexico to pro- 
 tect our commerce during the war. And the Mexi- 
 can Secretary of State subsequently, in a public 
 annunciation, made it a topic of complaint against 
 the United States, that our administration, under the 
 distractions and perils of their conflict with Spain, 
 or, to use his own words, while engaged "in repel- 
 ling the Spanish invasion, had pushed for a cession 
 of "Mexico, under the hope that Mexico v>'ould then 
 part wit!) Texas more readily." — (See the document 
 in Adams's speech in National Intelligencer of 19th 
 .July, 1838.) Yet no apprehension of being involved 
 in a war then obstructed our negotiations, and was 
 deemed sufficient to obviate our duty to obtain the 
 cession. Norwas any apprehension then felt that our 
 duty was violated by taking the cession from Mexico 
 during an actual war with Spain, and eight to ten 
 years before the latter made any recognition of , the 
 independence of the former. Nothing was commu- 
 nicated to Spain asking her consent; no offer was 
 made to her of compensation; nothing deprecated 
 as to her hostility. 
 • And who ever then heard, as now, that a purchase 
 from Mexico would be perfidious towards unof- 
 fending Spain? a breach of the solemnity of our 
 treaties with her? oran exposure of ourselves to the 
 condemnation of the civilized world, as grasping 
 and ambitious? 
 
 But aside from these precedents, shewing the 
 sense of duty which urged onward to this acquisi- 
 tion both Messrs. Adams and Clay, as well as 
 Jackson and Van Buren, notwithstanding the actu- 
 al war then raging, it may be well to ascertain 
 whether any actual war exists now, as well as 
 whether one has of late been waged in a manner to 
 justify its longer continuance, either against Texas, 
 or any power that may become allied to her. All 
 the categorical as.sertions, that an actual war has 
 been carried on by Mexico, for eight years past, 
 and with great vigor and success, (Mr. Choate,) 
 and in a humane form beyond even that pursued 
 usually by either England or France, are disprovec^ 
 not only by the ministers of Texas, entitled by 
 their stations to full credence, but by Mr. Webster 
 himself, in his gi-ave official character as Secretary 
 of State. 
 
 Let us read what he, as well as they, state on 
 the point of an actual war during that eight years: 
 
 "From the time of the battle of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, 
 to the pre.sent moment, Texas had exhibited the same ex- 
 ternal signs of national indejiendence as Mexico herself, 
 and Willi quite as much stability of government. Practical- 
 ly free aud independent, acknowledged as a political sov- 
 ereignty by the principal powers of the worW, no hostile 
 foot finding rest within her territory for six or sevon years, 
 and Mexico herself refraining lor all tlwi period from any 
 further attempt to re-establisli h«^r own authority over that 
 territory."— (Webster, July 1, If 42, io Thompson.) 
 
 Yet, in the face of this, thf senator from Massa- 
 chusetts [Mr. Choate] sjxiaksofthe "tremendous 
 vigor with which Mexio had carried on the war;" 
 and "her effective success;" and her "armed occu- 
 pation" of Texas. 
 
 Again, Mr. Webster says, after the battle of 
 St. Jacinto, "T/ie war was from that time at an end." 
 
 In another letter, (of April 5, 1842, Webster te 
 
19 
 
 Thompson, 4th Senate Document,No. 325, in 1842, 1 
 page 13,) he says: 
 
 "No elt'ort for the subjugation of Texas has been made 
 by Mexico from the time of tiie battle of St. Jacinto, on the 
 
 •ilstAi"il l'-'-' '"I'll f.i,. ,-mMT,i,.n>-,Miifni oftlie present 
 
 year; ' " ,, ; ■ < . f i. uiaintaincd an 
 
 indej'r. .1-0, and made 
 
 treati! - i .i kept aloof all 
 
 Agam Mr. Webster says to Mr. Thomson, 31st 
 July, 1843: 
 
 "It iscont-v :, i ... .:.... ,i|., Ml t.. I,. .M-.."''*" 
 
 IS A MOI K. m ......! . ,.; Mr 
 
 distant, i:nle'; ' ' '• ' ' 'i ' x. ■ 
 
 orshallsliou l-,< ■ ; . ' ■' :, .'.;...'' /'.'r ;.'■(!/- 
 \wUli rcsjiccltjitc /unci." 
 
 ^ Fhially, 22d June, 1842, Mr. WclistertoThomp- 
 ison, says: "Nothing is more probable than that the 
 retieiocd of the war between Mexico and Texas, 
 'wou]d,"&c. 
 
 He states "the President's clear and strong con- 
 viction that the war is not only v.f^clfsf;, but hopeless, 
 without uiUihiiiblr obJcL't; injurious to both partic.'^, 
 and likely to be, in its contiiuuuice, annoijins: and vex- 
 atious to other connnerLial naiiou;::.'" 
 
 This is quite enoiii';li from one Se<'ret;u-y, and he 
 the senator's political friend, to ;ihow the impotent, 
 and irregular, ami censurable character of the lio.stil- 
 ities as designed Ibr any rcconqucst. Similar were 
 the views of his successor. 
 
 Mr. Upshur to Mr. Thompson, 27th July, 1843, 
 says, also, that "the present hostilities are not regular 
 and hardly civilized; tend only to harass and not 
 subdue. Mexico should assert and maintain her 
 supremacy, or generously abandon the claim." 
 
 "She has a right to reconquer, but her right must 
 be enforced scasonubly, or be abandoned for the peace 
 and cunnncrce of the rest of the world." 
 
 The views of the Texian authorities correspond 
 with this: "Never, since eighteen hundred and thir 
 ty-six, has Mexico attempted anything of the char- 
 acter of a general invasion of Texas, or conducted 
 the war upon any plan calculated to test the superi- 
 ority of the two nations upon the field of battle, and 
 bring the war* to a close by the arbitrament of arms." 
 — (Confidential document, 12th and 15th pp.) 
 
 How justly, then, can it be said: 
 
 "Scarce a hostile foot, even from Mexico, pi-ofaned hor 
 soil, from JbGtJ, wlien Santa Anna publicly stipulated will) 
 her to end the war, to \3i-2." 
 
 This, if no more, was to be expected, after his 
 pledges and compacts. The express engEigement 
 made by Santa Anna, May 18th, 1836, to put an 
 end to the war, and obtain the recognition of her in- 
 dependence by Mexico, is at length in Niles's Re- 
 gister, 414 p., for Aug., 1836.— (2 Kennedy, 233.) 
 See his reasons for it, in his letter to Houston and 
 conversation here. — (Niles's Register, 9th, and 23 
 A p., 1842.) The compliance with it sijice, so far as 
 regards any regular war, or one in any degree com- 
 petent or designed for a reconquest, is the only apol- 
 ogy he can have for not surrendering himself and 
 his troops again to Texas, for a failure by Mexico 
 to fulfil the rest of it. Honor and morality forbid 
 his conduct in not returning, unless he intended vir- 
 tually to end the war, in pursuance of his engage- 
 ment. 
 
 The declarations made by him in this city confess 
 all this. So those made after his reaching home, and 
 when free from any suspicion of fear or duress, con- 
 firm the same aspect of the case. In a letter which 
 he addressed to General Jackson, dated at Colum- 
 bia, Texas, July 4, 1836, he says: 
 
 'When I offered to treat with this government, I wascon- 
 
 riitD'fl rhi:t ,7 was nseliss for Mexico to continue the war. f 
 
 /(■.'' r .,.<. ,.. ; ,7,;,.. ,,.,,;;,.;,. ^ •■ ii< : i i'r^ l!:c country, which I 
 
 i'/ , . . I I . i.Ki much zeal for 
 
 til- • .. • : ■■ '■' '■'■ ■'•r.yi^i'r.vr which i« 
 
 to ler/iiinatc liiis ijueitionby jwlitical nc^otiiiiioii.'' 
 
 During the eight years past, and especially withifl 
 the last two, at times, there have br. n a paper war 
 and marauding; and, to put an i n-l in I'lc irregulair- 
 and occasional incursions thai Ikim' sdnniimes hap- 
 pened during that period, an armistice has been pro- 
 posed by Mexico, which, being exceptionable in ita 
 terms, is reported never to have been ratified by 
 Texas. So that the question (whether it may be 
 aided by^ an armistice, which admits a temporary 
 peace, and, in the case between Holland and Spain, 
 lasted twelve years, and was succeeded by a dura- 
 ble peace; or may be embarrassed by it, as some 
 suppose, by its implying the existence of a previous 
 war) is probably free from this difficulty; and if 
 Texas is taken by us now, we take with her neither 
 an existing war nor probably any existing armLc- 
 tice.- 
 
 The documents communicated to us lately, show 
 that the artnistice, so much talked of, has never been 
 ratified by the two goverimients; and it is evident 
 that no regular war existed, to be suspended by qb. 
 armistice. 
 
 The Texian ministers, speaking of the supposes! 
 armistice, say: 
 
 "The negotiations having thus terminated, and this agree- 
 ment lieing held to l)e null and void, there is at present no 
 subsisting arrangement of any character between Mexic<B 
 and Texas." 
 
 Oiu- own minister at Mexico entertains the same 
 views: 
 
 ■■Mkxic). Feb. -.2, 1S.14, 
 
 "T am informCil ll; t i'' m i;.iri;ition with Texas forpeace, 
 is not only broken oli, I ui tl.ui the armistice has also beea 
 suspended. Vou will rcnieinlier that, from the beginning 
 of this matter, I expressed the opinion that nothing wouM 
 come of it. It was only a device on the part of Santa Anna 
 to relieve him from the diflicully in which he had involved 
 liimself by his threats and promises of reconquering Texas, 
 which he knows perfectly well is impossible. There may 
 l>e oilier marauding forays, like that of General Well, re- 
 treating more r;i|>;iily than they advanced. But as to any 
 legular and reasonably sufficient force invading the coun- 
 try, the thing is inipos'il)le, and will not be attempted. 
 They cannot raise money to sujiport such an army two 
 months. 
 
 ",Vfy opinion is, notwithstanding all their vaporing an<I 
 gasconade, that the most agreeable thing to Santa Anna 
 would be an authoritative interposition of our government 
 to put an end to the war, as he would then say that we were 
 too strong for them to contenil with." 
 
 An arnii.-t;ce, when made by governments, and 
 not military men as this was, acknowledges the sep- 
 arate national existence and rights of each, and thus 
 virtually surrenders the point in controversy. Suck 
 was that with Holland and Spain. 
 
 To make any state of things a war for the pur- 
 pose of reconquest, it must be with a will and a force 
 adequate to the object, or apjiarently so. It musC 
 be something beside proclamations, and the occa- 
 sional murder of non-combatants and piratical plun- 
 dering, it must be public/orce, and not, as Cowper 
 says, words, or "« dueihi the form of a dibalc.'''' 
 
 Grotius (book 1, chapter 1, page 38) defines war, 
 from Cicero, to be "a dispute by force." Kn^ 
 though custom may call the state or disposition w 
 
20 
 
 remonstrances against it from the rest of the world 
 as exist in the present case. I will select only three 
 
 use force a war, yet common sense seems to look 
 to the act of force as alone real war. 
 
