SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 - 'Sj 
 tim, WILLIABl CrSlVES, OF VIRGINIA, 
 
 ON THE 
 RESOLUTION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 
 
 IN SENATE UNITED STATES— FEBRUARY 15, 1845. 
 
 Tiie Senate having resumed the consideration of the joint resoiution from the House for the 
 annexation of Texas — 
 
 Mr. RR'ES rose and addressed the Senate in opposition to the joint resolution for the admission 
 of Texas to the Union. He commenced by observing that it was very well known to the Senate, 
 and not unknown to the coimtry, (so far as any humble opinion of his could be deemed of any 
 importance,) that he was not opposed to the acquisition of Texas whenever it could be fairly and 
 honoral)ly accomplished, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and without grave- 
 ly disturbing the harmony of existing relations between one section of this country and another, 
 and between this Government and other Governments. So for from it, that he regarded that mea- 
 sure as combining many important national advantages, commending it to the consideration of 
 the whole country — of the North and the West more than the South. 
 
 In much of what had 1 ee.i said by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan) 
 yesterday, m regard to the expediency of the annexation, he concurred. But a far higher question 
 than that is now before us. Every thing that might be deemed by us expedient is not, there- 
 fore, lawful and justifiable. What would it profit us should we gain Texas, if in doing so we 
 lost the security and protection of that sacred instnunent which was the bond of our national union, 
 the pledge and palladium of our liberty and happiness ? Tlic mode in which Texas was to be ac- 
 quired, in its aspect upon the principles of our political compact, was, with him, a vital and a par- 
 amount consideration. We had heretofore made important acquisitions of foreign territorj', more 
 than doubling the area of our ^original limits ; but we had made the acquisition liy means of the 
 treaty-making power ; and in this case of Texas, too. the treaty power had been called into action 
 to achieve the measure of annexation ; but the treaty not having received the constitutional sanction 
 of two-thirds of this body, it was now at last di.scovered that all this reference to the treaty- 
 making power was a mere useless ceremony ; a work of supererogation -, an idle, unmeaning 
 formality; and that the object could be better accomplished by a joint resolution, to be passed by a 
 mere majority of the two Houses of Congress. Under these circumstances, the question now put 
 to the judgment and conscience of every Senator was, whether this summary mode of proceeding 
 was wan-anted by the Constitution, and in confonnity with that good faith which the people of the 
 several States had pledged to each other when they adopted the Constitution and promised to abide by it 
 
 It was the proud distinction and the peculiar happiness of this country to possess a lariflen Con- 
 stitution — an instrument which not only limited the general mass of power delegated to the Got- 
 emment, but which defined the particular powers to be exercised by each branch of that Govern- 
 ment. According to its provisions, each department had its own appropriate sphere of action ; 
 each of them checked and was in turn checked by the others ; and thus the whole together pre- 
 served the safeguard of the public liberty. The legislative department in other Governments ar- 
 rogated to itself supreme power, the jura summi imperii; but, thank God! such legislative su- 
 premacy was unknown in ours. The legislative as well as the other departments of Government in 
 our system, were, in the impressive language of Mr. Jefferson, "chained down" by the limita- 
 tions of delegated authority. «' An elective despotism," as he had so well said, "was not the Govern- 
 ment we fought for." In .our system the powers were so divided and balanced between the sevens! 
 bodies of magistracy that neither could transcend its own limits without being immediately checked 
 by the others. This was the fundamental conception of American constitutional liberty, as un- 
 derstood by the enlightened founders of this Republic, and it had been faithfully carried out in the 
 Constitution of the United States. In that instrument all the legislative powers of the Government 
 were specifically enumerated and vested in the two Houses of Congress; the Executive power 
 was defined and entrusted to the hands of the President ; while the Judicial authority was con- 
 fided to the Supreme Court, and to such other subordinate courts as should be established from time 
 to time by Congress. This organization embraced all the great internal interest.s of the country. 
 
 But there remained other interests to be provided for, which had respect to the relations of this 
 country with foreign Powers. So important was the power wliich controlled these, that Locka,' 
 n his celebrated Treatise on Government, had ranked it along with tlie Logi<!ative ai'.d Bxe<a- 
 
tivc, as a co-ordinate independent power, under the name of the Federative power. All these 
 interests, whether of peace or war, of alliances, of succors, of commerce, of iemiory, of hounda- 
 ries, were regulated by treaty. It became, therefore, in laying the foundations of the Government, 
 a matter of primary importance to determine where this great power should be lodged. In all 
 the modern Ciovcrnments of Europe it was an appendage to the Executive ; but in ours it was 
 different. Under the articles of the Confederation this power was reposed in Congress ; but the con- 
 sent of nine States was retiuisite to give effect to any treaty or alliance. When the Convention 
 met to frame the new Constitution, it was an embaiTa-ssing, as well as an important inqviiry, where 
 tins power .should be deposited. The first idea suggested was to place it in the Senate exclusively ; 
 then it was suggested that the President should be associated with the Senate ; and when this was 
 resolved on, then arose the question whether the President and a mere majority of the Senate should 
 exercise the power, or whether more than a majority should be required. In this question great 
 interests were involved. The Northern States entertained great jealousy in regard to the in- 
 terests of the fisheries, and feared lest, in the future exigencies of the Repubhc, these might come 
 to be ceded bv treaty ; while the Southern States were equally jealous respecting the navigation 
 of the Mis.sissippi and the question of their Western boundaries, both which points were then in 
 controversy with Spain. Both the North and South, therefore, united in demanding that more 
 than a simple majority of the Senate should be requisite for the ratification of a treaty, and the 
 proportion of two-thirds was finally agreed on. 
 
 The new Constitution having been adopted by the Convention which framed it, it was presented 
 to the people assembled in Conventions in their several States for acceptance or rejection. When 
 the draught of the new instrument came before the Convention of Virginia, no feature in it at- 
 tracted so earnest and so jealous a degi-ee of attention as this power to form treaties. The thunder 
 of Patrick Henry's eloquence was immediately launched against it ; because he thought its arrange- 
 ment of the treaty-making power did not sufficiently secure to the South and the West their rights 
 in reference to the navigation of the Mississippi and to their we.stern boundaries. He compared the 
 new Constitution with the old articles of Confederation in this respect, and endeavored to show 
 that the States had enjoyed greater security under the latter than they would by the new arrange- 
 ment. So great was the anxiety in the Virginia Convention respecting the safety of Western 
 interests, that a most searching inquiry was instituted into the acts of the Continental Congress 
 respecting a negotiation for the temporary surrender of our right of navigating the Mississippi ; 
 and members of the Convention who had been delegates to Congress were called to the stand as 
 witnesses, and required to testify what had been done in that matter. Nor was it until after days 
 of deliberation that Virginia finally consented to ratify the new Constitution ; but she accompanied 
 her ratification with a proposition for its amendment, demanding higher security respecting tlic exer- 
 cise of the treaty-making power. Her demand was, that in commercial treaties the assent of two-thirds 
 of all the members of the Senate should be requisite, and that in treaties respecting teTiitorial right.-^ and 
 boundaries the assent of three-fourths of both Houses should be requisite. The noble and patriotic 
 State of North Carolina concurred with Virginia in this amendment, but it was not acceded to by the 
 other State.s, the requi^it.> number of them having ratified it with the treaty clause as it now stood. 
 Soon after the new Government went into operation, an important discussion arose in Con- 
 gress as to the extent of this very power. He referred to the unfortunate difference of opinion be- 
 tween the House of Representatives and President Washington respecting the British treaty 
 ne'^otiated by l\Ir. .lay. The House called on the President for the instructions under which the 
 treaty had been made, and General Washington sent them an answer in which, with the highest 
 authority which had ever accompanied any merely human words, he gave his testimony as to the 
 true intent and meaning of this part of the Constitution. His words were these : 
 
 "Having been a member of the Gener'al Convention, and knowing the principles on wbicb the 
 Constitution v. as formed, 1 have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject ; and, from the first 
 establishment of the Governmenlto this moment, my conduct has exemplified that opinion, tbat the 
 power of making- treaties is eTcliisix'ely vested in tlie President, by and with the advice and consent 
 of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every treaty, so made 
 and promulgated, tlienceforward became the law of the land." 
 
 " It is a liut declared by the General Convention, and universally mulecstood, that the Constitution 
 of the United States was the result of a spirit of amity and nnitual concession. And it is well known 
 that, under this influence, the sH?«/fe)' .S'/rt?<?« were admitted to efjiuil representation in the Senate with 
 tlie larger States ; and tliis branch of the Government was invested with ^reat powers, for, on the 
 equal participation of those powers, the sovereignty and political safety of tlie smaller States were 
 deemed essentially to depend. " 
 
 Mr. R. was happy to say that that patriotic and enlightened House of Representatives, including, 
 as it did, such men as Madison, Nicholas, Livhigston, and Gallatin, and going, as it did, to an 
 extent hardly now justified in regard to their constitutional light freely to pass or not to pass acts to 
 redeem the pubhc faith, when plighted by treaties, yet did disclaim, in the most positive manner, 
 any agency in the making of treaties. 
 
 Mr. R. said he had brought forward tliese facts in order to show that no question had entered 
 more deeply into the framework and vita! compromises of the Constitution than the arrangement of 
 the treaty-making power — a power now sought to be exercised, in open defiance of the Constitu- 
 tion, by the two Hou.ses of Congress. There were occasiotis when the sudden irruption of new 
 
srnd dangerous innovations drove us all to an examination of tlie fundamental doctrines of cm- 
 system. Virginia had a maxim m her bill of rights which could never be too often lepeated, that 
 * ' no free government or the blessing of liberty can be preserved to any people but by a firm ad- 
 herence to justice, temperance, moderation, and virtue, and by a fi-equent recurrence to fundamental 
 principles." If ever there had been an occasion which called for such a recurrence, and the exercise 
 of these saving virtues, this was one. 
 
 Having seen where the Constitution hers deposited the power of making treaties, the next question 
 which presented itself was this • What is a treaty ' — for on that question depended a rightful de- 
 cision on the measure now proposed. 
 