 But the entire cessation of hostilities from 1836 to | or four cases. 
 1842, and the occasional, as well as contemptible in- ' In 1685, after several years of revolution in Hol- 
 cursions since, indicate the abandonment of any ' land against Spain, and only five years after the 
 war of reconquest, and are not that species of hos- j declaration of independence by the former, dueen 
 tilities, wliich, in their character, keep up a claim | Elizabeth, by a treaty, loaned money and troops t» 
 of right, or can be recognised on any principles of j aid her, and took a cession in mortgage of several 
 national law, as precluding other nations to consider i towns and fortresses to indemnify her. This was 
 
 "^ ' ' ' 1 . - . r-. . ^^^ 
 
 after 
 Spain chose to involve her in the general 
 waging, when none could, probably, avail anything | war, on this or any other account. — (See 2 Davis's 
 of good to Mexico, and when none have occurred at i History of Holland, 175 and 235.) 
 all adequate to reconquest for near half a generation, j Again, in 1658, Dunkirk was conquered from 
 If, as the senator from Missouri correctly stated Spain by France and England, and given to the lat- 
 
 nationai law, as preciuQing otner nations to consider i towns and fortresses to indemnify her. This \ 
 Texas, both de jure and de facto, a sovereign State, sixty-three years before their independence was 
 Much less are we likely, by a union with Texas, I knowledged by Spain: and it was five years a 
 to be involved in actual hostilities, when none are I that before Spain chose to involve her in the gen« 
 
 on the 1st instant, Mexico is utterly unable to con- 
 quer Texas, (the opposite opinion from that ex- 
 pressed by the senator from Massachusetts,) if an 
 invader would, by her own resources, be driven 
 like chaif before the whirlwind, and a defeat of him 
 be deemed a mere holyday, pray inform me what kind 
 
 ter. In 1662, October 17, it was ceded by Charles 
 II to Louis XIV by treaty, and by the 8th article it 
 was stipulated, that if the King of Spain, from 
 whom it was taken "by right of arms," should try 
 to regain it in two years, England was to furnish "a 
 considerable fleet" to defend it, but none after two 
 
 of a petty, wretched, uncertain war do we risk by ' years. — (1 Collection of Treaties, p. 121.) And 
 uniting with Texas? and how little it should stand I did the aid ever become necessary? 
 in the way of our high duty to take the cession? Again, in 1712, Denmark, in a war with Sweden, 
 What kind of a contemptible war do we assume or took the Duchy of Bremen and Verden from the 
 risk, either in this way, or by presenting any con- ' latter, who had held it under a treaty since 1648, 
 stitutional aid if invaded, while the ratification of ' and sold and ceded it to the Elector of Hanover, 
 the treaty is pending? Who believes any such in- : who was then George I of England, and who held 
 vasion will be attempted, now or liereafter, when I it without Sweden ever presuming to make it a cause 
 so disastrous will be the consequences to Mexico — | of war with Hanover or England. — (2 vol. Puflfer- 
 even by Texas alone? dorfs Summary, p. 202, 246, 256-8.) 
 
 The danger in the path of our action is, not j Lastly, and directly in point, Guatemala was 
 only uncertain, remote, and small, but it is of a acknowledged independent in 1824, under the name 
 mere constructive war, that has been prosecuted | of "United Provinces of Central America." Chia- 
 without just cause, and which both France and Eng- | pus, which had before belonged to Guatemala, chose 
 land, as well as ourselves, have informed her ought j to act independent of Guatemala, and against her 
 not to be prosecuted longer. England, since consent, at length offered to unite with Mexico, 
 1840, has been under obligations by a treaty of me- and was admitted, and remains there. This was in 
 diation with Texas to procure an abandonment of 1835. — (Seep. 113 and 117, 2 Ken.) So in private 
 the claims of Mexico. Mr. Pakenham, April 19th, ! life, and by the common law, a party in possession 
 1844, in confidential Doc, No. 8, says: ] of land can convey and deliver it properly, without 
 
 "It is a well-known fact that her (Great Britain's) most 1 imputations of fraud and conspiracy, as lavished 
 zealous exertions have been directed towards the comple- [ here, and outstanding claims by third persons 
 tion of that independence by obtaining its acknowledgement j^^^gj j^e abandoned, or peacefully prosecuted again.st 
 at the hands ol the onlj- power by which it was seriously ., • j . t i\/f .• i i 
 
 disputed " } f j j i ,jjg j^g^ occupant and trespasser. In Martin, b. 1, 
 
 n ', u 1 .- r T- „ „ t- v,„ I c- 1, and b. 8, c. 5, the true doctrine is laid down. 
 
 But why such zealous exer ions for Texas, it she ^j^^^'^ g^^^^ j^ ^,.^^ ^;^j sovereign, if it governs itself 
 
 was not right? Again Lord Aberdeen says: 
 
 "We (Great Britain) put ourselves forward in pressing 
 the government of Mexico to acknowledge Texas as inde- 
 pendent."— (Letter 2nth December, 184.3, ditto 40th page ) 
 
 ereign, .. .. ;, 
 
 and acknowledges no superior but God. Then 
 others may not only acknowledge such a State as 
 sovereign and independent, but take grants of terri- 
 tory from it, and even aid it, if its cause is just, and 
 it is in possession. The opposite party will usually 
 complain; and, unless policy forbid, will at times 
 seek to recover the land, or retaliate; bat seldom, 
 if ever, in protracted troubles like this. If Texas 
 i had injured us, and refused redress, since her inde- 
 
 Why press Mexico to abandon her cause 
 was correcL' 
 
 If Mexico, then, will not abandon any thought 
 of further hostilities — if she will not listen to the 
 advice of forei|n power to acknowledge Texian in- 
 dependence — if she persists obstinately in disturb- 
 ing the peace and commerce of the rest of the world pendence was recognised in 1837, could we not 
 in the Gulf of Mexico and its neighborhood— if she rightfully have made war on her, and, if conquering, 
 chooses to rely on the logic rf kings, the xiltima ratio \ hold her territory, if possible, as against Mexico 
 regum, rather than the'judgment of the chief pow- and the whole world? Surely. And this settles 
 ersof the civilized world,— it will not be our fault, the whole question of the rff JHrc right of cession 
 but hers, if any further hostilities ensue. The for- | or transfer; for conquest is only one mode of trans 
 tune of war must then be ours, and craven, indeed, ; fer, rightfully, by the law of nations. We have 
 -would be our spirit to flinch from it. I obtained indemnity from her by one treaty since 
 
 But if we turn a moment to the history of the I 1836, and established even boundaries with her by 
 past, we shall find that nations generally have not I another. But how this has been done with her 
 made cessions in a time of war by the party in full ! rightfully, ami not Mexico, if Mexico is the de jure 
 possession — a ground of war upon the purchaser; | government, it would be difficult to explain, 
 and much less have they been accustomed to do it i Regarding the, territory of Texas as conquered 
 after such intervals of hostility— such protrttctcd ; by its pei^ple from Mexico, which some do, then 
 feebleness in the contest— such numerous and high , their sovereignty to it is completed by the !ullas8etl 
 
21 
 
 of its population; and their cession is A'alid by a 
 like assent of them as well as their government. — 
 (2 Biirlemaqne, p. 309.) 
 
 In war, the title of all property seized on either, 
 side is considered to be in the actual possession; 
 and, if afterwards sold to a third person, or 
 third power, the title passes, and it passes beyond 
 recovery, if of movabici; and if of immovaljlcs, 
 cannot be regained, unless by consent, or unless the 
 original owner chooses to risk for it war, (1 Burle- 
 maque, 297,) and succeeds in the war.— (2 Whea- 
 ton,269.) 
 
 Nor is it any breach of treaty with Mexico to 
 take such a cession, in such a case. It is the ri^ht 
 and usage of nations to do it. They must deal with 
 Texas as a de jure as well as de facto government — 
 as of full age, and possessing in the family of na- 
 tions equal rights and power with other nations. 
 The doctrine jits posHminu does not apply un- 
 less the original owner gets into possession, (2 
 Wheaton, 112;) and a "modification of the rule 
 may be required in practical application" even then, 
 if a civil revolution is mixed up. — (Grotius, b. 3, 
 ch. 6, sec. 4.) But there is no breach of treaty, 
 there being no guaranty of territory in any of our 
 treaties with Mexico, though once our ministers 
 were instructed to make such a guaranty to Spain j 
 of her territories west of the Mississippi. Yet it is i 
 coinpetent for Mexico to make the cession and union ' 
 of Texas with us, until her claims are relinqui.shed, 
 a cause of hostilities towards us; though, under all 
 the circumstances of the riglit of the contest, being i 
 in Texas, as before explained, it is )iot a just cause. 
 Where a revolt has occurred, audits independence 
 been acknowledged, third powers may treat it, 
 when in possession of separate sovereignty, as in- 
 dependent in all respects; and if former masters 
 coinplain, it is without cattse. So it is competent 
 to aid. such power while ni "possession of inde- 
 pendence," as we must if uniting with Texas; but 
 if the secession be unjust, the old masters may com- 
 plau), and resort to force, "as policy or anger may 
 prompt," but not if secession .be just. — (Martin's 
 Law of Nations, p. 80, b. 3, ch. 2, sec. 10.) 
 
 But though exposed in such case to some belliger- 
 ent hazards, they are usually encountered when, 
 duty prompts; and much more readily if the hazards, 
 as here, are remote, doubtful; founded, as here, in 
 injustice, on the part of the ancient claimant, and 
 prosecuted in a barbarous and unjustifiable manner. 
 
 Let me not be misunderstood. In one aspect of 
 the case, as all the territory of Texas is ceded, and 
 her government united with ours, we may be held 
 jointly responsible for all that Texas is m)w liable 
 to severally. 
 
 I am free to admit that, though actual hostilities 
 do not now exist, and of course will not now be as- 
 sumed by us if uniting with Texas, yet Mexico 
 can obstinately persist in claiming her allegiance 
 forever — may refuse to recognise her independence 
 for centuries, and tlireaten everlasting war. But 
 before actually recommencing hostilities, she will 
 be likely to look a little to public opinion and her 
 true policy, under all the facts of the case, and will 
 probably come to the conclusion, that a war, re- 
 viewed after all the circumstances just recapitulated, 
 can hardly be deemed a jiist war, or receive any 
 countenance from the intelligence and civilization 
 of the rest of the world. It is certainly preferable 
 jibtto come in collision with any nation, under any 
 pietensions, however ill-founded, if they can be 
 overcome by reasonable remonstrance or friendly 
 
 solicitation. But if all these have been exhausted 
 in vain by us and the leading powers of Europe, to 
 persuade Mexico to recognise the independence of 
 Texas, the safety of international intercourse and 
 the claims of humanity will compel the rest of the 
 world to perforni their duties to others, and sustain 
 their own national rights. 
 
 Under all the circumstances, then, we not only 
 possess rights to secure our frontiers more effectually 
 in both peace and war, and protect our institutions 
 and commerce from all disturbances; but it is our 
 duty to do it when voluntary and amicable oportu- 
 nities exist, and we should beside be justly exposed 
 to severe censure, as the leading power on the 
 American continent, if we longer neglect to extend 
 more decisive influence in favor of a weaker, and 
 wronged people, our neighbors and kin; and to in- 
 terpose effectually to put an end to inhuman aggres- 
 sions upon them, and to restore peace, commerce, 
 and civilized conduct on the theatre of the new 
 world . ' 
 
 The rules of national law are clear on this point; 
 and in the first place, as to the interposition for stop- 
 ping a contest, which has been conducted with in- . 
 iiumanity. 
 
 I fearlessly assert, that if the condition of ' 
 things which has existed since 1836, is to be digni- 
 fied by the name of a public war, between Mexico . 
 and Texas, it has been conducted in such a preda- 
 tory and uncivilized manner, that if, by a friendly 
 union with Texas, we became exposed to it, and it 
 is renewed, we shall perform a great public, chris- > 
 tian, and international duty by thus taking it on ourr ' 
 selves and ending it. ' 
 
 Mixed up with this, is often the consideration, 
 tliat the contest has been carried on so long as to 
 disturb too much the peace, commerce, and interests 
 of the rest of the world; and in this way, tends not 
 only to tJie gradual destruction of one or both of the 
 belligerents; but sacrifices the mutual rights of others 
 to free trade and tranquillity, and makes them vic- 
 tims to foolish obstinacy on the part of the comba- 
 tants. 
 