 An attempt had been made to attach a technical and cabalistic meaning to the word, which, if 
 adopted, went to exclude many international contracts. But was this so ? Wc were in possession 
 of what was justly deemed the highest authority on such questions. '\^attel told us what was the 
 naked fundamental conception of a treaty, defining it to be "a public compact between indepen- 
 dent sovereign powers.'' That was the whole matter ; there was no mystery about it. He knew 
 indeed that, in the language of diplomacy, we had both treaties and conventions, but convention.'? 
 were all treaties ; if not, whence did the Senate derive its power to ratify conventions, so called ^ 
 An agreement between two nations in reference to a specific object or to a single act to be performed, 
 such as the payment of indemnities or the fixing of some unimportant boundarj', was usually denomi- 
 nated a convention ; still it was in substance a treaty, for the term treaty was generic and' compre- 
 hended the whole. A treaty, according to the highest authority, was simply an international compact. 
 
 It was important to know in what sense this term treaty was understood by the people when they 
 were called on to ratify the treaty-making power, as laid down in the new Constitution. And on tlus- 
 point it gave him great pleasure to turn the attention of the Senate to a brief passage of the Federalist, 
 which not only furnished a definition of a treaty, but went to explain the whole nature, philosophy, 
 and true conception of the treaty-making power. Gentlemen would find the passage in No. 7.5 oJ 
 the Federalist, page _322 : 
 
 " The essence of the Legislative is to enact laws ; or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the rc^'u- 
 lation of the society ; while the execution of the laws and the employment of the common .strcnn-th, 
 either for this purpose or for the common defence, seem to comprise all the functions of the Execu- 
 tive magistrate. The power of making treaties is plainly neither the one nor the oilier. It relates 
 neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones, and still less to an 
 exertion of the common strength. Its objects are conifacts ivith foreign Po-cvers, which have the force 
 of law, but derive it from the obligations of good fiuth. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign 
 to the subject, but agreements behveen .tovereign and sovereig-n. The power in question, therefore, 
 seems to form a distinct department, and to belong properly neither to the Legislative uor to the 
 Executive." 
 
 Now, with the lights derived from this authoritative definition of treaties and the treaty-making 
 power, Mr. R. turned to the joint resolution which had been received from the House of Representa- 
 tives, and he would inquire whether it was not, to all uitents and purposes, in evciy practical sense, 
 a treaty, and nothing but a treaty '> It was not a change of name or a variation in form which affect- 
 ed the substance of things. He put it to gentlemen ti .say whether this joint resolution was not in 
 substance a "contracl with a foreign Power?'' Was it not a treaty, in the language of the Fede- 
 ralist, just as much as Mr. Tyler's treaty, which had been submitted at the last session ' What was 
 a contract? His learned friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Been ax \x) needed not to be reminded 
 that a contract was an "agreement to do or not to do a particular thing on a sufficient consideration."" 
 Was not this an agreement, on certain terms and conditions, to admit a foreign nation into this asso- 
 ciated Federal Republic ? The question answered itself What had the honorable Senator done 
 yesterday i' Had he not gone over the terms of this agreement, declaring that some of them he liked 
 and others he did not like ? In this resolution Congress was asked to say to Texas, " If you will 
 unhsrse your President ; dissolve your Government ; go back to a state of nature ; cede all your 
 public estabhshments, mines, minerals, and cverj- thing but your public lands ; retain your public 
 domain ; contiimc responsible for your debts ; agree to the understanding that new States may be 
 carved out of your territory, on the condition that in all of them north of a certain line slavery shall 
 be prohibited forever, and in those south of it it shall or .shall not he prohibited, as the people may 
 choose — if you will do all these things, then it is a bargain, and we will admit yon into our Confede- 
 racy on equal terms with ourselves." Now, if this was not an agreement — if it was not a contract, 
 and that with an exttaordinaiy display of terms too, then Mr. R. did not know what an agreement 
 or a contract was. That it was an agreement all the world must see. No man could wink so hard 
 as not to see it. The only question, then, which remained was, whether it was not an agreement 
 with a foreign independent Power? 
 
 What, then, was Texas ? Need Mr. R., at this time of day, prove the title of Texas to national 
 independence ' Should he be told that she was not a foreign, sovereign, independent Power > He 
 presumed not. Then, whether we looked at the terms or at the parties, this was an agreement 
 between sovereign and sovereign. 
 
 Now, then, where was such an agreement to be consummated according to the Constitution ' 
 He asked the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania where ^ The joint resolution announces its 
 true character on its face. Res ipsa loquitur. It is styled a joint resolution " declarino- the lerms 
 
on which Coiigres-s will admit Texas into the Union as a State." When we looked at the body of 
 the resolution did it hear the ordinary badge of legislation — " be it enacted ?" No: its language 
 was "be it consented." [A laugh.] It was the language of the marriage ceremony — "whereas 
 A. and B. have consented foge/her in holy wedlock." [Increased laughter.] (He was sorry to be 
 obliged to make such an allusion when addressing the honorable gentleman, wlio was not yet ini- 
 tiated in these mysteries.) [More laughter.] Yes, its terms were "be it con;sented ;" "it is 
 hereby fli^ree^/," not " hereby enacted.^' It was the very language of treaties. Gentlemen could 
 not wink so hard as not to see it was in substance a treaty, begun and ended by legislation. 
 
 And, further : when we lookcil at the subject-matter of the agioement, Mr. R. averred not only 
 that it was a treaty, but that tlie oliject could be consummated in no other way than by treaty. 
 
 Mr. R. laid down this projio.sition, and he invited the honorable Senator (who, though not a 
 " Philadelphia lawyer," was at all events a Pennsylvania lawyer) to find a flaw in it if he could : he 
 asserteu that foreign territory could not peaceably be acquired (upon terms and conditions, as in this 
 case) in any other mode than by treaty ; because such territory, being umler an independent sovereign 
 Power, could not be peaceably acquired without the consent of that sovereign ; and, when that 
 consent was given, in whatever form, it constituted a treaty, and nothing else. 
 
 He had heard, by way of enibarras.sing and mystifying the subject, a great deal said as to the 
 various modes in which territory could be acquired. They were told that it might be acquired by 
 conquest and by discovery. So it could ; but neither of these modes ailected Mr. R.'s proposition in 
 the least. He said it couid not be pcaceabli/ acquired ; this, in terms, excluded acquisition by con- 
 tiuest : and bv implication it excluded discovery, because it rcfeiTed to a case of a peopled and settled 
 country, under the jurisdiction of a sovereign organized Power. He again invited his honorable and 
 learned friend to answer it if he could. Let him point out a mode by whid\ foreign territory could 
 be peaceably acquired, in the proper political sense of the rights of jurisdiction attaching to it, other- 
 wise than by treaty. 
 
 Hi-nce it was that, after the discussions of a quarter of a centui-y, it had come to be the settled 
 law of the land that the treaty power could acquire foreign territory, and that it exclusively was com- 
 petent to that function. 
 
 Mr. Ji. went on to say that this question had come up for decision before the highest judicial tri- 
 bunal of the country in the case of the American Insurance company vs. Canter, referred to by the 
 honorable Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Moukueah,) when that august court had pronounced the 
 opinion that the Constitution, having established the treaty-making power without qualification or 
 restriction, it had the same extent in our Government which it had in other Govenunents, and legi- 
 timately extended to the acquisition of foreign territory. He was no lawyer, and felt as if he was 
 going out of his sphere in quoting cases to his learned friend. He understood, however, that the 
 honorable Senator recognised the correctness of that decision in its fullest extent. He did not pre- 
 tend to (jucstion that the treaty power might acquire foreign territory ; but he made a distinction — 
 that when a foreign Power alienated only a portion of its territory, and thereby dismembered itself, 
 a treaty was necessarj' ; but the case was dilTerent when such a tiovcrnment alienated the whole of 
 its territory. Such was the distinction of the gentleman. But if there was any thing in it, the gen- 
 tleman was estopped from using such an argument, because the treaty submitted at the last session 
 did propose to alienate the whole Texan territory, and the gentleman voted for it. By his own act, 
 therefore, he had recognised the doctrine that the treaty power was the pi«per instrument of acquisi- 
 tion even when the whole territory of a foreign CJovernment was by its own act to be alienated. 
 Doubtless tlie gentleman had the cases of liOuisiana and Florida in his mind. But even admitting 
 the distinction taken, that did not aifect the domestic question with us ; it affected only the other 
 party. The question it raised was not whether this Government (;ould acquiretheterritory of another 
 Government by treaty, but whether or not it was competent for a foreign Government to alienate the 
 whole of its territory without the express consent of the people. But there was a most obvious way 
 to avoid that difficulty. This joint resolution jirovided for taking the sense of the people of Texas 
 on the question in their own primarv' assemblies. And could not a treaty provide the same thing "' 
 And here he would remind the honorable Senator that Mr. Madison, in the instructions given by 
 him at tlie time of the acquisition of Louisiana, suggested that very thing — that some mode should be 
 pro^^ded of obtaining the consent of the inhabitants to the act of cession. This was according to the 
 acneral principles of the law of nations. Vattel himself declared that in such cases the people were 
 to be consulted. Now, what Mr. R. said was this : that, as the alienation of the whole was more 
 important than the alienation of a part, so there was a greater necessity for observing all the con- 
 stitutional guaranties furnished by the treaty-making power in one ca.se than in the other. The ad- 
 mission of Texas being the former case, it required the interposition of all the guaranties in the Con- 
 stitution respecting transactions with foreign nations, and must have the assent of two-tliirds of the 
 sovereign members of the Confederacy. 
 