 This is unreasonable, and may, by compacts be- 
 tween other nations, or the niagn.ar.iuioiis impulses 
 of one, be ended if jtiacticable. 
 
 Let us first listei; to what Cliancclior Kent says 
 against such ini.s'iclKLvicn- in war: In J Kent's Com. 
 90, he denounces, «.>< contrary to national law, the 
 "making slaves of prisoners." — (Cites Grotius for 
 this and Montesquieu, as saying "that the laws of 
 war gave no other power over a captive than to keep 
 him safely,") So page 91 — plunder of private prop- 
 erty on land is forbidden in war; and especiaJly yon 
 are "not to disturb the cultivators of the soil.^'' 
 
 Hear Mr. Webster, also, on that point, (in Doc. 
 10, confidential,) in his letter to Thompson, part of 
 which I have before cited for another purpose: 
 
 "You will tjike occasion to converse with the Mexican 
 Secretary, in a friendly manner, and represent to him how 
 greatly it w oulil coutrilmte to the advantage as well as the 
 honor of Mexico, to abstain altogether from predatory in- 
 cursions and other similar modes of warfare. Mexico has 
 an undoubted right to resubjugate Texas, if she can, so far 
 as other States are concerned, by the common and lawful 
 means of war. But other States are interested^and espe- 
 cially the tJnited State-, a near neighbor to both parties, are 
 interested— not pnly in the restoration of peace betweenthem, 
 but also in the manner in which the war shall' be conducted, 
 if it shall continue. These suggestions may suffice for what 
 you are requested to say, amicably and -kindly, to the Mex- 
 ican secretary, a,tprt;sent;, but I jnay add, for" your inforni- 
 ation, that it is. in the contemplation' bf this government to 
 remonkrale in a, k.ork formal manner with^Uexico, at a pe- 
 riod not far distant, unless sihe shall con^fpto make peace 
 
22 
 
 ■K'ith Texas, or shall show the disposition and ability to 
 prosecnte the war with respectable forces." 
 
 Let me explain how the remonstrance in a 
 ■more f<yrnial manner against the Turkish mode of 
 waging war in Greece upon women and children, 
 farmers and vineyards, in 1827, (427,) was conduct- 
 ed by the great European powers. It was by lay- 
 ing the English, French, and Russian fleets along- 
 side of the semi-barbarians, from whose decks the 
 javaging troops had been disgorged, and blowing up 
 and otherwise destroying 4 sail-of-the-line, 15 frigates, 
 i5 corvettes, 9 brigs, 3 fire-ships, and numerous 
 transports; being the whole Ottoman fleet of near 100 
 vessels, and a loss of human life unprecedented in 
 Biaritime contests. — (2 Blount, 428. ) 
 
 Hear Mr. W. again on the right for us to inter- 
 fere: 
 
 Indeed, although the right or the safety of none of their 
 
 - -•■'•—- -" ""nocrncd, yet if, in a war waged'be- 
 
 I- ',i!, i!ii lilliii;^, enslaving, or cru- 
 
 '.I ' . 1 .:i!-rd, the United States 
 
 I ,.^11 as their rigftt, to re- 
 
 '. . w\i.\.'' siicli a departure from 
 
 J, lit) and civili/atioQ. These princi- 
 
 iiriples, essential alike to the welfare 
 
 1 l!ie preservation of which all nations 
 
 , ond interests. But their duty to in- 
 
 rative, in cases a/i'ectiug their own citi- 
 
 ewn citizens 
 Sween two ne 
 eily treating > 
 ■SFOuld feel it 
 anonstratc a:; 
 Xhp. prill. ■:.. . 
 pies aiv ... 
 s>\ all i.:r « 
 l».aTe, tin;, . ' • 
 terfere beco;ii 
 
 "It is, therc.'bi-e. that the govf 
 protests against the hii'vK-hip^ 
 Santa Fe p"risoners hav.' ' . •" -\ 
 this treatment in the ;i; ■ •: i; 
 tions: in the 
 
 »nt of the United States 
 onii'ltie^ to which the 
 
 •<' I i' I. rotests against 
 . ,, the law of na- 
 il' . !!: i!it' name of civ- 
 
 Slization, and the spirit ol tlie age: in liie luiine of all repub- 
 lics; in the name of liberty herself, enfeebled and dishon- 
 ored by all cruelty and all excess; in the name and for the 
 lienor of tliis whole hemisphere; it protests emphatically 
 and earnestly against practices belonging only to barbarous 
 people, in barbarous times. 
 
 "Every nation, on being received, at her own request, 
 into the circle of civilized governments, must understand 
 Shat she not onlv atteins rights of sovereignty, nvd the 
 niignity of national character, but that she binds herself 
 also to the strict and faithful observance of all those prin- 
 ciples, laws and usages, which have obtained cun-ency 
 among civilized states, and which have for their object the 
 mitigatiou of the miseries of war."— (Webster, April 5, 
 
 "\o community can be allowed to enjoy the benefit of 
 national character in modern times, without submitting to 
 all the duties which that character imposes. A Christian 
 people who exercise sovereign power, who make treaties, 
 Esaintain diplomatic relations with other States, and who 
 should yet refuse to conduct its military operations accord- 
 ing to the usages universally observed by such states, 
 would present "a character singularly inconsistent and 
 anomalous.'"— (Webster, April .5, 1342.) 
 
 Let us stop, then, if possible, by this alliance with 
 Texas, the ferociou.'s and cruel course of Mexico; her 
 barbarous warfare on women and children; the 
 letting loose of Indian butchery and conflagration; 
 {he assaults by a convict banditti for plunder; the 
 shooting, in cold blood, of prisoners of war, or im- 
 Kiuring then in dungeons and chains. I would re- 
 wiember that Lord Chatham appealed to the very 
 Japcstry on llie walls of Parliament to frown on 
 llhem for an indulgence in any such barbarous prac- 
 tices, as the portrait of the father of his country, on 
 that wall, would now frown on us, if we justified 
 such practices. 
 
 Belligerents have no right to ask from neutrals 
 respect to belligerent conduct, unless it be of a 
 Christian character, and such as is tolerated by the 
 laws of civilized nations. But, on the contrary, 
 they are justified in an armed neutrality, or in 
 leagues, or alliances, to put an end to such inhu- 
 manities, as well as to their longer disturbance of the 
 sympathies, commerce, and peace of other nations. 
 But enoughAj to the principles, applicable to 
 
 such a case, which justify us in risking even war if 
 necessary to end these outrages. But I regret that 
 one senator [Mr. Choate] has denied the existence 
 of such atrocities on the part of Mexico, and has 
 treated her as a most republican and "imo^mffitif " 
 power.* 
 
 I;ideed, sir, Mexico has been eulogized as a na- 
 tion that has carried on a constant and humane 
 war with Texas; and, at the same time, with much 
 skill and success. What, sir.' The success of eight 
 millions of people against one-third of a minion;and, 
 after seven years, have not regained a single acre of 
 land; but lost armies and chiefs by capture, and im- 
 plored the clemency and release of them from the 
 handful of lion hearts and eagle eyes and brave 
 arms which, nerved by freedom, have stood up 
 valiantly against oppression till the present moment! 
 
 But let us see how the facts accord witii that sena- 
 tor's views. The evidence as to the moral and 
 civilized conduct of Mexican warfare, as described 
 by Mr. Van Zandt oflicially, and whose high and 
 recognised station here entitles him to full credence, 
 is this: 
 
 "Mexico has been depredating upon the properly of our 
 exposed and defenceless frontier, murderiirg the inhabitants 
 in cold bloiiii, or hirciiii: thera away into a loathsome and too 
 often fatal o i iti\ .i\ , imitiag the numerous tribes of hostile 
 Indians, w Im n -;.(.■ ilmi'jj our northern frontier, to plunder 
 our exposeil Mttii.iiMiit.-. stimulating them to the most cruel 
 and barbarous massacies and inhuman butcheries even of 
 our defenceless women and children, and to commit every 
 excess of savage warfare." — (Con. Doc, pp. 12, 15., Van 
 Zandt to Upshur.) 
 
 Listen, next, on the facts, to Mr. Webster. In a 
 letter to Mr. Thompson, he speaks of (31 January, 
 1843) '■'■predcdorij incursions in which the proclama- 
 tion and promises of the Mexican commander are 
 flagrantly violated, con-combatants seized and de- 
 tained as prisoners of war, and private property used 
 and destroyed. Yet the senator from Massachu- 
 setts [Mr. Choate] doubts all this, has no sympa- 
 thy nor complaint for this, but eulogizes Mex- 
 ico as humane, "unoffending," and successful 
 — yes, humane! Though v/hen Mr. Thomp- 
 son remonstrated with Mexico for predatory forays, 
 &c., tiie minister virtually confessed the whole by 
 vindicating it, in saying "f/ini ptisoners taken were 
 not entitled to any of the privileges of prisoners of 
 war; but that they were rebels, and would be so treat- 
 ed," &c.— (10 p. Doc, Confidential, March 14, 
 1843.) 
 
 Hear Mr. Webster further as to the facts about 
 some other prisoners: 
 
 ■■•i'li;' |H ;\ itioii. -.iiid i:,.li!.Mitirs t,. \\!iiiM\ they were sub- 
 irci ■ ! ..Ml I 1 ,■ tli'.'ii ■1,11 'li ni I ■„ .1 i.l,uii 111,! miles" to the city 
 111' ,\,r-..irri .1 111 ■ 111- .. .11 'ii'.i ■■:!• -■■ iMi i)f the year, were 
 !j(inih:.'i I'l.l ililic ', ',\i.i-.' .Mil w.'ll I'-i'.lii'nticated, it would 
 have bei-n incredible that they slioii d have been inflicted in 
 this age, and in a coMn(7-)/ calling iud' Christian and civil- 
 izfd. During many days they had no food,'and on others 
 
 *Inthe debate, it was averred that the rights of conscience 
 and religion had never been invaded by Mexico, and were 
 similar \inder both governments, and protected in one as 
 well as the other. With a view to correct this, and to show- 
 that Mexico, if unoftbnding, is not exactly the bulwark of 
 our religion, (at least of the Protestant i-eligion of the East.) 
 I add an extract from the constitution of each on this 
 subject: 
 
 "iN"o preference shall be given by law to any religious de- 
 nomination, or mode of worship, over another; but every 
 per.son shall be pennittcd to worship God according to the 
 dictates of his own consoicnre.'"—(Texian constitution, doc. 
 41.0, p. 16, H. of Hep.,, June -Mth, 1836) 
 
 '■The religion of the Mexican nation is, and will be per- 
 petually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will 
 |irotect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of 
 liny other whatever."— (Me.iiican constitution, 2 Kennedy's 
 History, p. 42-2.) 
 