 Perhaps the honorable Senator had the idea that, in a transaction like this, where a foreign Gov- 
 ernment transfened its entire territory, with all its inhabitants, to the Government of a new sover- 
 eign, where it transferred human allegiance as well as mere acres of the soil, it was not a treaty, and 
 he feared an honorable friend in his eye (Mr. Fostkh) was a good deal taken by this doctrine. 
 But was there any ground for it * A treaty was an agreement with a foreign sovereign ; and where 
 
was the sovereignty in Texas ' Certainly, according to the American doctrine, in the mas.5 of the 
 peo^e. Now, if the agreement was made ultimately with the people, instead of being less, it was 
 more emphatically a treaty with a sovereign Power than if made with the Government only. If the 
 honorable Senator from Penn^^ylvania really intended to intimate ihat a transaction by which an en- 
 tire territory' and peoj)le are transferred to a foreign sovereignty is not properly a treaty, (though he 
 at least would seem to be estopped from such an argument by his vote for the treaty of the last session,) 
 he would give the "law and the prophets." It was an authority from the weight of which that gen- 
 tleman would not detract, and it went directly to show that precisely .such a transaction as is now in 
 view with the people of Texas is a treaty. Vattel (book 1, chap. 16) .speaks of two forms of treaty, 
 in which one of the parties assume a subordinate relation to the other ; the one a treaty oi protecfion 
 merely, and the other a treaty by which one Power, on account of weakness, an intimate communi- 
 ty of interest, or other cause, submits it.self entirely to another. His language was this — first as to a 
 treaty of protection : 
 
 " When a nation is not capable of preserving itself from insult and oppression, she may pi'ocure the 
 protection of a more powerful State. If she obtains this by only engaging to perform certain .ai-ticles, 
 as, to pay a tribute in return for the safety obtained, to furnish her protector with troops, and to em- 
 bark, in all his wars a.s a joint concern, but still reserving to herself the right of administering her own 
 Government at pleasure, it is a simple treaty of protection^ that does not at all derogate from her sov- 
 ereignity, and differs not from the ordinary treaties of alliance, otherwise than as it creates a difter- 
 cuce in the dignity of the conlraeling parties." 
 
 Then follows a paragraph describing precisely the nature of the transaction now before us, by 
 which one foreign State is proposed to be completely subjected to and incorporated into another, 
 ajid denominating it expressly a treaty. He begged leave to read it to the Senate : 
 
 " But this matter is sometimes carried still further ; and, although a nation is under an obligution 
 to preserve v ith the utmost care the liberty and independence it inherits from Xatui-e, yet, -h hen it 
 has not sufficient strength of itself, and teels itself unable to resist its enemies, it may lawiully sub- 
 ject itself to a morft powei-ful nation, on certain conditions agreed to by both parties ; and the com- 
 pact or treaty oi submission will thenceforward be the measure and the rule of the rights of each. 
 For, since the people who enter into subjection i-esign a right which naturally belongs to thcnl, and 
 transfer it to another nation, they are perfectly at liberty to annex what conditions they please 
 to this transfer \ and the other party, by accepting tlieix' subjection on this footing, engages to obsene 
 religiously all the clauses of the treaty.'''' 
 
 He knew that his honorable and learned friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Choatk) had, during 
 the last session, thrown out the idea that this was not properly the .subject of treaty, and had as- 
 serted that the records of history could not show an example of such a treaty. With all respect for 
 the learning and sagacity of his honorable friend, he must nevertheless be permitted to say that on^ 
 this point he thought him mistaken. Such instances must naturally have occurred in the muta- 
 tions of empire. His friend well knew the frequency with which the absorption of lesser States 
 had occurred in the progress of the Roman empire to universal dominion. He had not made this 
 point a subject of recent inquiry : but he thought he could not, in saying that there had been Vnany 
 in.stances of such absorption and incorporation by treaty, be mistaken. It had also taken place in mo- 
 dern times. How had the vasst monarchies of Europe grown up and extended themselves but by 
 the annexation (in soine cases undoubtedly by convention) of weaker territories around them ' Let 
 the honorable Senator consult the classic pages of his own admirable Prescott, and I doubt not 
 he will find there that the Spanish monarchy had been built up and established by the successive 
 incorporations with An-agon and Castile of the kingdoms of Granada and Navarre. The case 
 of Granada was directly in point, and was so striking and picturesque in its character as to be 
 fresh in the recollection of all. The Moorish sovereign, in the menaced wreck of his affair.s, made a 
 treaiy, by which he surrendered his whole kingdom to Ferdinand and Isabella for a smaller province, 
 which also he afterwards surrendered, and finally retired into Africa. Let the gentleman look at the 
 ^ history of the Low Countries — the great battle-field of Europe — and see how, with occasional pe- 
 riods of national independence, they had been transferred from one sovereign to another. Was all 
 this done without treaty ' Or let him turn to a still more modern instance — the cormexion ])etween 
 Norway and Sweden. Noiway had been a dependency of Denmark ; Denmark, by treaty, ceded 
 her to Sweden, but Norway refused to be ceded ; she set up her own banner, like Texas ; adopted 
 a new Constitution, and asserted her independence; but at length, being closely pressed by Sweden, 
 she entered into negotiation, and concluded a convention, by which she surrendered her sovereign- 
 ty, both territory and people, to the Swedish crown. These certainly were cases in point. But 
 Mr. R. did not rest on them ; he rested on the impregnalile authority of the well-known exposition 
 of the law of nations which he had (juoted ; an authority which was in the hands of every member 
 of the Convention which framed the Constitution. V/bile, on the [)art of Texas, therefore, an ap- 
 peal to the people might be necessary to sanction the transfer of their entire territory and national 
 independence, with us t!ie Constitution had provided a competent power to treat wit!) them in the re- 
 gular treaty-making branch of the Government, and that power we were bound to pursue ac-cording 
 to the imperative forms of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. R. had s;iid thus much in relation to the treaty-making power, because he considered it an 
 indispensable preliminaiy to another question. If the general power of making conventional arrange- 
 ments with foreign nations was delegated by the Constitution to the President and two-thirds of 
 
the Senate, and, in the words of General Washington, exclimiuelf/ vested in them, then he held 
 that no otlier clause in the same instrument could be so interprett'd as to nullify that grant. Would 
 the Senator from Penns\lvaniu U'll him that after this investiture of the treaty yjower hi the Execu- 
 tive and two-thirds of the States, as represented in this hody, it was admissible to give such a con- 
 struction to another clause of the Constitution as wholly to overrule and subvert that power ? Yet 
 
 ■ that was the scope and necessary effect of the argument. Under the power of Congress to admit 
 ?iew States into the Union, it was contended that a mere majority of the two Houses of Congiess could 
 
 • enterinlo stipulations and agreements whh /ore/^/i States for their incorporation into our political sys- 
 tem, although the power of treating with foreign States had been expressly restricted to the Pre- 
 sident and two-thirda of the States, as represented in this body. Would it not be most extraordi- 
 nary, indeed, that tlic wise and sagacious men who framed the Constitution should have placed so 
 strong a check on the most unimportant transactions of this Government with foreign Powers, such 
 as the payment of a sum of money, the surrender of criminals, the fixing of some small and un- 
 important boundary line, by requiring the assent of two-thirds of the States, and yet should have 
 •abandoned to a simple majority of the two Houses the vast, formidable, transcendant power of 
 treating with a foreign nation for its incorporation into our Union ? The mere statement of the 
 proposition was sufficient. It could not bear a moment's consideration. W'as not such a power 
 -as capable of deranging the original adjustment of their relative interests among the States as an 
 amendment of the Constitution itself ^ And yet for the amendment of the Constitution the assent 
 ■of thrce-fourihs of the States was indispensably required. Was it to be presumed, in the face of 
 this manifest intention of the framcrs of the Constitution to reserve a veto on all transactions and 
 agreements with foreign States in the hands of one-third of the sovereign members of the Con- 
 federacy, that the vast power of admitting a foreign Government and people into the Union would 
 be entrusted to the vole of a mere transient party majority of the two Houses of Congress > It can- 
 not be supposed for a moment. 
 
 And in what part of the Constitution was this vast, imperial power, capable of subverting all its 
 well-adjusted balances, to be found .' — this lever of Archimedes, with which to prize up from its 
 stable foundations the whole system of our constitutional Government ^ Where, he asked, was 
 it to be found ' In the forefront of the Constitution '' In the same phalanx of enumerated powers, 
 with the power to make war, the power to coin money, the power to raise armies, to build navies, 
 to levy taxes ^ No, sir. At the very foot of the instrument, amid the odds and ends of miscel- 
 laneous provisions. It was relegated to an obscure comer ; it was pushed off into a dark hiding- 
 place, where it lay concealed, like some Guy Fawkes, beneath the Senate House, prepared to blow 
 up and involve in one common ruin the Constitution and the Union of the country. Surely, if 
 this provision had the colossal magnitude which the honorable Senator supposed, it would not have 
 been thus sneaked off (to use the memorable expression of a former distinguished member of this 
 body, now no more) into a corner. 
 
 The honorable Senator had instructed us by reading certain general rules of interpretation laid 
 down by Yattel ; but Mr. R. should leave all that, and come a little nearer home. He would ask 
 the gentleman's attention and that of the Senate to a ver\' pertinent and practical rule of construction, 
 applying to the Constitution of the United States, laid down by one who had a deeper interest in our 
 system. Not that Mr. R. objected to the passage which the Senator from Pennsylvania had read. 
 The rules were good in themselves, l>ut they were inapplicable to the question. He would show that 
 the language of the Constitution, in the clause now under discussion, admitted of but one rational in- 
 terpretation, and that in precise coincidence with the literal import of the words, as they were uni- 
 versally understood and received at the time of the establishment of the Constitution. He had be- 
 fore Mm a canon of constitutional interpretation which he well knew the Senator from Pennsylvania 
 must respect, for it came from an authority before which ail true Donocrats would reverentially 
 bow. It was to be found in a letter from .Mr. Jefferson to Judge Johnson, in which that distinguished 
 founder of the Democratic school recapitulated the fundamental principles of his creed. "On 
 
 * every question of construction," he says, " we should currij ourselves ba^k to the time when the 
 
 • Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and, instead of trying 
 ' what meaning may ie squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable 
 ' one in which it was j)assed." 
 
 Here was a good republican rule of construction ; and it was a rule which had been sanctioned by 
 the highest judicial tribunal of the country, in one of the greatest causes ever brought up for the 
 decision of any court on earth. It was the case of a citizen of Maryland against the Commonwealth 
 of Pennsylvania, in reference to the recovery of fugitive slaves. In that case the most delicate and 
 critical relations of the States of this Union were involved ; and, in delivering the opinion of the Court, 
 recognising and affirming one of the fundamental compromises of the Constitution, Judge Story says : 
 
 " The safest rule of Interpretation, after all, w ill he found to be to look to the nature and objects of 
 die particular powers, duties, and rights, ivitli atl the //q-hts and aids of contem/wrartj history : and to 
 give to the words of each just siicli operation and force,' consistent with their legitimate meaning, as 
 
 ■ may fairly secure and attain the ends proposed. " 
 
 And now, with the aids and lights of contemporaneous history, Mr. R. invited the Senate to do 
 -vvkat Mr. Jefferson had said ought to be done in every question of constitutional construction — " to 
 
go back to the time when the Constitution was adopted," and see what was the sense in which its 
 provisions were then practically intended and understood. 
 
 At the time when the Constitution v/as adopted there were two descriptions of political communi- 
 ties or existences embraced within the limits of the United States ; one consisted of organized Stafe.", 
 with all the powers, faculties, and instruments of independent self-government in regard to their 
 municipal and domestic concerns, and at the same lime participating in the administration of the 
 General Government over the Union by their Representatives in Congress. Side by side with these 
 was another class, consisting of dependant communities, with imperfect and subordinate powers, 
 and denominated Territories. These Territories were governed, mediately or immediately, by Con- 
 gress, and were without any voice of their own in the national councils. These latter communities 
 were doubtless prominently in the view of the Constitution when' it spoke of new States being 
 admitted. He did not mean to say that the clause referred only to such 'I'erritories as were within 
 the limits of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It applied to all 
 Territories which should be included within the national limits at the time when new States were to 
 be formed out of them. Virginia had ceded to the United States in 1784 the vast body of the lands 
 northwest of the Ohio, and in the act of cession had exj)ressly stipulated that the territory so ceded 
 should be divided into not less than three nor more than five republican States, which should come 
 into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. These embryo States formed one class 
 of candidates for admission into the T'nion, and were, of course, within the view of the constiutional 
 provision. 
 
 But this was not all. There were several States, of large and disproportionate dimensions, within 
 which it was foreseen new States must arise, ^'^irginia at that time included within her limits what 
 was then called the district of Kentucky. This territory was, even then, aspiring to rise into the 
 dignity of a State, and had entered into an arrangement with the Legislature of Virginia for that 
 purpose. Then there was the patriotic and high-spirited community of Frankland — the germ of the 
 future State of Tennessee — embraced within the limits of North Carolina. She was then in sub- 
 stance a separate community, exercising dc facia, though in a style of almost Arcadian simplicity, 
 many of the attributes of independent sovereignty. Besides these there was the Territory of Maine 
 (within the limits of Massachusetts) also aspiring after State dignity- There was, moreover, Ver- 
 mont, lying within territory claimed by the State of New York, but having long since set up a sepa- 
 rate Government, and earnestly demanded admission into the Confederacy. The Senator's own 
 State, too, was at that time agitated by schemes of division, which, if they had been unfortunately 
 carried into execution, would have deprived her of the proud honor she now wears of being the 
 keystone of the Federal arch. Within the broad limits of Georgia — then stretching over what are 
 now the States of Mississippi and Alabama — it was impossible not to foresee that new States would 
 also arise. Thus the country stood when the Constitution was adopted ; and it was in view of this 
 state of things, and of the fact that there was no power in the old Confederation to admit new 
 States, that this much perverted clause was inserted. 
 
 Here, then, were five new States to come in out of the Northwest Territory, besides all those 
 other aspiring scions from the larger States, which were springing up on all sides. The old Con- 
 federation, strange as it may appear, possessed no power to admit new States out of domestic ter- 
 ritory. On this point Mr. R. would call the attention of the Senate to a number of the Federalist, 
 in which Mr. Madison distinctly stated this defect of power in the old Confederation, and traced 
 to that defect the origin of the clause in the present Constitution which gives to Congress the 
 power to admit new States into the Union. Nobody knows better than the Senator from Pennsyl- 
 vania that it is a fundamental rule, in the construction of all remedial acts, to consider the state 
 of the old law, the defect or mischief existing under it, and then the remedy furnished by the new 
 law, which must be so construed as to correct the particular defect or mischief which existed under the 
 old law. Now, Mr. President, let us see what Mr. Madison says of the want of power under the 
 articles of Confederation. In the 38th number of the Federalist, speaking of the Northwest Ter- 
 ritory, which had been ceded to the United States by Virginia, and which \''irginia had obtained 
 a positive stipulation from the' old Congress should be divided into not less than three nor more 
 than five Republican States, he says : 
 
 "Congress have assumed the administi'ation of this stock. Tbey have begun to render it produc- 
 tive. Congress have undertaken to do nioi-e : they have proceeded to form lurw States,- [that is, pro- 
 spectively ;] to erect temporary Govei-nments, to appoint officers for them, and to prescribe the 
 conditions on which such Stales shall be admitted into the Confederacy. All this has been done, and 
 done -MithoiU the least color of constitutional anthoritij .'''' 
 
 We have only to connect with this passage what the honorable Senator read to us from the 43ti 
 number of the Federalist, written also by Mr. Madison, and we have a complete clue to the 
 tnie and incontestable meaning of the clause of the new Constitution giving to Congress- 
 the power to admit new States into the Union. After quoting the whole clause providing for the 
 admission of new States into the Union, Mr. Madison, in the number of the Federalist now re- 
 ferred to, proceeds as follows: 
 
 " In the articles of Confederation no provision is found on this important subject. Canada was to 
 be admitted of right, on her joining in the measures of the United States 5 and the other colonies, by 
 
8 
 
 which were evidently meant the other British colonies, at the discretion of nine States. The eventual 
 establishment of nc-w States seems to have been oveilooke<l by the compilers of that instrument. ^Ve 
 have seen the inconvenience of this omission, and the assumption of iiovver into which Congress liave 
 been led by it. With great propriety, therefore, has the new system supplied the defect." 
 
 The new Constitution was our great national remedial act. It was intended to correct the 
 CTila and defects of the Confederation. Under the old system, there had existed, as we have 
 Been, no authority to admit new Suites arising within the limits of the United States— that 
 was the defect to be corrected, and this shed irresi.stible light on the true meaning of the new 
 clause. Admission into the Confederacy had been clamorously demanded for yeais by Vermont, 
 and the other rising communities to which I have referred were showing also an impatient desire 
 to be admitted into the Union as States. These young gianta were uneasy and restless under the 
 reetraintsoftheir condition of pupilage; they panted to cast aside their tutors and governors, and 
 to assume tlie lotra virilia of State sovereignty. The passage in the 43d number of the Federalist, 
 quoted above, which was rather unwittingly, as it seemed to me, for his purpese, read by the hono- 
 rable Senator from Pennsylvania, completed the evidence (even to the proof of a negative) of the 
 ^ue meaning of the clause, and went conclusively to show that the power to admit new States 
 4id not mean a power to admit /ore/^/i but American States. What does Mr. Madison say in 
 that number of the Federalist ^ The articles of Confederation, he says, provided for the admission 
 of Canada, whose aid in the war of the Revolution we were desirous to obtain. They allowed her 
 to come in by her simply "joining in the measures of the United States," and this assent was 
 given unanimously by all the States ; for it was inserted in the articles of Confederation themselves, 
 which were the "unanimous act of the old thirteen States. The articles of Confederation also 
 provided that the other "colonies' (meaning, as Mr. Madison says, British colonies) might hkewise 
 be admitted, but not without the assent of ynne States, forming two-thirds of the States then 
 in the Confederacy. But, at the same time, says Mr. Madison, no provision was made by the 
 articles of Confederation for the admission of neiu States. "The eventual establishment of 
 neiu States," he says, "seems to have been overlooked by the compilers of that instrument." The 
 words new States are italicised by him, and doubtless with the design of contradistinguibliing 
 them from /ore/i,'-« colonies. By the former, therefore, as used in the new Constitution, was clear- 
 ly meant American States, to be formed vnthin our own territory. The provi^^ion to admit Canada 
 a.nAfureis:a British colonies was introduced in the articles of Confederation when we were in the 
 Diidst of the Kcvolutionary war, in the hope that some of them would join us in the struggle ; 
 hut, after the close of the war, when the vital struggle was over, and we no longer needed their aid, 
 the clau.se about ?i('w ^7a/es was introduced into the Constitution with exclusive reference to the 
 state of tliijigs in our own country, and to provide for tlie admis.sion of States to be "established" 
 or "formed," using the words of Mr. Madison, within our own tenitorial and political system. 
 So far as the future acquisition of foreign territory was in the view of the framers of the Consti- 
 tution, it was provided tor in another part of the instrument entirely different from this. If the 
 honorable Senator would lonk at the discussions in the Convention respecting the treatj'-making 
 power, he would there see reference made to the acquisition or cession of territory, the adjust- 
 ment of boundaries, &c. as embraced within the scope of the /rea/i/ /jou-cr ,• but nowhere, I feailess- 
 ly assert, will hi- see the slightest reference to foreign territory or foreign States in connexion witii 
 the clause providins? for the admission of new States into the Union. 
 
 This, as Mr. R. believed, was the true and undoubted theory of the Constitution. He was not 
 inclined to adopt the view which had been put forth by .some gentlemen, that the Consthution 
 contained no reference at all to any future extension of teixitory. Wliat he said was, that the mode 
 of effecting such extension was not in view in this clause respecting new States, but that it belong- 
 ed to the treaty prtwer. And this was in analogy to the principle, though not the form, of the 
 old articles of confederation. W^e have seen tliat while the Confederation made provision for the 
 admission of foreign colonies into the confederacy, it was to be done only by the assent of mne 
 Slate.% being two-fhiMt of the whole number of States, which is precisely the proportion now re- 
 quired by the existing Constitution to elfoct the acquisition of foreign territory by treaty. It must 
 be borne in mind, too, that under the articles of confederation the Continental Congress was the 
 treaty-making as well as legislative branch of the Government, and that the same vote of nine Slates^ 
 or two-thirds, was required to enter into treaties or to admit Canada and the other British colonies 
 into the confederacy. The present extraordinary claim, therefore, to admit foreign States into the 
 JJnion by a mere legislative ma.iority of the two Houses of ('ongress, does not receive any, the slightest 
 countenance, even from the old articles of confederation. 
 
 But the Senator from Pennsylvania insists "it is nominated in the bond." His argument was 
 .short and simple, at least. It ran thus : " New States may be admitted by Congress." Texas is 
 a new State ; therefore, Texas may be admitted by Congress. And the gentleman road Crabbe's 
 Synonymes and Vattcl's law of nations to shww us what this clause of the Constitution means by the 
 word Slate. Now, with all respect, Mr. R. must say, that neither Crabb;;'s Synonymes, nor yattcl, 
 no, nor (he hoped his honorable friend from Mississippi would not suppose he meant a pun) WaiAer'.s 
 dictionary, was the authority by which this question was to be decided. The Constitution decides 
 i t for itself. 
 