23 
 
 only two ears of corn were distributed to each man. To I ernor in Florida, claimed from us the enforcement of 
 sustain life, therefore, thev were compelled to sell, on their jj^jg princinlfi 
 
 ^^them'^"t'';"""'tinj"tlfS?-' thc-'"^ ! Go^^^-^or Folch (December % 1810, 3 State Pa- 
 
 creased the iiumV) uhi.'i thry ulr-a.h cTjhiriNriiom t'\]>o- 1 pers, 396) asks our aid to expel insurgents, as "tlj& 
 sure to the cold. .Most .In iMiin) i.i ,ill. l;o\vi'\fT, s(\ era! oi | United States, who profess the exercise of equity, 
 
 1,1; up 
 
 ir; thrust into 
 liuined to them 
 
 them, disabled by sirLn- . :,n ! - ;:. r 
 
 with the others, were -l> li : ;,.i ; 
 
 cation. Those who >ii 1 
 
 many ofthem afflictcl .viTi 1 I'l, •■ 
 
 whose hf^alth was no'liroken down 1 
 
 as the public law reiiuires, but in a 11 
 
 dictive, and with a degree of severity 
 
 usually invlicted by the miriiiipal ><•■ 
 
 ized and Christian St n- ; 1; > :: mc 
 
 appear to have been r:' i ■ ; ^ 
 
 the same dunsieon with ", -^ 
 
 in pairs, and when al!",. 
 
 airof heaven, requiri.l, <- ■ .,,,.,,,. ,,, 1,,. 
 
 bor, beneath the lash ()!:■ : ' ■■' ,..1 iin'ih- 
 
 works of that country . ' 
 
 Thousjh the senator from Massachusetts may I'.is- 
 credit all the enormities so feelingly described I ly 
 his friend, the late Secretary of State, and may think 
 the hostilities to be now humane and successful, and 
 Texas, if not protected or ceded to us, likely, ere 
 long, to be reconquered by Mexico, can he, on re- 
 flecUon, think of that event with so much apparent 
 and unmingled satisfaction.' What, sir.' Our breth- 
 ren and children, decoyed there by new and liberal 
 colonization laws of Mexico, and then stripped of 
 
 their privileges, their constitution violated, and their j lish. It is a proniin 
 rights of conscience invaded, and their Saxon blood ! consult, not only the ' 
 humiliated, and enslaved to Moor.5, Indians, and 1 nations," as an objei 
 mongrels.^ When prisoners of war and non-com- ! 122,) but tl 
 batants, are they to be plundered, shot, or imprison- | among the 
 
 cannot exempt themselves from taking part with 
 the party ^mjus!Iy oppressed.''^ In national, as well as 
 personal conflicts, the duty of others to interpose, 
 and ]irotect the weak and oppressed, is a principle 
 of human n.nture. — (1 Martin's Law of Nations, p. 
 .St). ) It is instinct. It is justified by reason; andsym- 
 patliy carried into action in such cases tends to enno- 
 ble our common origin and destination: and, if the 
 case is one even of doubtful character, humanity 
 turns the scales in favor of the weak. 
 
 The relief must, of course, be rendered against 
 the party in the wrong, as we have already showti 
 Mexico to be — not only on the American prin- 
 tiiMi'is of self-government, but on those of a just re- 
 
 sistance to her arbitrary 
 ized manner of her i':,, ' 
 of most of ChristenU'.i ; 
 conquer Texas. Tl;i' '' 
 the latter only dt fcn.siX' . 
 and forgets right, whil.' 
 either autliority, prix i!i : 
 as our fathers before ti,' 
 
 
 'f 
 
 and the uncivil- 
 •;. and the opinion . 
 rt'nrther effovts to 
 I'cen aggres.sive — , 
 rnicr feels power 
 li. latter has never asked 
 :, or treatment, but svich 
 f(i!;L;l;i aiid bled to estab- 
 i;:j. it in many treaties to 
 ni'in iianquiility of both 
 I Col. of Treaties, page 
 ghts of iiumanity and civilizatioa 
 St of the world. I am no alarmist, 
 in dungeonshke felons, and compelled to labor j nor shall I contribute to any panic debate; but, in 
 like slave's.' Is all Isis sympathy and patriotism to I my opinion, it is always the right, aiul at tunes the 
 tell them, if disliking that, they may submit to the j duty, of every nation to interpose, not only urge the 
 holy-alliance claims of Mexico, or take refuge un- 1 cessation from an unjust Vv-.u- like iluit of Mexico, 
 der the power of England— recolonized to the power 1 but, if need be, to form treaties, arid supply troop.s 
 their fathers defied, and resubjected to a monarchy j and means tor its su])jiressinn. I would dissuade 
 and established church.? I do not profess to use his ! from interference like that of the Floly Alliaiice, to 
 •words, but to show the tendency of his argument, j prevent a people from exercising tlie power of self- 
 Will the senator from Missouri concur with him in government. I woulii justify no Copenhagen 
 this view.' No, sir; no. In another part of his seizures of tlif vi -s^ U cf an unotl'cnding neutral. 
 speech, the .senator.from M'nssachusetts admits that Nor would 1 \ , i .' - i^mt the worid to distant 
 much blood is yet to be snift there. However near nations, to riil.i>s ijiiivuices concerning which 
 the reconquest appears to 'him under so vigorous a our knowledge was linuted, and with which neither 
 war of eight years by eight millions of people our interests nor tranquillity were much connected. 
 against two or three hundred thottsand; and if much i This would, in some cases, as it has with England, 
 more is to be so spilt, why ought not all of us to seek, 1 border on political quixotism. Buton my own con- 
 by the ratification of this treaty, to prevent the ca- 1 tinent — on my own frontier — as to a people of my 
 lamity and the unchristian stain of it on civilization, i own stock and faith — and ;\ territory once and for a 
 as well as save our kin from the ignoble bondage, as ! whole generation n;y nwn — ! wuultl not hesitate 
 I regard their resubjtigation, but the great bli-ssings, | to form a peaci-'f;;! a';!an. <■, and, il'i,-cd lie, to exer- 
 
 he seems to consider them, of an 
 by the/rce, enlightened, and wfifi/;. /I .'■■-- ','' a m ' 
 
 But there are other view.s (if lac i ; . ; .. 
 tions between Mexico and Texas, v. hnii k ma i i'.;c 
 reannexation not only free from exposure to any 
 actual or just war, but an act of high national duty 
 for relief to a weak and oppressed neighbor. Thus 
 it is repeatedly laid down by writers on national law, 
 that nations mayproperly assist each other, when 
 their rights are violated, whether, in consequence of 
 such violation, they change the old rulers or old gov- 
 ernment, or divide and declare a part independent. 
 (Kent 24 p., Vattel B. 2, ch. 4, sec. 56.) 'Vattel 
 hence approves "the case of the Prince of Orange 
 as ajustlfwhle interference" in the affiiirs of England; 
 and Kent says: 'The assistance that England gave 
 to the United Netherlands, and the assistance that 
 France gave to this country during the war of the 
 revohitioii, loerejustijiabie «c?s, founded in wisdom and 
 policy." And Spain herself, once, through her gov- 
 
 use every nati 
 
 .t.,kand oppr 
 
 Lr> tua ('litre 
 
 iti'ction to the 
 
 itrca: saa.itor.s to recollect for a moment 
 liow often this has been done, even by crowned 
 heads, wlio.se tendency lias been more for war 
 than republics; snd in ages less civilized even 
 than this: and by as well as against some pow- 
 ers who, in the very treaties, were so near ruder 
 periods as, among other titles, to retain that of'Kin^ 
 of the Goths and Vandals." 
 
 Thus, as early as 1585 and 1591, are such treaties 
 to be found in modern times. — (1 Chalmers's Trea- 
 ties, and 3 Collection of Treaties.) In 1659, Febru- 
 ary 3, a treaty was made between Richard Crom- 
 well and Louis the 14th to mediate between Sweden 
 and Denmark, and if these powers would not make 
 peace, to hdp Sweden; and if France or England 
 was, in consequence of it, attacked, they engaged to 
 make their defence a common cause. — (3 Col. of Trea- 
 ties.) Another of similar tenor "for obliging the 
 
24 
 
 3iorthern kings to make peace," was entered into 
 JVIay 21, 1659, by Fiance, England, and the united 
 provinces. They were to use their fleets, if neces- 
 sary, and to try, through their ambassader at Den- 
 jnark and Sweden, to secure their commerce in the 
 ]Baltic free and undamaged. — (191 page.) Another 
 on the 24th of July, lfi59, between England and 
 the United Provinces, was "for inducing Sweden and 
 I>enmark to make peace;" and whichever power 
 did not consent to it in a fortnight, was to be in- 
 duced by using their fleets against her; (197 p.) and 
 another still was made August 16th, of the same 
 yeas, between some of these powers "f or procuring 
 a peace" between the others, by the employment of 
 their navies in concert, if necessary. 
 
 Elizabeth, by assistance to the Netherlands in 
 •various vvays, helped to secure tlie triamph of the 
 Protestant religion, and to build up the naval power 
 «Df England, so as to triumph over Philip's invinci- 
 h]e armada. She made a treaty of alliance with 
 them near forty years before Spain acknowledged 
 iheir independence. — (1 Chalmers, 123 p.) 
 
 Again, in 1603, her successor, James the First, and 
 Henry the 4ih of France, entered into a compact to 
 jfnediate with Spain for the recognition of the inde- 
 pendence of Holland, and in theevent, that the par- 
 lies could not be reconciled on just terms, they made 
 ihe important stipulation to aid the side least stub- 
 Ibom, and aid each other, if assailed by Spain. — (1 
 Col. of Treaties, 128 and 9.) ■ 
 
 In 1668, (1 Col. of Treaties, 136,) a triple alli^ 
 unce was made between Charles the Second of Eng- 
 land, and Charles Second of Sweden, and the 
 Netherlands. They professed to feel much grief at 
 the calamities of the war which had involved most 
 of Christendom; and provided that, if Spain would 
 ■/lot accede to what they thought reasonable terms, 
 Jind end those calamities, they would take "more 
 efficacious measures.'''' — (141 p.) If England ^r 
 ilie Netherlands were attacked, the number of 
 ships and troops to be mutually furnished was 
 arranged; and the King of Sweden, on certain sub- 
 sidies, was to assist;and if France proved unreasona- 
 ble and stubborn, he was to "side with Spain, and 
 make war against France." — (p. 145.) 
 
 Can any of us forget, also, without more details 
 as to earlier ages, the memorable alliance by France 
 to aid us in 1778, when weak and oppressed, and 
 ■which, as before seen, the soundest writers on na- 
 tional law have justified.' 
 
 In 1825, (September 20th,) Mexico and Co- 
 lombia made a similar treaty for mutual defence 
 and independence, against Sptdn. — (26 and 29 Niles's 
 Reg. p. 356.) 
 
 And the celebrated Congress of Panama was pi-o- 
 jected for a like purpose, among others. Indeed, by 
 ihe last arrivals, the British writers in politics are, 
 on this same principle, excusing the recent interfer- 
 ence of England in favor of the people of Scinde, 
 raid against its ameers or princes. Speaking of the 
 latter, the Foreign (Quarterly Review for January, 
 3844, says: "They were in reality tyrants; and, in 
 delivering the inhabitants of Scinde from their yoke, 
 ■Vvc were performing good service to humanity," &c. 
 
 No more signal instances exist in modern times 
 of this interference of other powers to assist the op- 
 yresstd and terminate protracted hostilities — inju- 
 rious to the common interest of the world — than 
 Ihose memorable ones, as to suffering Greece in 
 3827; as to Belgium in 1831, and Turkey in the 
 Syrian war by AH Pacha in 1832. 
 
 Though some of the Holy Alliance were engaged 
 
 in these humane enterprises, yet others united with " 
 
 them; and the object of the whole, so far from being 
 similar to that of the Holy Alliance, and hostile to 
 changes of government by the people, was, in the 
 case of Greece and Belgium, for protection under 
 those changes, and to end a struggle which might 
 be protracted and useless against them, as well as 
 dangerous to the general peace of Europe. 
 