 It surely is not for me (said Mr. R.) to assume to tell the learned legal Senator from Pennsylvania 
 
what had been the repeated decisions of the Supreme Court respecting the meaning of the word 
 "State," as used in the Constitution. The interpretation put upon it by that gentleman and his 
 friends, and the very definition of Vattel, now quoted by him, had been over and over again brought 
 before fliat Court, and rejected as wholly inapplicable t(5 the Constitution of the United States. In 
 regard to the meaning of the phrase, as used in the Constitution, that august tribunal had said, through 
 its wisest luminaries, the Constitution must speak for itself He might refer the gentleman to tlie 
 early and leading case of Hepburn vs. Elzey, where Chief Justice Marshall had overruled and re- 
 jected Vattel's definition, under the general law of nations, as wholly inapplicable to the Constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 Mr. R. was no lawyer, yet he had tried, by close and long stud)-, to understand the Constitution 
 of his countrj' by all the lights accessible to him. There had been a more recent and very important 
 case, sometimes called the Cherokee case, and sometimes the Georgia case, (Worcester vs. the State 
 of Georgia, I think,) in which this definition, quoted by the gentleman from Vattel, had been again 
 rejected as having nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States. A State of the Ameri- 
 can Union, as the word was found in the Constitution of the United States, meant a very different 
 thing from a State or Nation in the general unqualified sense of the law of nations. Under the law 
 of nations a State was a wholly sovereign, separate, and independent community. But this cer- 
 tainly was not the condition of the States of the American Union, in the sense of the Constitution, 
 fijT they were expressly disabled by the Constitution itself from the exercise of many of the attributes 
 of national sovereignty — making war, treaties, &c. No term had a greater variety of significations 
 than this of State. In the celebrated Virginia report and resolutions of 1799 Mr. Madison said there 
 were four different significations in which it was used, and so said the Supreme Court. Sometimes 
 it meant the tenitory, simply ; at other times it meant the political community ; in other cases, the 
 orgianized Government. In all tliese different senses, according to the Supreme Court, it is used in 
 diflferent parts of the Constitution, and in each case its particular meaning must be determined by 
 the context. If we wish, therefore, to arrive at the true sense in which this phrase " new States" is 
 used in the clause of the Constitution now under discussion, and not to "squeeze out of the text," 
 as Mr. Jelierson says, some meaning contrary to the intentions of the fi-amers of the Constitution, 
 aiid of the people who accepted it, we must, instead of referring to Crabbe's Synmiijmex, Walker's 
 Dictionary, or Vattel, turn to the Constitution itself, and, in doing that, read the whole claime re- 
 lating to the subject, and not a part, torn and isolated from the rest. Now, Mr. President, let us 
 read the whole clause relating to the subject, as it stands in the Constitution : 
 
 " New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union ; but no new States shall be formed 
 or erected within the jurisdiction of anj- other State, nor any State be formed by ihe jmictiou of two 
 or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as 
 well as of the Congress. " 
 
 In giving to Congress the power to admit " new States into the Union," the Constitution proceeds> 
 "no new States shall he funned or eredecl" &c. The new States to be admitted, then, were States 
 to be formed or erected. Now, sir, is it not an absurdity to suppose, would it not be the grossest 
 solecism in language even, that the Congress of the United States was to legislate respecting the 
 "formation''^ or "erection'' of new States, except within the hmits of the United States, under 
 our own jurisdiction, and out of our own territory } Mark me, Mr. President, I do not mean to 
 restrict this power to territory within the original Umits of the United States, but tcrritoiy within the 
 limits of the United States at the time when the neiv State, asking for admission, is to be funned 
 or erected. The text of the Constitution itself, then, comes most decisively in confirmation of the 
 overwhelming evidence of contemporary history, to show what Mr. Jefferson calls the true and honest 
 sense of the instrument — the sense in which it was framed by the Convention and adopted by the 
 people. 
 
 But if the gentleman still insists on his ultra-literal meaning, Mr. R. would take the liberty of 
 carrying him a little further back in his law learning. Though he was no lawyer, he repeated, yet 
 in his younger days, with a desire of acquiring such a knov/ledge of the general principles of civil 
 and political jurisprudence as is proper to every citizen of a free country, he had read Blackstone's 
 Commentaries, and he had there found that of all the various sorts of interpretations, that which is 
 most condemned was the strictly literal interpretation. Qui hscrct in Uteru, hsrret iri corfice. 
 
 The gentleman said Texas was a State, was a new State, and therefore we might admit her 
 into the Union. Did he recollect the case of the Bolognian law, which imposed the heaviest 
 penalty on the act of "dra^ving bh^od in the streets .'" Now, it happened that a surgeon, passing along 
 the street, saw a man drop under a stroke of apoplexy, and bled him on the spot to save his life. 
 Now, sir, according to the honorable Senator's canons of interpretation, the surgeon nmst have 
 bedn condemned to death for his humanity, for he had "drawn blood in the streets." Such 
 were the wurdj^ of the law, but such was not its meaning. The true meaning was not to be ob- 
 tained from the words only, but from the context, from the subject-matter, from the cause and rea- 
 son of the law, and from the consequences which would attend a given construction. To illus- 
 trate this same principle, Cicero had long ago cited one of the laws of Rome, which ordained that 
 Ae mariners who deserted the ship in a storm should forfeit all their interest in the vessel and cargo 
 to the man who should remain in the vessel. A ship at sea being threatened with impending de- 
 
10 
 
 btruction !>y a sudden and fearful tempest, the mariners all left her to save their lives. It happened 
 there was a helpless invalid on board, who could not stir ; and, by the merf y of Providence, the ship 
 was wafted into port, and his life was saved. He knew the provision of the law, and tljimed 
 the ownership of the vessel and cargo, as forfeited to his benefit, because he had renmined in the 
 ship. According to the new school of blind, inexorable interpretation, his case was a good one, 
 for it is quite as unquestionable that he had " remained in the ship," according to tlie words of the 
 law, as that Texas is a State, and perhaps a little more so. 
 
 But the Senator had quoted a name always it nicmbered with respect by those who knew him, 
 that of Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina. He had conjured up the venerated spirit of that de- 
 parted patriot to his aid ; but what did his authority prove ' Absolutely nothing but what wa.s al- 
 ready admitted on all hands. The case of which Mr. Macon was speaking was the case of the 
 admission of Louisiana as a State into the Union, not as a/ore/if^ State, but long after that territory 
 had been acquired by treaty, and when it was proposed to form a new State out of it. What Mr. 
 Macon said was,that the clause respecting the admission of new States applied to States formed out 
 of new ten-iiorits belonging to the United States as well as out of old ,■ and who now denied this ^ 
 All that is contended for is, that the new State must be formed out of territory within the limits of 
 the United States at the time the State applies for admission. When Louisiana applied, was she 
 not a part of the territory of the United States ? The question raised in that case was, whether 
 Congress could admit a new State formed out of territoiy which was not within the onir. inal limits 
 of the United States. Tliis was denied by some, who would restrict the meaning of the Constitution 
 to such territory as was within our limits at the time of its adoption. This ultra giound had been 
 taken in the debate by Mr. Quincy, of Massachusetts, and it was to that objection that the observa- 
 tions made by Mr. Macon were addressed. They have not the slightest application to foreign terri- 
 tory like Texas, being no part of the territory of the United States, as Louisiana was at the time 
 (1811) when she applied for admission as a State into the Union. 
 
 But the honorable Senator had invoked the name of Mr. Jefferson also, and had brought him 
 before the Senate upon the stool of repentance, as making a solemn palinode and recantation of 
 his opinions on the question of admitting foreign nations as new States into the L'nion. Did 
 Mr. Jefferson ever do this ^ Mr. R. admitted that Mr. Jefferson did practically abandon the opinion 
 first expressed by him that foreign territoiy could not be con.stitutionally acquired by treaty. But 
 the opinion, so earnestly and emphatically expressed by him in his letters to Mr. Nicholas and 
 Mr. Breckenridge, that, under the clause giving power to Congress to "admit /leit; States into 
 the Union," there was no authority, or color of authority, to use his own language, to "incor- 
 porate yb?"e/^« nations into our Union," was never in any manner or in any degree retracted, aban- 
 doned, or qualified by him, either in act or word. Louisiana was acquired by treaty, and laws were 
 subsequently passed appropriating money to carry the treatji into effect by the payment of the pur- 
 chase money. All this received the official sanction of Mr. Jefferson. But let the honorable 
 Senator from Pennsylvania tell me when, or where, or how, by word or by deed, Mr. Jefferson ever 
 countenanced the idea that Louisiana might have been admitted as a foreign State into the Union 
 by the legislative action of a mere majoritj' of the two Houses of Congress. Mr. R. averred that 
 the solerrm testimony of Mr. Jefferson, in his letters to both Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Breckenridge, 
 against so monstrous a doctrine, remained unrevoked to this day, in all its pristine vigor, and 
 ■would so remain "to the last syllable of recorded time." What ! Mr. JelTerson hold that Corj- 
 gress could admit foreign nations as new States into the Union, whether England, Ireland, or Hol- 
 land, which lie had put as examples in his letter to Mr. Nicholas, or Texas, as much "a foreign 
 nation at this moment as either of them, by the legislative action of a mere majority of Congress ! 
 He utterly abjured such an idea. And, could the spirit of that great man now descend into this 
 Hall, it would indignantly frown upon the doctrine. All the glorious traditions of his illustrious 
 public life pledged him to its denial. 
 