 The former case was deemed one of so justifiable 
 an interference here, as well as abroad, that "a uni- 
 I versal burst of acclamation" is .said, by one of our 
 I whig annalists, to have "hailed the first news of the 
 I victory of Navarino, throughout civilized America 
 j and Europe." And the distinct object then for the 
 j movements of the allied powers, as shadowed forth 
 in their treaty of July 6, 1827, was to restore peace 
 to Europe; and, though the Greeks were considered 
 by them to be in a state of revolt against their law- 
 ful sovereign, yet they were desirous to protect them 
 from destruction and the ravages of a barbarous 
 system of warfare. — (3 Blount's Register, 228-9. 
 6 do. 158.) 
 
 In the case of Belgium, the five powers, England,, 
 France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, agreed to a pro- 
 tocol on the 4th of Nov. 1830, by which they required 
 a cessation of hostilities on both sides, and a virtual 
 1 recognition of the independence of Belgium. This 
 was done, though the revolt had existed scarcely a 
 single year. 
 
 But the peace of much of the world was likely to 
 be disturbed, and its industry and commerce most 
 injuriously deranged; and hence they felt justified to 
 interfere, and did interfere, even to aid the revolt- 
 ers. Both England and France despatched their 
 fleets to succor the weaker power; and as a check to 
 the obstinacy of Holland, in still persevering to lay 
 waste villages, and burn farm houses, they de- 
 molished the citadel of Antwerp, after a bombard- 
 ment one of the most remarkable in history. 
 
 The other case was equally striking in some re- 
 sjiects, having been an interference to protect the 
 Mohammedan. Yes; the ,staveholding Turk against 
 revolting subjects; many of whom, in Syria and 
 Egypt, were Christians. 
 
 England, Russia, and France, (all boasted Chris- 
 tian powers, and so ardently enlisted m favor of 
 abolition,^ united and mediated .not by words only, 
 but Russia, by the bayonet and cannon, to shield the 
 infidel slaveholder from the destruction, and restore 
 peace in that quarter to Asia and Africa, as well as 
 Europe. They looked to the rights of commerce and 
 the tranquility of Christendom, and the great inte- 
 rests of peace, rather than to creeds of belief or do- 
 mestic institutions. 
 
 So again in the case of the revolting Greeks; they 
 united to aid even republicans and rebels under cer- 
 tain conditions. 
 After all this, shall we, the leading power on 
 j the continent, see our Christian, as well as 
 ! republican brethren, in Texas, harassed longer by 
 ! barbarous hostilities; and, in a just cause, not sus- 
 I Iain those who have so long and valiently sustained 
 I themselves, when monarchs abroad do it, even for 
 I Mussulmcn, rebels, and democrats? Shall they do 
 it for these more distant, and we not for our nearest 
 neighbor and kin.' Shall they, whose trade has 
 l)ccn fighting, interfere efficiently for peace in aid of 
 a just struggle, and we who profess peace, and to 
 be the disciples of the Prince of Peace, not lift afin- 
 gei- to restore it,' 
 
 Have we lost our sympathies, our humanity, our 
 
25 
 
 ■xeligion, and^neither incline nor dave to do our duty, 
 from fear of 'envious censure? 
 
 Hpw much did considerations like some of these 
 rally all Europe to band together in driving Napo 
 leon to Elba and St. Helena, and thus restore peace, 
 and order, and prosperity, to the desolated cities and 
 iields of most of Christendom! These are not war 
 measures, but peace measures. Nations, like indi- 
 viduals, are often to be blessed if peacemakers — and 
 that, not only by the use of arguments and entrea- 
 ties, but force, if required. Both should thus inter- 
 pose, if death, or ruin, or serious injury, is likely to 
 happen to others, as well as themselves, by a con- 
 tinuance of hostilities — as the rights of peace are 
 paramount to those of war, and such interposition 
 js the more quickly to restore commerce and public 
 tranquillity. This suppression of further conflicts 
 is proper between parties who either do not use 
 proper means for ending them seasonably, or who 
 outrage the laws of civilization in their mode of 
 warfare. The object of such interference is speedier 
 and surer repose to the world. It deserves encour- 
 agement from the friends of peace and sound mor- 
 als, as well as of improving industry and free trade. 
 It is philanthropy, rather than selfish ae:o:i-andize- 
 
 and merits applai 
 lions witnessed on this occasion against those who 
 are anxious, by the ratification of this treaty, to stop 
 the further eflusion of human blood, the waste of 
 money, and obstructions to agriculture and com- 
 merce too long growing out of the past ruinous rela- 1 tVkV'pos^ses.sion to the river Ptdido'; as there was an 
 
 cautions tcpyevcnt the catastrophe, as is now pro- 
 posed, for t\at and other reasons, by a peaceful and 
 voluntary jarchase of the territory, but can, if we- 
 please, lawfi'ly interpose and aid the party which 
 is just in its (Torts for self-government, by making 
 with it allianes or a union of territory, institu- 
 tions, and ex<?i'ions. 
 
 Hence, in 1 ;;ent's Commentaries, p. 22, while he 
 justly speaks ;i;ainst the interference of one nation 
 to change the gcvernment of another, at the same 
 time he says: ^'Rery nation has an undoubted right to 
 provide for its owi safety, and to take due precaution 
 against distant, as cell as impending danger.^'' 
 
 A memorable > ,se occurred in 1810, showing 
 under what degree (f danger and apprehension so 
 careful a man as M.. Madison felt justified to seize 
 on a neighboring tnritory in possession of Spain, 
 and without an act dl Congress. 
 
 In the National Intflligencer, December 28, 1810, 
 a letter from New Oriians speaks to this effect, of 
 the territory east from jJew Orleans to the Perdido: 
 
 "The country, at least as ar as the Perdido, oiiglit to be 
 
 taken possession of by the Uuted States; and it there should 
 
 be the most distant probabilty of East Florida falling into 
 
 hands of any European powerwhatever, we should, without 
 
 - J . - , 1 .1 1 J ■ hesitation, iix our standards a St. Augustine and Teusacola. 
 
 ment; and merits applause, rather than the denuncia- rpj^^, ,„.ovi„ce of itself is of Utle value, but it is one of the 
 
 keys to the Mississiiii>i. Powei placed there will control the 
 
 commi;rce of the Western WorU.'" 
 
 And in the presidential anessage of December, 
 1810, Mr. Matiison aimountes his movements to 
 
 tions between Mexico and Texas 
 
 Finally, let it not be forgotten that it is our duty 
 to take this peaceful and voluntary cession, even if 
 a risk of war ensues, provided that we ourselves 
 are thereby likely to escape from serious injury 
 through foreign influences. Much more can those 
 vindicate it who believe it necessary to actual self- 
 preservation, or tiie security of the institutions, prop- 
 
 unadjusted claim, and a revo'ution, and we could 
 hold till an arrangment was made with Spain. 
 
 Spain had been left in posses:;ion till the claim to 
 it by us was settled by negotialicn; but her power 
 had been resisted by insurgents, and subverted; and 
 Madison ordered out troops and took possession of 
 it without waiting for any new lav by Congress; 
 . . _ because a situation was '■'■produced, ciposijig the coim- 
 
 crty, and commerce, of any portion of that great ^ ,„ ulterior events which might essentially a^ect the 
 republic, one and indivisible, whose ^'domestic Iran- ,.-^j,fg .^^d welfare of the Union.'' 
 
 rights I 
 
 If force was opposed to us, the United States 
 troops were instructed to repel it, except from emy 
 place still in Spanish occupation. ^( Int. December 
 5, 1810.) 
 
 In his message, he says Congress v/ill make 
 whatever provision may be due to the essential 
 
 ^uilliiy'''' and welfare the constitution itself was made 
 in part to guaranty. 
 
 Thus, while France subdues Algiers, or seizes 
 on islands in the Pacific, and Mhile England invades 
 China, and India, and Africa, we look on without 
 intermeddling, except by uniting in that public opin- 
 ion and public judgment of the rest on\ut cmVizcd ^.j^jli^^^ interests of the people, thus 
 world, which finds so much to condemn m some of brought into the bosom of the American family." 
 these aggrandizing and violent measur< s. But let He thought a crisis had arrived ''endoingering the 
 these foreign powers, in their restless ai,i!:.ition, ap- tranquillity and security of our adjoining territories,''' 
 proach Cuba on the south, or Texas on the west, ^.c._(See his proclamation.) 
 
 and our own hearths and altars become endan-crcd; ; j„ 3 stj^^g Papers, p. 394-9, is Mr. Madison's 
 and the pervading instinct of self-preservation, no ) „^^^ ^^^ ,g, ^j ^j ^j^g igtters us to that part 
 
 less than interest, will, at times, require us to art. I ^f -VYpg^ Florida. 
 
 In such case, if need be, we must take more effica- 1 From the whole it appears, that by force we occu- ' 
 cioiM measures than to talk. We must even arm, ^^^ ^^^^^ to Perdido, not because it was claimed by 
 rather than have powder magazines of all kinds ; „g ^ut because the Spanish authority had been 
 placed around our frontiers, and the safety of prop- Ug^b^.gi.tgd ^y ^ revolutionary proceeding, and the 
 erty, revenue, and all the commerce of the mighty ] contingency of the country being thrown in.to for- 
 West jeopiu-ded. The precautions taken and the [ ^^^^ ^^^jg^ h^d forced itself into view." 
 
 resistance made on our part, in such a case, cannot 
 justly be called intermeddling in the internal conflicts 
 of parties in another government. Nor is it a strug- 
 gle, like many in centuries past, to preserve the old 
 balance of power, and check the undue enlargement 
 of a neighbor, which remotely, and in time, might 
 prove injurious; but it is to repel danger to our- 
 selves, quite certain, if not immediate; and that from 
 a quarter already hemming us in and round at every 
 point of the compass. We can, in such cases, on. 
 sound principles of national law, not only take pre- icent to us, and there exists in it a state of misrule and d"i8 
 
 A few of Mr. Clay's remarks on that occasion 
 were so intrepid in spirit, and showed so well the 
 dauntless energy of him and his then republican 
 friends, towards all opposition, whether from abroad 
 or at home, that they deserve special remembrance. 
 It was such conduct then, and in 1811, 1818, and; 
 1820, on kindred topics,, that paved the path on 
 which he has since walked to such wide fame: 
 
 "1 have no hesitation in saying, that if ai parent country . 
 will not or cannot maintain its authority in a colony adja- , 
 
26 
 
 order, menacing our peace— and if, moreover, sucbfcolony 
 by passing into the hands of any other power, yould be 
 come dangerous to the integrity of the Union, andmanifest- 
 ly tend to the subversion of our laws— we hJe aright, 
 upon eternal principles of self-preservation, to /y hold of 
 it. This principle alone, independent of any /tie, would 
 warrant our occupation of West Florida. 
 
 "We are told of the vengeance of resuscita/d Spain. If 
 Spain, under any modification of her governrafet, choose to 
 make war upon us for the act under considafetion, the na- 
 tion, I have no doubt, will be willing to meet^e war. But I r^ken in rertain fVpntT ' Vo'^'r^ti'pT^'"""'^// "X 
 the gentleman reminds us that Great BriXi, the ally of |„",'" %^^^^^ .e%ents.—(i btate Papers, 544 p.) 
 