 Mr. R. considered this the most solemn question which had arisen since the formation of the Con- 
 stitution, and it became every man to look well on what ground he stood. His honorable fi-iend 
 had referred to the history of the proceedings of the Convention which formed the Constitution, 
 and asserted that a question was formally taken on the restriction of the power of Congress to 
 admit new States into the Union to the territorial limits of the United States, and that the restric- 
 tion was decisively rejected by a vote of that body. Although the Senator had said that he enter- 
 tained not a doubt respecting his interpretation of the Constitution, Mr. R. would take the liberty 
 of saying for him, that, if he had done as he (Mr. R.) had done — if he had examined minutely, 
 step by step, the proceedings of the Federal Convention on this subject, he wou'd have found 
 that there is not a particle of foundation for the idea he has taken up, (he could not but think at 
 second hand, ) that there ever was any vote of that body deciding that the power of Congress 
 to admit new States should not be confined to the territory of the United States, meaning of 
 course the actual territory of the United States at the time when the new State is to be admitted. 
 Mr. R. averred that there never was any vote or proceeding of the Convention fairly susceptible 
 of such an interpretation, and this he would now undertake to demonstrate. 
 
 In pursuing this investigation, it would be necessary to go back to the first resolution moved on the 
 subject, which was a part of the Virginia propositions moved by Governor Randolph, inthe first 
 days of the Convention. It was in the following words : 
 
11 
 
 *' Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the admission of States, la-ii'fully arimig within 
 the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of government and territory or 
 otherwise, with the consent of a 'number of voices less tliaa the whole." 
 
 Before leaving this resolution let us comprehend its real bearing and import. Asa part of the 
 history' of the times, we must bear in mind that the State of Vermont, which had violently separated 
 herself from the State of New York, of which she had been a part, and within whose lawful juris- 
 diction she was still claimed to be by the authorities of New York, had for years lierii earnestly 
 and importunately applying for admission into ttie Confederacy under the Articles of Confederation. 
 Hardly any subject more occupied and disturbed the deliberations of the Continental Congress. It 
 divided the States into two distinct parties, some for, others against the admission of Vermont. 
 Mr. Madison, then a member of the old Congress, was one of those who entertained and energeti- 
 cally expressed the opinion that the admission of Vermont, under the circumstances of her violent 
 separation from New York, and without the consent of New York to her admission, would be a 
 most dangerous precedent, leading to a dismemberment of other large States, and Virginia among 
 others, by similar unlawful means. He therefore steadily and firmly opposed the admission of 
 Vermont into the Confederacy without the express consent of New York, as will be Been firc«n 
 many of his letters, contained in the first volume of the Madison Papers. 
 
 The opinions of Mr. Madison on this subject are of special importance in this connexion, becaiiee 
 I know, (said Mr. R.) from a communication of that great and virtuous man, made with his charac- 
 teristic delicacy, that he proposed and draughted, mainly, the resolutions which were otiered in Con- 
 vention by Gov. Randolph, who was selected as the organ of the views of the Virginia delegation in 
 that body. With the evidence, then, afforded by Mr. Madison's published correspondence, of his 
 opinions on the Vermont question, we are enabled at once to see the particular signiticancy and im- 
 port of the restrictive clause in the resolution just read — "provision ought to be made for the ad- 
 mis-sion of States lawfidly arising within the limits of the United States." It most clearly had in 
 view the Vermont question, and was intended to guard against the admission of States into the Union 
 which, like Vermont, should have violentl}' separated themselves from the parent State, without the 
 consent of the latter. There were indications of restlessness and an impatient desire for the inde- 
 pendent condition of States, at the time, on the part of Maine in Massachusetts, Frankland (the in- 
 fant Tennes.see) in North Carolina, and also in the western part of the State of the honorable Senator 
 of Pennsylvania himself, as I have already mentioned, which seemed to make this wise precautfon 
 neces-sary. Accordingly, the resolution presejited by Gov. Randolph, precisely as I have read it to 
 the Senate, was adopted by the Convention, first in Committee of the Whole, and then in the 
 House, and finally referred, together with more general propositions on the same subject by Mr. 
 Pinckney of South Carolina and Mr. Patterson of New Jersey, to the Committee of Detail, who were 
 instructed to report a draught of a Constitution. 
 
 In the article prepared by the Committee of Detail on the subject of the admission of new States, 
 the restrictive clause in Gov. Randolph's proposition was retained in substance, though varied slightly 
 in phraseology, and several additional clauses were added to it. It will be necessary to read to the 
 Senate the whole article as reported by the Committee of Detail, that we may better comprehend the 
 tnie effect of the amendments it afterwards underwent. The article is as follows, and, for the sake 
 of simplifying the explanation of the subsequent proceedings of the Convention upon it, its several 
 clauses are numbered : 
 
 (1) " New States, lawfullii constituted or establislied withm the limits of the United States, may be 
 admitted by the Legislature into this Government ; (2) but to such admission the consent of two-thirds 
 of the members present shall be necessary. (.3) If a new State shall arise within the limits of any 
 ot the present States, the consent of the Legislatm-es of such States shall be also necessary to its ad- 
 mission. (4) If the admission be con.sented to, the new States shall be admitted on the same terms 
 with tlie original States. (5) Butthe Legislature may make conditions with the new States concerning 
 llie public debt which shall be then subsisting." 
 
 When the article was taken up for consideration in the Convention, Mr. Gouverneur Moiris first 
 moved to strike out the fourth and the fifth clauses — the one declaring that the new States were to 
 be admitted on the same terms with the original States, and the other providing that conditions were 
 to be made with the new States respecting the public debt. They were stricken out by the vote of 
 nine States to two. 
 
 Mr. Luther Martin and Mr. Gouverneur Morris then moved to strike out the second clause, re- 
 quiring the consent of two-thirds of the members of Congress present to the admission of a new 
 State. It was carried, and by the same vote of nine to two. Now, Mr. President, I cannot forbear 
 remarking that, amid the jealousies respecting the balance of power which are known to have existed 
 between the Northern and Southern portions of the Union in the Convention, and to which every 
 page ot Mr. ?rIadison's Debates bears the most impressive testimony, each apprehensive of the pre- 
 ponderance of the other, it is morally impossible that either would have consented to have placed 
 so powerftil a means of disturbing the original balance of power, (so carefully and painfully adjusted 
 between them,) as the admission oi foreign States into the Union would obviously prove, into the 
 hands of a mere majority of Jongress. W'e have seen that even under the articles of confederation, 
 and in time of war, when there were so many inJucements to increase the aggregate power of the 
 Confederacy by the addition of new members, a two-thirds vote was deemed an indispensable s^o- 
 guard in regard to the admission of the neighboring British colonies. 
 
12 
 
 But, to proceed with the history of the changes which this article underwent in the Convention. 
 After the successive amend monts which I have mentioned, what remained of the original article re- 
 ported by the Coniniittec of Detail was as follows : 
 
 "New States, hnvfuUy cunnlitiUcd or estiMJshed wiihrn the limits of the Unit(;d States, may be ad- 
 mitted by the Legislature into this Government. If a new State shall arise within the limits of any 
 of the present States, the consent of the Legislatures of such States |shall be also necessary to such 
 admission." 
 
 In this state of things, Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved the substitute of which so much has been 
 said, without the slightest foundation in a correct comprehension of the proceedings of the Conven- 
 tion, and of the reasons and motives which influenced those proceedings. That sulistitute is in the 
 following words : 
 
 " New States may be admitted by the Legislature into the Union ; but no new State shall be erected 
 within the limits of any of the present States without the consent of the Legislature of such State, as 
 well as of the G«ncral Legislature." 
 
 Now, sir, a little reflection and knowledge of the conflicting interests and opinions in the Conven- 
 tion will show at once the real bearing and operation of Mr. Morris's substitute. There wa-s but one 
 opinion in the Convention that the want of power in the old Congress, xinder the articles of Con- 
 federation, to admit tieiv States, should be supplied, and that that power should be given to Con- 
 gress under the new Constitution. The general proposition, therefore, to give to Congress the 
 power to admit new States, was destined to receive a general support in the Convention. Bnt the 
 restriction of that power to "States lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the 
 United States," would, it was clearly foreseen, at once arouse the opposition of the States friendly 
 to the admission of Vermont, and was calculated also to excite the jealous}' of those States (particu- 
 larly Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey) which had long been engaged in a controversj- with 
 the larger States respecting the waste and unappropriated lands within the limits of the latter. 
 This last mentioned class of States would be prone to look upon the restrictive clause in the preposition 
 of Gov. Randolph, and in the article reported by the Committee of Detail, as a sort of guaranty 
 of the territorial claim of the larger States. In this state of opinion and feeling in the Convention, 
 Gouverneur Morris, with the tact and sagacity for which he was so conspicuously distinguished, 
 brought forward his substitute, merely changing the arrangement and phraseology of the article re- 
 ported by the Committee of Detail, so as to present in the first part of it the naked proposition to 
 confer upon Congress the povv'er to admit new States, upon which the whole Convention was 
 agreed, and to transfer to the iatter part of it the precautionary and restrictive principle requiring 
 the mutual accord of the new State and that from which it was dismembered, on which it was 
 foreseen a severe struggle must take place. 
 
 Accordingly the vote of the Convention was first and separately taken upon the first part of IVLr. 
 Morris's substitute, declaring in general terms that "new States may be admitted by the Legi-slature 
 into the Union " and it was unanimously adopted. Then the (juostion came up on the latter 
 clause, embracing the principle of the restriction in Gov. Randolph's proposition and the article re- 
 ported by the (Jommittee of Detail, which went to require the consent of the dismembered State 
 as a condition necessary to the laivful formation and admission of a new State ; and the moment 
 that proposition was presented for the vote of the Convention, Luther Martin opened a vehement 
 attack upon it, appealing directly to the feelings and interests of both classes of the malcontent States 
 already described. These were his remarks ■ 
 
 "Nothing would so alarm the limited States as to make the consent of the large Stjites claimir..; 
 the western lands necessary to the establishment of new States Avithin their limits. It is proposed to 
 guaranty the States. Shall Vermont be reduce<l by force in favor of the States claiming it ' Frank- 
 land and the western county of Virginia were in a like situation." 
 
 The vote was taken, and the latter part of the substitute was carried by only six States to five- 
 New Hampshire and Connecticut, the friends and allies of Vermont, and Maryland, Delaware, and 
 New Jersey, the antagonists of the large States on account of the old grudge respecting the waste and 
 unappropriated lands within the limits of the latter, all voting against it. A modification was 
 afterwards made, which was understood to provide for the case of Vermont, and that drew oft the 
 two States of New Hampshire and Connecticut fi-om the opposition ; but Maryland, Delaware, and 
 New Jersey held out in uinniligated resistance to the last. 
 