 "— ■ her connectio/ with Spain, to : ^i*^.^'*''?= 1 he united States "have been persuaded 
 
 measure 
 5 justifying an appeal to/rms. Sir, is the 
 time never to arrive, when we mav manaae our own aftairs 
 
 ithout the fear of insulting his Britanni? Majesty ? Is the 
 rod ot| Biitish power to be forever s^pended ov 
 
 Again, November 2, 1811, he saya we had 
 claims for spol'ations, &c., on Spain, long unsatis- 
 fied; looked to East Florida, as means near for in- 
 demnity; and could not allow them to go out 
 of our reach, ^'■vnlhoul injustice and dishonor to our- 
 selves, and no othei- power could take East Flwida, but 
 from hostile views to us. Henee the act of Con- 
 gress was passed, empowering possession to be 
 
 Spain, may be obliged, by 
 
 take part with her agains. us, and to consi/er th: 
 
 of the President 
 
 persuaO 
 that remissness on their part might inrite the dattger, if 
 it had not already done so, when it is much their 
 interest and desire to prevent it, (544 p.) 
 
 . _ ._ .._ „ Much more of detail on this can be seen in the 
 
 heads? Does Congress put on an embffgo to shelter our volumes referred to, and our own files, as well as 
 sited .nnf^''''''^^^^^'"'' ^^"^ piraticJdepredations com- in the National Intelligencer of June 20th, 1811. 
 mitted upon it on the ocean, we are inmediately warned a,,j ;♦ • „„* ti i . ° i i i • • j ' '^^,^'- 
 
 Of the indignation of oftended England Is a law of non- T ^ ^'^^^ remarkable coincidence, that 
 
 intercourse proi)osed, the whole na/y of the haughty t"^ "'"St appearance of some of these documents 
 mistress of the seas is made to thun(frin our ears. l)oes I was then, as now, by an unlicensed publication of 
 respondence with a them in a newspaper in Connecticut, prol)ably from 
 
 the President refuse to continue a (6rrespondence witl 
 miiiister who violates the decorum /elonging to his diplo- 
 matic character. l)y giving and dtJIJirately repeating an 
 affront to the whole nation, wewie instantlv menaced 
 ■with the chastisement which Engljih pride will 'not fail to 
 
 J^r'ma^S^^by^S^V^^^^.^r^^'^^ P"bli<^ -t'^-^f^ were wantonly disregar 
 selves, tliis phantom incessantly iursues us. 
 
 "I am not, sir, in favor of ch'eishing the passion of con- 
 quest. But I must be permitte/ to conclude by declaring 
 my hope to see, ere long, the nAv United States (if you will 
 allow me the expression) emb«cing not only<lie old thir- 
 teen States, Imt the entire coyhtry east of the Mississippi, 
 including East Florida, and §6me of the Territories to thi 
 north of us 
 
 There i 
 
 another illi/stration on that very fron- 
 
 the confidential copy of some senator, with a view 
 to make political capital against Mr. Madison, and 
 by \yhich the Intelligencer justly remarked, "the 
 "■■''■" •"■'— -sts were wantonly disregarded." These 
 cases are all those where force was used or contem- 
 plated, and urging excuses for it. But, in that 
 of Texas, we have used no force, and propose to 
 use none, unless unjustly attacked; and will not the 
 reasons already recapitulated excuse defence, when 
 attacked, if they tl^en excused force in the first in- 
 stance.' 
 
 ^ In 1820, it was again recommended by President 
 
 tier as to what kind M danger to our property j Monroe, the Secretary of State being Mr. Adams, 
 must exist, in order to /justify forcible interposition, I to pass a law to take possession of the Floridas, 
 and from which it /an readily be infjprred how i notwithstanding the treaty ceding them had not been 
 much less or remote tfanger would make it our duty j ratified. Some of the reasons urged in the public 
 to mterioo.^o by a peaceful purchase, even if some I prints were, the necessity of them for safety to the 
 risk of unjust retaj/ation against us should accom- j southern States, for better protection against insid- 
 pany the transacti0n. In the Hou.se of Representa- ious interference from abroad, and the contempt as 
 tiues, on the 8th (if January, 1811, in secret session, well as injustice attached thereto the Spanish 
 a resolution was passed, authorizing the President, power. — (Niles's Register for 20lh December, 1820, 
 in either of two, fevents, to take possession of the } and 18th March.) 
 
 Floridas— (2 Executive Journal, pages 180, 181.) : Let it not be said, as diflfering from the present 
 The steps wei* adopted from the "intimate relation | case, that we then had claims against Spain unset- 
 of the territory" to the United States, with an eye ! tied, for we now have important ones against Mex- 
 "fo their sccunty and tranquUlity" and consider- ' ico. 
 
 ing the "peculiar situation of Spain and of her Amer- '. These may be considered by some as bold raea.s- 
 ican provinces;" and it was resolved that we could i nres. They were recommended at least by bold 
 not "witli indifference" "see it pass from the hands men— men who knew their rights and always dared 
 ^l^P^^^^ ^^^0 those of any othei- foreign poxoer.'" — (Paoe i to maintain them, however menaced at home or 
 i<5.) See Mr. Madison's message recommending abroad. They only looked for the path of duty, and, 
 the steps, though it was then denounced by a few I when found, moved forward in it, swerving neither 
 of his political opponents as "■robbery and ivar," j to the right nor left, from attempted intimidation or 
 while others vindicated it on high principles of na- i foreign iiatrigue. As an example for us on this oc- 
 tional law. — (National Intelligencer, 5lh January, ! casion, let us look to the practical exposition of their 
 
 1811.) (Annexed A and B, are the whole mes- 
 
 '"fh 
 
 principles m 
 
 1803, as well as in the cases of 1810, 
 
 report, aiid declaration.) j 1811, and 1820, just referred to. 
 
 7he British Minister then protested, and intimated i The apprehension of any difficulty with Spain, who 
 that we acted "from ambitious motives,'' or by a desire I remonstrated against our right to purchase Louisiana, 
 of foreign conquest and territorial aggrandisement. | did not deter our patriot fathers in 1803 from accom- 
 How exactly does the senator from Massachusetts j plishing that ever memorable duty, and glorious act 
 jnow tread in the footsteps of the British Minister, I of policy; and as little did the apprehension of a seiz- 
 Mr. Foster urged further, that the United States, im- ure of it by England, in her war with France, then 
 der this pretex of a claim, "cannot expect to avoid the \ breaking out, alarm them from their purpose. Much 
 reproach which mustfolloio the ungenerous and unpro- less should such fears swerve us from the still higher 
 yoked seizure of a foreign colony, while the parent State and more numerous obligations that urge us onward 
 is engaged in a noble contest for independence," at to a peaceful acquisition, not made in the spirit of ag- 
 liome, &c. — (2 State Papers, 543.) gi-andizement, but, beside other good motives, to 
 
 Mr. Monroe replied to Foster, July 8, 1811, (543,) restore what was our own near half a century ago, 
 and not admitting the right of England to interfere, and what, by Jefferson and Madison, with the 
 repels the motives imputed, though too common whole Congress and country, except a small disaf- 
 abraad. | fitted party, was vindicated as a purchase just and 
 
27 
 
 necessary for national security and national pros- 
 perity. 
 
 On what ground can any part of the European 
 world presume to interfere with our amicable com- 
 pacts with neighboring States on this continent? 
 Aiid on what just ground are we to be deterred from 
 what is right, honorable, and peaceful in managing 
 our own affairs, because displeasure happens to be 
 expressed at it by Mrs. Grundy or Lord Brougham, 
 •or Daniel O'Connell, or Lord Aberdeen? What if 
 the exhortation of one of them came to us last even- 
 ing across the Atlantic, trying to rally the whole 
 British empire to interfere at once to 'fa-event the an- 
 nexation oj Texas? 
 
 England forgets that she recognised our independ- 
 ence more that half a century ago; and one would 
 think that it was nearly time now for her oligarchy 
 to refrain from intermeddling in our affairs. She is 
 in an admirable position to denounce our thirst for ac- 
 quiring territory, when she has added encroachment 
 to encroachment till her forts and factories encircle 
 the whole globe almost as closely as her light-houses 
 do her coast. 
 
 As to such tirades, and the tlireatened scorn or 
 censure of the world at large on us for the transac- 
 tion, I cannot refrain from recalling to your minds 
 the eloquent sentiments uttered by Mr. Clay in 1820, 
 * when the recognition of the South American prov- 
 
 inrp« was ""dp'- ^o^^'dC'-tJ"", e"'l v^'i'^" 'l^" •">- 
 
 pro"(hesof tiansjt'antiL ii\aU\ eic h Id up ui teiio- 
 ■)em igainstus 
 
 othti 
 act( 
 men 
 
 unl 
 
 e^-n i \ 1 1 1 
 
 ■we do n not w e > or \ I 
 
 ibh Tunistf to till I c cnt 
 ister abroad lu \\ aa i hai 
 c-\ ol ) r ^o\ I nt tow 
 
 'ill n A.dams i c ii 1 i i li t 
 
 hi t irian anj thniij or notlunij "We look 
 
 to J < ail ^oiiraj tind our mini'.tu in 
 
 til till (.001 of tli( I oi't Giiirlb u 1 
 
 the n \ nj 1 I 1 a (iiiostn ro« purclii nc; htciaiu 
 ' (or tliia coiintiv '^)ur in"; itution? said Mr ( now mak( 
 us fric, lut l._w 1„..^ .'.l.,.ll .\e c„..t.,.„..so..f ,.^,n„^ia o^r 
 opinions on tl.osc of Europe? Let us break these com- 
 mercial and political fetters: let us no longer watch the nod 
 of any European politicinii; let us become real and true 
 Americans, and place ourselves at the head of the American 
 system " 
 
 Even two years earlier, in a speech of the 24th of 
 March, 1818, he exhorted us to make the lead in fa- 
 vor of the revolted and oppressed provinces of Spain, 
 in "defiimce of the divine right of kings to rule." If 
 we erred, it was better to err on the side of human 
 liberty. He was "not a propagandist," but had 
 sympathy for such a people, and would recognise 
 them, and act further, "as circumstances and interest 
 require. — (1vol. of Speeches, 85 p.) If we were 
 ourselves independent, we ought to be "guided by 
 American policy," andJ"obey the laws of the system 
 of the new world." — (88 p.) 
 
 In doing this, as 1 have recently remarked on 
 another occasion, if war be threatened, or actually 
 comes, it will be gratifying to reflect that it comes 
 wrongfully, and might come so in any other difficul- 
 ty — even for the mere acknowledgment of Texian 
 independence, as was menaced by Spain in a Uke 
 case, and by Santa Anna himself for still shghter 
 
 reason. But whatever nation, heeding threats 
 or expmire to unjust war, is tempted by the dread 
 of them turn as'ide from the path of duty, human- 
 ity, and jonor, is itself unfit to exercise independest 
 powers, .lid should be reannexed to her ancient 
 masters. 
 
 So far lorn this shrinking having marked our 
 course, evei under more threatening dangers in 
 1810, 1811, md 1820, we went still farther in 1823 
 than before; , e avowed a determination to interpose 
 ourselves, if a.y nev.'' foreign power should presume 
 only to colonic anywhere on this continent, and 
 hence much mcc, if in Cuba or Te.^as, in our near 
 neighborhood; l-cause, more tlian ten years previ- 
 ous, it had been hreseen and stated, that if a new 
 foreign ] 'ower shoild take possession of Cuba, the 
 whole Mifsisr-ipi'.; valley will be at her mercy. — 
 (Nat. Int., Sill .luly 1811.) 
 
 We uiiitL-d in the Oongress of Panama, even before 
 Mexican indcpendcice had been acknowledged by 
 a single European pover; one object of which was, 
 
 I "firmly establishing tie indejiendence of each of the 
 
 I American republic^;." — ^'Canaz Letter, 96, Appendix, 
 
 j 4th Blount.) 
 
 I Another object was to concert measures to pre- 
 vent Europe from colonizing further in any part of 
 tlie American continent — (Saloza to Ciav, Nov. 
 2, 1835, p. 92, Appendix.) 
 