 It is seen, therefore, Mr. President, that the question which arose in the Convention had not the 
 slightest reference to the restriction of the power to adm.t new States to the territorial limits of the 
 United States. No person ever moved, or suggested, or hinted that the power of admitting new 
 States ought not to be limited to the proper territory of the United States. It seemed to be taken 
 for granted by every body that this power, like every other power of Congrcs.i, was liinited by its 
 own nature, a"^nd as a matter of course, to tlie territory of the United States ; and there is the most 
 abundant evidence, in other proceedings of the Convention, that such was the universal understand- 
 ing of the body. The only question which arose upon Gov. Randolph's proposition and Mr. Morris's 
 substitute was, as has been shown, in regard to a restriction of a wholly different character, referring 
 to the case of a new Slate arising within the limits of another, and requiring the consent of the latter 
 in such case as a necessary condition to the lawful establishment and admission of the new State 
 
1 '3 
 
 into the Union. The whole aflair of Gov. Randolph's proposition and Mr. Morris's sub.stitute, about 
 which so much delusion has been propagated, has absolutely, therefore^ not the slightest bearing 
 upon the question which is now under discussion. 
 
 Thus the law and the Constitution were^ in l.is judgment, beyond all controversy. With due 
 deference to the honorable Senator from Mi.«sissippi, (Mr. Walkkh,) in what he had said a few 
 daysagoabout the opinion of a Judge of the Supreme Court, (referring, he presumed, to the opinion 
 of Judge Johnson, in the case of the American Insurance Company r.s-. Canter,) he would take the 
 liberty of saying that, if the gentleman would look once more at the record, he would IJnd that the 
 opinion of vhat learned Judge corresponded strictly with that l.e had expressed, and amounted to 
 this, that we must obtain foreign territory by the treaty-making power; then we might admit new 
 States from that territory by the legislative power. This was the law and Constitution of our 
 land, and on this Mr. R. would take his stand ; and he now said to his honorable friend from Penn- 
 sylvania, and to the other friends of Texas in that chamber, that if Texas should be brought into 
 this Union by a plain and palfrable infraction of the Constitution, such as is now proposed, it 
 would prove a curse and not a boon. It was impossible that the blessing of Heaven could rest, 
 upon any measure consummated in deliance of an instrument they had sworn to support. No : in 
 the anxiety of gentlemen, /yer/flA- aid iiefas, to get in Texas, setting aside the provisions of the 
 Constitution, w hich required tlie assent of two-tiiirds of the States of this Union to enter into treaties 
 and agreements with foreign Powers, they would open in this land a fountain ol bitter waters whicJi 
 no human power could stnnch. Ijcgislative reprisals would be made, and measures of retalia- 
 tion attempted, under which this Union could not stand. Mr. R. did not say or suppose that it 
 would produce an immediate and formal dissolution of the Union ; but this he did say, that if this 
 high-handed measure should be consummated, it would lead to animosities, contentions, and mutual 
 conflicts, which would so embitter the Union as to render a violent disruption of it almost inevita- 
 ble. He did not say a final disruption, for he was still willing to believe that if such a .separation 
 did take place, it must be temporary only ; for he had endeavored to show, during the last session, 
 that Nature herself had so bound together this glorious land of constitutional liberty, that it was im- 
 possible even for the violent passions of men permanently to dissolve the ties by which its various 
 parts are linked together. But the danger was that the re-union would be effected by the sword ; 
 and then would follow the sternness of military despotism, extinguishing here, in thcii last re- 
 treat, tiie hopes of liberty and law on earth. That was his fear. 
 
 Let us now, Mr. President, attempt to follow out in the visions of the future what was likely 
 ^ to occur, if, in the face of the remonstrances of those who took their stand upon the plighted faith 
 ' of the Constitution, this measure should be consummated by a mere majority of the two Houses of 
 Congress. When the next Congress met, supposmg the people of 'lexas to have accepted the 
 terms proposed, what might' happen ? His friend from Pennsylvania had spoken of this joint re- 
 solution as pltdging fhefait/i of the nafion. Mr. R. would ask, could an act of the Legislature 
 so pledge the faith of this nation to a foreign Power as to tie up the hands of a succeeding Legisla- 
 tme ' Mr. R. did not so read the Con,stitution. The same legislative majority which passed the 
 ioint resolution might repeal it. Who could answer for the changes that might take place in 
 the great deep of public opinion '' Who could say how future elections might turn out ? What 
 security had gentlemen that the next Congress, by their majority power, might not repeal the act 
 of the present Congress, and, when Texas came for admission, the door be slammed in her face-^ — 
 what then ^ 
 
 But .suppose Texas to be admitted. The honorable Senator says he likes this joint resolutioc 
 becau.se the slavery question is settled by it, and finally put on the basis of the Missouri compro - 
 mi.sc. Could the honorable Senator say that there was any peculiar sanctity in this joint resolution 
 that must exempt it from the power of ftiture legislation ^ Might not a future Legislature, under 
 the excitement protluced by what they deemed a wanton invasion of the Constitution, rise up and 
 declare tliat it had the same right to act upon this question as its predecessor ; that a former Con- 
 gress had no right to bind them ; and, though a previous body had undertaken to stipulate the 
 observance of the Missouri compromise in Texas, yet when a new State formed out of its 
 territory should come knocking for admittance, it had the same right to prescribe conditions as those 
 who had gone before them, and that it would not admit the new Texan States but upon condition 
 of the perpetual prohibition of slavery ^ Could they not do so ' Would they not have the 
 power ' And would not this Congress have furni.shed them a provocation, if not a justification, by 
 their example in violating the Constitution ' Mr. R. told his friend that he was planting the 
 germ of a conflict in the States of this Union, the end of which neither of them could see. 
 
 And now he turned to his Soufhe'rn friends on that floor: and he would invoke their sober at- 
 tention to what he should submit to their consideration. The entire slaveholding portion of thia 
 Union could place themselves for safety only on the sacredness of the Constitution. They stood 
 foi their very existence on what Mr. Jefferson had called "a sacro-sanct" adherence to its provi- 
 sions, being the only shield for the rights of a minority. How did they stand in that body ' How- 
 ever they might rely (he well knew) on the fidelity of Delaware to all the compromises of the 
 Constitution, Delaware was yet practically a non-slaveholding State. They stood, therefore, in 
 that body as tu'enty-fmr slaveholding votes to tu'enty-elght non-slaveholding. And in the other 
 House the proportion was eighty -seven Keprosentetive* of ^veliolding States to one hundred and 
 thirty-six non-slaveholding. 
 
14 
 
 They had just received an admonition which it became them well to heed ; they had got a warn- 
 ing in the other branch which they ought not to disregard. There had been a recent vote in 
 that House on a sectional question which might be taken as a fair mf asure of the relative strength 
 of the two interests. It had been on the permission to Florida to divide her territory into two States 
 when her population should amount to 35,000 east of the Suwannee river, and how did the num- 
 bers stand ' Seventj'-seven in favor of it to one hundred and twenty-three against it — leaving a 
 dead majority of fifty opposed to the slaveholding interest, which was about the same when that 
 House was full. Would Senators representing tliat interest set the example of trampling on the 
 guaranties of the Constitution, and of admitting the absolute and unlimited power of a majori- 
 ty > Had that been the wisdom of their ancestors ^ Let gentlemen look at the proceedings of the 
 Southern States at the adoption of the Constitution. They had insisted on a majority of two-thirds 
 in the regulation of commerce, which they had lost, however, in the manner he had .shown dur- 
 ing the last session of Congress. They had so far succeeded as to require a two-thirds vote to over- 
 rule the negative of the President, the necessity of three-fourths of the States for amending the 
 Constitution, and of two-thirds of the States, as represented in the Senate, for the ratification of 
 treaties. Mr. R. had barely alluded to the question of the navigation of the Missis.sippi in the old 
 Congre.ss. He hoped his worthy friends wlio represented that region of the Union would look 
 back on the transactions at the time he referred to. 
 
 Mr. R. alluded to them as a warning. Under the old Congress the assent of nine States was ne- 
 cessary to the ratification of a treaty. On the arrival of a Spanish Minister, Mr. Jay was authorized 
 to treat with him, but was expressly required to stipulate for the right of the navigation of the Mis- 
 sissippi and for tlie integrit}' of our western boundary. These instructions were given by the 
 votes of nine States. Subsequently a plan was proposed for ceding the navigation of the river for 
 twenty-live years, and a hare majority rescinded the previous instructions. . But then arose the 
 question whether a simple majority could rescind a vote which it had required a majority of two- 
 thirds to adopt. Let gentlemen look at the battles, the bloody battles which ensued in the old Con- 
 gress, when the eeven Northern States voted in solid phalanx, and with the undivided force of 
 their entire delegations, against the five Southern States. On that memorable occasion the South 
 had been overwhelmed by a mere majority riding over the provisions of the Constitution. In con- 
 sequence of this, Mr. Jay agreed upon a treaty with the Spanish Minister, in which our right to 
 the navi-Tration of the Mis.<iissippi was yielded for twenty-five years. The South and West protested 
 an^ainst it frouj year to year, until at last, under the wise lead and auspices of Mr. Madison, they had 
 triumphed, but triumphed only under that conservative clause in the articles of Confederation which 
 required the assent of two-thirds for the ratification of a treaty. 
 