 \-d this resicd in pari on the idea that such a 
 ((1 iii-'Tt in woukl endange- the independence and 
 ^ii( \ o ill the new republi's. 
 
 In 1825 under Mr. Adan.s's administration, Mr. 
 C'lv I'' S°cre'ary of State, .s=eras to have been au- 
 thonzed to =!tate officially, not only that "we cannot 
 1 low I ti insfer of the island C^uba) to any Euro- 
 pi ai jiowti "but that the Mexif.ais have been dissua- 
 ded not n attack Cuba in the war witli S|>ain, lest 
 it m ght Ic id to consequences davigerous to the do- 
 mc^tit ti 111 {Liilhty of the South.— (Clay to Middle- 
 nn 2') h December, 1825, Blount's Register, 91.) 
 
 It t'ciefore not only became a common object 
 1 1 tl 1 continent to prevent new foreign settlements 
 m t iiitluc ices here, but we labored to enlist friendly 
 powtis in Ilurope to sanction it, and succeeded in 
 com nicirg England that it was her duty, as well as 
 oiu--, to pie\ ent any nation abroad from aiding Spain 
 to eionqueiher revolted provinces. — (2 Wheaton, 
 81 ^9 ) 
 
 Bui, Bu far from this countenancing any force 
 or intrigues from abroad, to control any of 
 the new republics here, it aimed in principle at 
 the defeat of such attempts, as well as of ordina- 
 ry colonization. It tries to secure to all America 
 
 i self-government, free either from European diploma- 
 cy or European arms. If Texas, or any other re- 
 public, chooses to cede apart or all her territory, and 
 unite with other sister States in government, what 
 right has Great Britain or France to interpose, more 
 than we have with the voluntary union of Ireland 
 with England? or the voluntary separation of Bel- 
 gium from Holland? 
 
 A war in Europe may arise from the change of 
 masters over a single city or province, but it is a 
 war in her own brotherliood or system; and neither 
 connects itself with changes in Asia, though of do- 
 minion there over empires, nor recognises American 
 interferences in Europe or Asia more than we admit 
 of European ones here. Mr. Madison says, Europe 
 has, in many respects, a system of policy and in- 
 terests, almost peculiarly her own, and disconnected 
 from other quarters ot the globe. The danger of 
 foreign iiiterference, and of collisions with otiier na- 
 
28 
 
 tions than Mexico, is really more iinminent, / we i 
 poetpone annexation, than if we complete ityOrth 
 with. In this last case, the door is shut toEuro 
 pean tactics. Threats, jealousies, or fa- 
 trigues and appliances of all kinds, will be suj^i'seded 
 and future struggles or blood to secure ourifclves on 
 that frontier, worse than anything now /robable, 
 will all be obviated. 
 
 In closing these remarks on officious i/terfcrence 
 from abroad, and manufactured puMc opinion 
 abroad, 1 say, unhesitatingly, that if fc are to be 
 calumniated for exercising a consti/uional right 
 to purchase, treat, and unite, with a/^ independent 
 nation, in procuring again an empir^n size, which 
 •we once owned, and is occupied by oii" own brethren; i 
 for doing this by peaceful negotia^n, and for mu- 
 tual benefits, rather than by rapacity or fraud: and 
 for exposing ourselves to no just /ause of war, but, 
 on the contrary, terminating a predatory and bar- 
 barous contest in behalf of liben/ independence, re- 
 ligious freedom, the Anglo-Sixon race, and the 
 progress of humanity and^civrtzation, — I, for one, 
 am ready to appear at the b/r of public opinion; 
 and stand prepared to abide ^le calm judgment of 
 both cotemporaries and postef-ity. ' 
 
 Some senators have deemea it a duty not to take 
 this cession on account of oar relations witli Mexi- 
 co, and the fear which ougl^ to be entertained of her 
 ■vengeance. But it is a mistake to suppose that, by 
 this cession, if our former/positions have been main- 
 tained, we thus violate i\4. solemnity of our treaties 
 ■with Mexieo. It is no -violation of them to consider 
 the territory of TexasAs not Mexican, but as be- 
 longing to another poWer— to Texas herself So 
 says the late Secretary/of State, and so said, in 1838, 
 our treaty of limits yith Texas. Even if Mexico 
 chooses to involve us'in war on that account, we are 
 not guilty of such /a violation any more than we 
 ■were by our quasi (War with France in 1798, and our 
 Teal war with England in 1812; as we ihen had 
 solemn treaties of peace with both of those powers 
 existing, as sacr/^d and in full force as now with 
 Mexico. ' 
 
 It is begging the question to call our conduct on 
 any of these questions a violation of our treaty 
 obligations. 
 
 As little should we be terrified from duty by the 
 apprehension of Mexican power, when e'xercisfed 
 unjustly; though almost every speech on the other 
 side begins and ends with war — not only threatened, 
 but war approaching — -vt-ar almost in our midst. 
 But we should fear a neglect of duty to our own 
 country and Texas much more than the prmcess and 
 sutcess of Mexico, which have been so exaggerated, 
 while, in truth, so lame and impotent as, during six 
 ■years past, to kill a few women by Indians and con- 
 victs, and capture one judge and two or three trav- 
 elling editors of newspapers, but not retain a single 
 foot of land or a single fort. And, though some of 
 the gentlemen who engaged in this debate seemed 
 almost to see merchants fleeing, property seques- 
 trated, commerce plundered on the ocean, cities 
 sacked, and Santa Anna ready to plant t^as he once 
 threatened) the Mexican standard over our heads on 
 the dome of our Capitol; yet, unfortunately, that 
 liero has heretofore so misbehaved in peace as to 
 have driven most of our traders already from his 
 dominions, and to have neither power to come here 
 by water, except in borrowed vessels, nor disposi- 
 tion to march eastward again by land, over the ter- 
 ritory near the field of San Jacinto. 
 
 How long it would take Mexico to reconquer 
 
 Te.^as when allied with us, after the attiempts so- 
 vain and so long on her unallied, it is not very difK- 
 cult to conlpute; and I think the nerves of our wives 
 and daughters, and the cradles of our infants, may ' 
 be kept tolerably calm under this new panic. On 
 the contrary, Mexico has every inducement to pur- 
 sue a policy entirely different, and more worthy her 
 natural position. 
 
 She has a noble opportunity, on this occasion, to 
 withdravj- from her further claims -with dignity, and 
 honor, and courtesy. It is not necessary that she 
 should formally admit what has so long seemed appa- 
 rent — her inability to reconquer Texas; but merely 
 acquiesce in the independence of a territory, 
 whose people were mostly invited there from the 
 United States by new colonization laws, in order to 
 aid her in defence against Indian aggressions, whose 
 education, habits, and religion, do not accord with 
 hers, and are unsuited to harmonize under her sys- 
 tem; and, as before fully shown, have rightfully re- 
 sisted it: and in fine, whose valor and success have 
 excited the sympathies and confidence of most of the 
 world. For the sake of meeting the wishes of the 
 great powers of that world, and restoring quiet to 
 its commerce, as well as peace, what is there derog- 
 atory in saying she will no longer stand up against 
 the public opinion of Christendom? Spain having 
 done the same by Mexico, and England by us, no 
 feeling of pride is injured, nor the slightest humili- ' 
 ation involved, while at last she may win some 
 glory by becoming the pacificator of much of the 
 new contujent. 
 
 Let us not, then, cling to this twig, or dwell 
 no that small flaw— hang a doubt on one loop, 
 and an old )!rejudice on another. But group all , 
 these strong incentives to action together — add the 
 political force of one to the moral strength of the 
 otlier, and the urgent national interests in future, as 
 well as now, so deeply involved to the whole, and 
 then weigh them en masse; and if they do not 
 show a heavy preponderance of duty on us t'i take 
 the cession immediately, I must confess my inability 
 to weigh properly either evidence or principles. 
 
 It is, however, well known that a portion of this 
 body deem our right to acquire, and the right of 
 Texas to cede, clear; and our duty, at some time, to 
 carry the measure into eifect equally clear; and yet 
 entertain doubts whether the present moment is 
 most suitable for that purpose. To such I would, in 
 conclusion, submit a few suggestions. 
 
 The annexation of Texas has been deemed desira- 
 ble now by our executive, as well as the govern- 
 ment of Texas; and a treaty has been finished to that 
 effect, to be ratified within six months. Without 
 strong reasons, what has been duly commenced, as 
 of national magnitude, should be completed. 
 
 Again: Texas has been invited to institute pro- 
 ceedings, and close the treaty; and without strong 
 reasons she ought not, in this stage of the business, 
 to be disappointed and repudiated. 
 
 The reasons acting on the executives of botfi 
 countries — the proper organs to commence such 
 measures — have been sufficient and urgent, and re- ■ 
 quiring, in their view, innnediate annexation. It is 
 well known, also, that many of the objections 
 hitherto prevailing as to the stability and ripeness 
 of Texian independence, and as to the probability of 
 reconquest by Mexico, have been much weakened, 
 if not entirely removed. Public opinion, too, has 
 had more time to be developed, and has been fully 
 disclosed in favor of annexation now, by public 
 meetings and reBolutions, by memorials and cor- 
 
29 
 
 of t e United Slates. .whi?h she inherits from herlundred 
 of tie southern States, will always tend to umte her with 
 Orea Britain." ' 
 
 Aier detailing the advantages of a close al- 
 lianci between Texas and Great Britain, theRevibw 
 adds: 
 
 "The bonds of ancient kindred may thu.s be knit, with 
 fresh sti-ngth; and the independence of Texas create only 
 a wider Uftusion of the British race and Britibh sym- 
 pathies."' 
 
 After giing over the inducements existing both i« 
 Texas anJ in the United States, to the conclusion of 
 a treaty, md remarking that the signature of it 
 " need not surprise any one," the London Herald 
 thus speciilaes: 
 
 "Such a trestv would (unli-.'is the consent of Santa Anna 
 thereto have I '■en pivviously obtained—a most unlikely 
 eventl lead to aiupturo; if nut to hostilities, between the 
 United States aid Mexico, and evt-n if it did not produce 
 immedintp war, vnnld most certainly foster the 'mission* 
 to oveirun ?.:>xi.o which even now has possession of a 
 large pioportion ii the Anglo-Americans. In a quarrel 
 arising iVoni .such acause, England and France would have: 
 a right to interfere, i only because annexation affected theic 
 aciiuired interests ii Texas; it is the policy of both coun- 
 tries to support Me>ico as a counterpoise to the United 
 States; and England *as an especial ground for the preser- 
 vation of Texian indejcndence in its influence on Canada.'* 
 Suppose that Mr. Jefferson had listeiied to delay 
 in the purchase of Livuisiana for only a single month, 
 the war being renewed between England and 
 France, would have made it a prey to British su- 
 periority at sea; and al the evils now deprecated as 
 to the security of the -.ornmerce and cities of the 
 Mississippi, and the t'omestic tranquillity of the 
 South would have been eirlier felt and earlier agitated 
 the whole Union.— (See Marbois History of Lou- 
 isiana.) 
 