 Mr. R. held out this piece of history as a warning to the South. They were the weaker party. 
 They should be the very last to give up the conservative features of the Constitution. If they were 
 now so bhnd as to recognise the dispensing power of a mere majority, the time might come when the 
 peculiar interests of the South, involving ti\eir rights of property, their domestic peace, the security 
 of their firesides, would be placed at the mercy of such a majority. Let the present measure be con- 
 summated, and the principle it involved be sanctioned, and Southern gentlemor might expect soon 
 to see by way of reprisal, a majority in both Houses undertaking to abolish slavery in the District 
 of Columbia: and the ne^t thing would be, under color of the clause to regulate commerce among 
 the several Stales, an act prohibiting the removal and transfer of slaves from State to State ; but, 
 more than all, and beyond all, he would ask Southern gentlemen how they would then stand in re- 
 gard to that great fundamental act, which constituted the sole security of the South as to their re- 
 tention of their slave property ' He referred to the act of 1793. He would invite especially the 
 attention of his worthy and respected friend in his eye, from South Carohna, (Mr. Hugkr,) to this 
 subject. It was the act for the deUvery of fugitive slaves ; and gentlemen must remember that it had 
 l»een solemnly decided by the Supreme Court, in the great case of Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Penn- 
 sylvania, to vvhich he had already referred, that the power of enforcuig such a delivery was exclusively 
 in the hands of Congress. The individual States had no power to pass such a law, and, if they did, 
 it would be, under that decision, null and void. Now, if gentlemen sanctioned the right of a mere 
 )naiority to consummate such an act as now proposed, involving consequences so important, another 
 majority might take their ready revenge in repealing the act of 1793, which would in practice amount 
 to a virtual "proclamation of universal emancipation. There would be no security whatever for any 
 slave property. It would be like telling every slave in the country that there was liberty for the captive, 
 and if he could but get beyond the limits of the slaveholding States he was that moment free. Ought 
 not every Southern man to pause before he sanctioned a principle like this, leading so naturally, if 
 not necessarily, to such consequences ' He would ask his honorable and highminded friend, for 
 whom no man could cherish more respect and regard than he did, that if we gave our sanction to an 
 example fike that now proposed, do we not ourselves "teach bloody instructions, which, when taught, 
 
 return to plague the inventor >" , , ^ . . 
 
 " This even-handed justice 
 
 Commends the ingredients of the poisoned chalice 
 To our own lips. " 
 Nor was this all ; it had been declared, and that under the sanction of very distinguished names,. 
 
15 
 
 to be a constitutional doctrine that in time of war the rights of property were submitted to the abso- 
 lute discretion of the war power. ^' Inter anna silent leges." Suppose, then, the nation to be 
 in a state of actual war. Congress growing tired of the contest, the resources of the country 
 exhausted, and a majority in both Houses prepared to terminate the struggle. What could they 
 do ' (Mr. R. had seen in one of the leading papers of his own State the doctrine unequivocally 
 advanced by a favorite writer, that the power which declared war could terminate a war and make 
 peace, in the very teeth of the Constitution. ) 
 
 Again he a.sked, whither we were tending ' Suppose a majority in both Houses to be tired 
 of the war, and resolved on returning at all hazards to a state of peace ; the Minister of the hostile 
 Power demanded the abohtion of slavery as the price of peace ; then, according to the precedent 
 now to be set, and the new doctrines broached by the friends of annexation, a1 all liazarih, a ma- 
 jority of Congress might make a treaty of peace, in which a proclamation of freedom would form 
 the leading article ' He admitted that these things were monstrous even in idea, but be contend- 
 ed that they were but the legitimate offspring of the claim now set up to make a treaty with a fo- 
 reign ^ower by a bare majority of Congress. It would be a fair corollary from such premises. 
 
 Mr. R. said he had seen with despondency, with a depression of spirit which he had no words to 
 express, the most disorganizing doctrines, as he conceived them to be, broached respecting funda-' 
 mental provisions of the Constitution. His honorable friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Blchasan) 
 said that he was a friend of the Constitution. Mr. R. would be the last to doubt it ; but, unfor- 
 tunately, like a highly distinguished character, with whom he knew it would be the pride of the 
 honorable Senator to have his name associated, he feared he was a friend to " the Constitution «.s he 
 understood it." [A laugh.] Mr. R. was sorry, knowing as he did the gentleman's fidelity to the 
 constitutional compromises in favor of the rights of the South, that he should give the great weight 
 of his personal authority to the dangerous doctrines of which he had spoken. These doctrines had 
 unhinged the public mind. The very axioms and postulates with which our system of constitutional 
 checks started were denied — every thing was thrown completely at sea, under this sudden furor for the 
 acquisition of a foreign territory, in utter disregard of the limits of tlie Constitution. 
 
 Mr. R. said that he did in his conscience believe that the issue of the experiment here first made 
 of a written, balanced, limited Constitution, depended on the vote which should be given on the 
 present resolutions. He wished he could invoke the aid of some powerful friend, feeUng as he did in 
 this great crisis of our history. If he knew such an one, he would call upon him to stand "between 
 the dead and the living and stay this plague ;" to arrest this political '* pestilence, which walketh in 
 darkness ;" this wide-spreading "destruction, which wasteth at noon-day." Was there not a Sena- 
 tor within these walls worthy of such a mission, and with a party and political influence adequate 
 to fulfil it, and to secure the country from so threatening and portentous an evil ' 
 
 But he was tokl that we never could get two-thirds of the States represented in tliis body to con- 
 sent to the admission of Texas. Gentlemen said that there was no chance of ever effecting the 
 measure by treaty ; and, therefore, if we desired the annexation, it must be done in the form of a 
 resolution to be passed by a bare majority of the two Houses. Mr. R. did not believe this was the 
 case ; but if it were so, it could furnish no justification for an open and palpable infraction of the 
 Constitution. If such were the alternative, he for one could never yield to such an appeal. 
 
 But was it true ' Had not Louisiana been acquired by the treaty-making power ' Had she not 
 come in by acclamation ? Such was the statement of Mr. .Jefferson ; and we had the authority of 
 another distinguished man (Mr. Adams) for saying, as he did at the time, that such was the general 
 favor towards that measure, that he beheved an amendment of the Constitution to remove the consti- 
 tutional difficulties felt by many, would be unanimously ratified by the States, and by acclamation. 
 As it was, the treaty was ratified with the votes of only three States and a half against it. And 
 had we not acquired Florida by a treaty which was unanimously ratified ' Why, then, de.spair of 
 the acquisition of Texas by like means, if it be the great national measure it was supposed to be ? 
 In many of the views expressed by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania Mr. R. concurred. 
 He agreed with him as to the benefits that would accrue to the navigating and manufacturing States, 
 and also as to tlie advantages, in some respects, that would be gained by the cotton-growing States, 
 and the new and extended market to be acquired by the Western agricultural States. 
 
 But in all this array of benefits, what had he promised to poor old Virginia ' In the Indian's 
 phrase, he had not "said turkey to hei once." [A laugh.] He had predicted that her slave labor 
 would desert her worn-out soil, and, as a necessary consequence, with the slaves would go their 
 masters. Depopulation was the boon held out to Virginia. Mr. R. said he thought that'he 
 knew something of the interests of his own State. He had seen sometimes a sordid appeal to her 
 cupidity from the predicted enhancement of the value of slave property. For one he despised the 
 appeal. As aVurginian and a slaveholder, who continued to be so far more from considerations of 
 humanity than of interest, he scorned so sordid an appeal. But, to every man capable of forming a 
 judgment in the case, he said that the fact would not be so. Every one knew that the value of 
 slave labor was regulated by the price of its principal production, cotton. The price of that was 
 certainly not likely to be advanced by adding still further to the overproduction which had already 
 so seriously affected the state of the market, and an increased and accelerated over-production seemed to 
 be the inevitable consequence of opening the lands of Texas to American industry and enterprise. 
 Virginia stood in a position to regard the acquisition of Texas as a great national object only. 
 
IG 
 
 calculated to slrcngthcii llic whole Confederacy, but not to promote any special interests of hers, 
 which were more likely to be injured than benefited by it. But it was her vocation to make sacri- 
 fices for this Union ; she had yielded up her vast territory without a sigh for the good of her sister 
 States: she was used to the work of sacrifice ; she had done it over and over till it was become 
 a habit of her State policj'. ^''irginia, in favoring the acquisition of Texas, could be governed by 
 none but broad national considerations, and the same considerations must make her desirous of seeing 
 the object accomplished without any wound inflicted upon the harmony of the llnioji, and, above 
 all, without any wound inflicted on the vital principles of the Constitution. He did not hesitate 
 to say, therefore, on his responsibility as a Senator of that ancient Commonwealth, that if Texas 
 can now be acquired only by a sacrifice of the Constitution, let her await a more convenient season. 
 
 Our Republic had already boundaries of vast extent — it stretched from o can to ocean : we 
 bad an ample area for three hundrctl millions of human beings. Ought not this to reconcile gentle- 
 men to some httle dela}- ■ Were we so pent in, so crowded for room, that we must burst through 
 the barriers of the Constitution to get a little breathing space ^ He humbly thought we could yet 
 live without Texas, if need be, though he was desirous of seeing it restored to its natural connexion 
 with the United States, whenever it can be constitutionally done. But, as a nation worthy of our 
 glorious ancestors, we could not live or breathe a day except under the shelter of our precious and 
 sacred Constitution, the palladium of freedom, the hope of the world. 
 
 On a great occasion in the history of his country, when measures were proposed which he be- 
 lieved destructive of her constitutional freedom, a renowned Irish patriot and statesman used these 
 memorable words: " If any body of men should think the Irish Constitution incompatible with 
 the unity of the British em.pire — a doctrine he abjured as sedition against both — he v.'ould answer, 
 Perish the empire, live the Constitution !" In the spirit of that noble declaration, he would 
 now say here in his place, as a Senator of Virginia, that if the sacred provisions of the Constitution 
 of his country could not be reconciled with a further enlargement of its territory — a doctrine he 
 rejected as utterly contradicted l)y the history of the past, for, under that Constitution, and by a 
 faithful compliance with its forms, we had already added to our limits an empire greater far than 
 the whole ten-itory of the United States at the time of its adoption— but were it so, and the issue 
 now presented to us was to give up the hope of acquiring Texas or to break through all the barriers 
 of the Constitution to accomplish it, he would say, with the immortal Grattan, if they were his last 
 words on earth, as they probably are on this floor, Perish all thoughts of illegitimate acquisition ,• 
 Live forever our free and glorious Constitution — the sole pledge of our peace, of our safety, of our 
 honor, of our blessed and happy Union. 
 
 It had been the fate of that great patriot (to use his own touching and grapliic words on another 
 occasion) to ** watch over the Constitution of his country in its cradle — to follow it to its grave.'' 
 Few if any of those whom Mr. R. now addressed had enjoyed the privilege of assisting at the 
 birth of our Constitution ; but, if this dangerous and revolutionary precedent, as in his conscience he 
 believed it, should receive the sanction of that body, then it might yet be the melancholy office 
 cf many of us to follow that Constitution to an untimely grave. 
 
 LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 e 014 646 906 1 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 646 906 1