 What is the bearing of tie new correspondence on 
 this subject.' It is mostsigiificant. It discloses the 
 foct that i Texas deems a new and formidable inva- 
 sion from Mexico, when she ^ears of this treaty, to 
 be so probable as not to be villing to enter upon 
 making it without assurances of aid from us, if the 
 exigency occurs while the negotiations are pending. 
 So much is certain^ that if wt reject the treaty 
 son's Bay company; and last, but not least, Texas : or delay it, and the invasion comes, Texas must be 
 on the southwest, forced almost insanely by us into satisfied that no just aid can cmstitutionally be 
 her influences and protection, if not close alliance. | granted by us. What, then, must be her next re- 
 Even in this debate, some senators [Mr. Choate] i source.? Will it be to take the field and wad© 
 have considered the reconquest of Texas by her ; through carnage, expense and conflagration, to> 
 old oppressors as probable, unless annexation to us repel it victoriously alone, as she doubtless may, ac- 
 speedily takes place, and yet, refuse that annexation, ; cording to the experienced judgment of the senator 
 and complacently foretell that there is another mode j from Missouri? Certainly, rather than submit to 
 escaping subjugation by accepting British aid, and, I 
 ' ' ' "ritish abolition condi- 
 
 respondence, infinitely more decisive and long than 
 when it -was negotiated for ua 1825 or 1829, or when 
 it was offered in 1837. A rejection now is likely, 
 also, to be construed as if casting dishonor on Texas, 
 after inviting her action and concurrence in the ces- 
 sion and proceedings so far. 
 
 We have been trying to accomplish the reannexa- 
 tion for more than twenty years; and now, when 
 peaceably within our grasp, can it be wisdom to let 
 it escape, for reasons of form or ceremony, or party.' 
 If it be a mere question of time, as some urge, then 
 -why not ^eize time by the forelock.' Why, in the 
 language of the late national convention, not do it 
 "as soon as practicable.'" Delays, also, are danger- 
 ous, lest offence be taken on the other side, and the 
 proposition be never resumed. So a delay here 
 may lead to alliances and guaranties elsewhere, 
 though not probably to reunion in government 
 with a monarchy. Reannexation may be thus 
 defeated long, if not forever, as well as a danger- 
 ous foreign iiMluence planted on our borders, 
 which will not only peril our domestic institutions 
 and property, as the Texian constitution is open to 
 change on all subjects, but rob us of the control of 
 the Gulf of Mexico, and girdle us around from 
 New Brunswick to the Sabine, in a more iron and 
 deadly gripe than that contemplated by France be- 
 fore our revolution. 
 
 I say nothing here on the disclaimers of England 
 as to abolition designs with us, when she has 
 avowed them as to the whole world^ias en- 
 couraged them in Brazil and Texas, if not on the 
 La Platte — has sheltered our slave criminals in her 
 provinces and islands; but I do say that our coun- 
 try, and our whole country, cannot see with indif- 
 ference the wall she is closing up around 
 us. Cuba at her mercy on the South whenever 
 war approaches, the Gibraltar of the Gulf of 
 Mexico — the Bahamas on the East, bristling with 
 cannon — Halifax, duebec, and Maiden, with muni- 
 tions and soldiery, on the Northeast and North — 
 the Rocky mountains on the West barricaded, and 
 the mouth of the Columbia fortified by her Hud 
 
 presume, of course, with it, 
 tions, a-s well as British control. Beside these indi- 
 cations of the evils likely to result from delay, and 
 beside the readiness of Mexico to continue her per- 
 severing efforts to thwart us in the object of annex- 
 ation, by any co-operation with England, we have 
 already had a foretaste since 1837 of the gratifica- 
 tion felt in the British public at our shortsightedness 
 in not uniting earlier with Texas, and the sanguine 
 hopes of their future influence there, which have 
 thus been excited. 
 The Edinburgh Review of 1841 says: 
 "The United States, in refusing to admit Texas into their 
 confederation, have rejected an ofl'tr, which in all probabiliy 
 will never again be made to them; and Texas becoming, a.? 
 years pass by, more and more attached to its own institu- 
 tions, its own distinct policy, and its own national policy, 
 and its own national character, will speedily regard the 
 United States with some of those feelings of jealousy, 
 which nations always learn to entertain towards their 
 nearest and most powerful neighbors. The commercial in- 
 ..terests of Texas, and the antipathy to the northern portion 
 
 Mexican reconquest, and Mexican chains; but cer- 
 tainly not, if she can avert both the carnage and 
 the chains,; with honor, by an arrangement with 
 England or France, after making the first offer to 
 us, and experiencing a humiliating refusal. In a 
 single month, after such refusal or delay, it will 
 be wise and natural for her to guard against new- 
 con tingencies, though not to become an integral 
 part of the British' or French monarchies, and aban- 
 don her republican institutions and independence; 
 but to receive the guaranty of one of them against 
 Mexican oppression. Of course, it would be ore 
 such terms as are honorable and acceptable to both 
 parties; and leave no motive for renewed negotia- 
 tions with us on such terms as will sectire life ini 
 property, restore peace to her industry and com- 
 merce, grow cotton for England independent of 
 us — a most vital object to her — improve the 
 finances of Texas, and fill up her rich domain, not 
 by us and ours, and to our benefit and glory, but 
 with millions from other quarters of the wofWj wh(> 
 
30 
 
 liave so long been repulsed by her liitherto ffiiba 
 rassed and unsettled relations. If, then, ^rnore 
 intimate union is ever to take place with 
 my solemn conviction that "now's the (fy and 
 now's the hour." 
 
 These apprehensions are .so far from Ifeing vi- 
 sionary, that numerous similar arrangehenls by 
 more powerful States, with youthful M small 
 republics, have occurred and continued fo* centuries. 
 How striking in the case of the Hansetowns, and 
 other free cities of Germany? How m/nieiitous, at 
 times, in that of the Swiss canton.s? m mi of Geneva? 
 Genoa? How desirable to us once, fhen the pro- 
 tection and assistance of France /t-ere obtained 
 under certain mutual guaranties, bit without our 
 becoming a part of France, or a/dependency, or 
 ever feeling disposed, however riuch pressed, to 
 renew our governmental relation with England, 
 though attached to her by origin, education and 
 religion, almost as strongly as tje people of Texas 
 can be to us. ' 
 
 The correspondence before u^ published as well 
 as unpublished, proves that th^e gloomy apprehen- 
 sions, if thepresent golden momnt be not seized, are 
 likely soon to be realized. I>'ot so much, I admit, 
 by rapacity, as by intrigue tnd interest elsewhere, 
 (as evinced by Mr. Huskiain in debate, as long 
 ago as 1830,) and thus to pl^ce in the hands of an- 
 other foreign and rival poiver — a possession more 
 dangerous to all our western as well as southern in- 
 terests and commerce tJan Cuba herself— Cuba, 
 which, for twenty years Have been publicly tabooed 
 by our Presidents and secretaries from all foreign in- 
 terference. If we po.stpone at all, then, let me ask 
 to what timer to what )th of July are we to wait 
 for the occupation of liiis as of the northeastern ter- 
 ritory since lost? Our people are as acquisitive in 
 their propensities, i.n& especially about lands, as 
 most others. Hen<fe, when peaceful restorations of 
 what was once our own, and from its great value 
 and importance should never have been parted 
 with, are offered, they would hardly justify that 
 procrastination which may again be the thief to rob 
 ihem of tlie prize. 
 
 The instincts of a great people are also seldom 
 ■wrong; and (hose of ours have long run in the 
 channel of syra path y for the down-trodden — espe- 
 cially their own relatives and neighbors — attach- 
 ment to those daring to be free, and knowing what 
 confidence, courage, and strength, were h spired into 
 our fathers in their struggle for independence by the 
 kindness and approbation of others, they will al- 
 ways be true to those instincts, and as far as jus- 
 tice, honor, and right, may warrant; which tliey are 
 believed to do here — immediate annexation, they 
 will march fearlessly up to the line of duty. 
 
 If we look further, the dominion of the whole 
 American continent will be seen to be at stake. 
 Shall it rest in America, or in a small island on the 
 coast of Europe? Shall it be in a republic, or a 
 monarchy? In us and our posterity, or in our op- 
 pressor and rival: 
 
 The commerce of America — the great surplus 
 commerce of both world.s, — on what does it chiefly 
 depend? and where and whence shall it flow? Un- 
 der whose guidance? Whose protection? Look into 
 these matter.s as connected with this question, and 
 decide whether we shall, in truth, be independent in 
 substance, or only in form? Exhibiting self-confi- 
 tl^nce, liberty, and defiance, somewhere else than on 
 
 our lins; or stoop m action to temporize, vacillate, 
 and delay, if not succumb to other powers? 
 
 APFENDIX. . 
 A. 
 
 Message 1810: 
 
 "Taking into view the tenor of these several commuHica- 
 tion?, the posture of things with wluch they are connected, 
 the intimate relation of the country adjoining the United 
 States, eastward of the river Perdido, to their security and 
 tranquillity, and the peculiar interest they otherwise have in 
 its destiny, 1 recominend to the consideration of Congress the 
 reasonableness of a declaration that the United States could 
 not see, without serious inquietude, any part of a neighbor- 
 ing territory, in which they have, in difterent respects, so 
 deep and so just a concern, pass from the hands of Spain 
 into those of any other foreign power. 
 
 •I recommend to their consideration, also, the expediency 
 of authorising the executive to take temporary possession 
 of any part or parts of the said territory, in pursuance of ar- 
 rangements which may be desired by the Spanish author- 
 ities; and for making provision for the government of the 
 same, during such possession. 
 
 "The wisdom of Congress will, at the same time, determine 
 how far it may be expedient to provide for the event of a 
 subversion of the Spanish authorities within the territories 
 in question, and an apprehended occupancy thereof by any 
 foreign power'— (2 Secret Jour., 180 p., .Madison's Mes- 
 sage.) 
 
 Resolution, January 8, 1811, House of Repre- 
 sentatives in secret session: 
 
 "Taking into view the present state of the world, the pe- 
 culiar situation of Spain and of her American provinces, and 
 the intimate relations of the territory eastward of the river 
 Perdido, arjjining the United States, to their security and 
 tranquillity, therefore 
 
 ••Resolved, iscc, We cannot see with indifference any part of 
 the Spanish provinces, adjoining the said states eastward of 
 the river Perdido, pass from the'hands of Si)ain into those of 
 any foreign power." 
 
 Declaration reported by a committee — in the Sen- 
 ate in 1811: 
 
 "The United States of America, in Congress assembled, 
 having had their attention imperiously drawn to the present 
 situation of the territory adjoining their southern l»rder, 
 not included in the purchase of Louisiana, and considering 
 the influence which the destiny of that territory may have 
 on their security, tranquillity, and commerce," (claims of 
 indemnity on Spain erased,) "declare, that they could not 
 see with indifl'erence the said territory pass into the hand.s 
 of any other foreign power, and that they feel themselves 
 calledupon, by the peculiar circumstances of the existing 
 crisis, to provide, under certain contingencies, for the tem- 
 porary occupation of the said territory. Whilst they thus 
 yield to what is demanded of them by their own safety, they 
 further declare that the said territory, in their hands, shall 
 remain subject to future arrangement between them and 
 Sp;iin." 
 
 Report of the committee in the Senate in 1811: 
 "Strike out all the words after the word the," first men- 
 tioned in the first line of the resolution, to the end thereof, 
 and in lieu tliereof insert 'jieculiar situation of Spain, and of 
 her American provinces; and considering the influence 
 which the destiny of the territory adjoining the southern 
 border of the United States may have upon their security, 
 tranquillity, and commerce; therefore 
 
 " 'Resolved by the Seiiatt and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled. That the 
 United States, under the peculiar circumstances of the ex- 
 isting crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see any 
 part of the said territory pass into the hands of any foreign 
 power; and that a due regard to their own safety compels 
 them to provide, under certain contingencies, for the tem- 
 porary occupation of the said territory; they, at the same 
 time, declare, that the said territory shall, in their hands, 
 remain sut ject to future negotiation '" 
 
#»