were incessant, and not altogether without effect. Many who were pledged against slavery, and who thought they were carrying out their principles by voting for the whig candidate, who, though a slaveholder, was opposed to a measure which must necessarily increase the political power of slavery, were dissuaded from their purpose. The inconsistency of voting for a slaveholder under any circumstances; “do right regardless of consequences ;"—these and other like arguments were plied with great assiduity. Besides, Mr. Clay having written that “personally he had no objection to the annexation of Texas," it was argued that his alleged objections would readily yield to his personal feelings; and therefore he could be no more safely trusted than Mr. Polk. The abolitionists being unanimously opposed to annexation, the whigs had cal. culated on a large support from that party; whereas, the result showed a large increase of the abolition vote. In the state of New York, this vote was more than double its amount in 1842, the number of votes gained being more than sufficient, if they had been given for Mr. Clay, to have secured him the electoral vote of that state, and with it his election. The indignation of the whigs excited by the course of the abolitionists, found vent in the severest censures. This unexpected opposition, to which they ascribed the defeat of their favorite, oft-tried candidate, for whose election they were deeply anxious, and who, as they supposed, ought to have been deemed unexceptionable, under existing circumstances, to all opponents of slavery, was an offense which has not to this day been entirely forgotten or forgiven.

Of the electoral votes, Messrs. Polk and Dallas received 170; Messrs. Clay and Frelinghuysen, 105.

CHAPTER LXVI.

TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON.- ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

FLORIDA AND IOWA ADMITTED.-UNIFORM TIME OF CHOOSING PRESI. DENTIAL ELECTORS.-REDUCTION OF POSTAGE.

The 2d session of the 28th congress commenced the 2d of December, 1844, and terminated with Mr. Tyler's presidential term, on the 3d of March, 1845. As was to be expected, the questions of the annexation of Texas, and of the occupation of the territory of Oregon, which had held so prominent a position among the issues at the late election,

a

were introduced at an early day of the session. The president, in his annual message, recommended, with a view to protect and facilitate emigration to that territory, the establishment of military posts at suitable points upon the line of travel. Laws also should be made to protect the person and property of emigrants after their arrival. These measures were deemed necessary whatever might be the result of the pending negotiation.

A bill was introduced in the house on the 16th of December, by Mr. Duncan, of Ohio, to establish a territorial government in Oregon. The bill was subsequently read and referred ; and on the 27th it was taken up for discussion. It embraced under the proposed government the whole territory west of the summit of the Rocky Mountains and between latitude 42 degrees and 54 degrees 40 minutes. In the course of the debate, the question of title was fully discussed ; and our claim to the whole territory was advocated by democratic members. Some, however, regarded the bill as repugnant to that provision of our treaty with Great Britain which allowed a joint occupancy until after either party should have given the other twelve months' notice of a purpose to discontinue it.

The bill was opposed also as indiscreet and improper, as negotiations were in progress, and probably near a close. The proposed measure might break up the negotiation, and lead to war. It was unnecessary and

premature. It should be deferred until the negotiation was ended. An amendment was proposed by Preston King, of New York, providing for giving the notice to the British government.

Mr. Adams was in favor of passing a joint resolution, directing the president to give notice to Great Britain that the joint occupancy must end in twelve months. This he thought the most likely mode of bringing the pending negotiation to a point. After having given the notice

. he should not object to passing the present bill with some modifications; and he hoped that in this manner we might obtain possession, if not of the whole that we claimed, at least of a very large part of it, without war. But to pass the bill in its present form, without notice, must lead to war, if it was not itself a war measure.

Mr. A. V. Brown, of Tennessee, who, as chairman of the committee on territories, had reported the bill, contended that the bill should be passed first, and notice given afterward.

Mr. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, moved an amendment, prohibiting slavery, which was adopted, 85 to 56.

An amendment was also made, providing that the act should not be so construed as to interfere with the rights which British subjects might have under the existing treaty, until after the twelve months' notice should have been given. The bill passed the house, February 3, 1845, 140 to

3

.

59, and was sent to the senate for concurrence. A motion to take up the bill was made in that body on the 3d of March, the last day of the session, but it did not prevail. So the bill was lost.

Mr. Tyler had in previous messages recommended the taking possession of the territory, and at the session of 1842-3, a bill for that purpose had passed the senate, 25 to 21; but the house refusing to concur, the bill was lost. At the next session, (1843–44,) resolutions were introduced into both houses, proposing to give notice to Great Britain of the intended termination of the joint occupancy after twelve months; but the resolutions were not adopted. A material objection to their passage was the apprehension that it might prejudice the negotiation then pending.

But the great measure of this session (1844-45,) was annexation. The negotiation of the treaty with Texas, had stirred up afresh the belligerent spirit of Mexico, and had induced her to threaten Texas with a renewal of the war. The president, in his message, expresses the opinion, that the invasion of Texas would not be looked upon with indifference by our citizens of the adjoining states. Mexico, he said, had no just ground of displeasure. Texas was an independent power, and free to treat. No boundary had been defined by the treaty; this the executive had proposed to do upon terms which all the world would have pronounced reasonable. He believed, if the treaty had been ratified, it would have been followed by a prompt and satisfactory settlement of the difficulty with Mexico. An objection urged against the treaty was, that it had not been submitted to the ordeal of public opinion. Although he considered this objection untenable, he had submitted the subject to congress, whose action would be the best expression of popular sentiment Congress having taken no definite action upon the subject, the question had referred itself directly to the states and the people; and their will had been expressed at the recent election, in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas.

On the 10th of December, Mr. M’Duffie introduced into the senate resolutions declaring the rejected treaty, to be “the fundamental law of union between the United States and Texas so soon as the supreme authorities of the said republic of Texas shall agree to the same.” Mr. Benton at the same time gave notice of a bill “ to provide for the annexation of Texas to the United States.” This bill authorized and advised the president to open negotiations with Mexico and Texas for the adjustment of boundaries and the annexation of the latter to the United States, on the same bases as those stated in the bill introduced by him at the preceding session of congress. [See page 794.) On the 12th, in the house, Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, reported a joint resolution for annexation, similar to that of Mr. M’Duffie, of the senate. Mr. Win

throp, of Massachusetts, one of the minority of the committee, declared their dissent from the doctrines of the accompanying report; believing the resolution to be unconstitutional in form and in substance; inconsistent with the law of nations and the good faith of our own country; as likely to involve us in an unjust and dishonorable war; and eminently objectionable from its relation to the subject of slavery.

Resolutions of annexation were offered by several members of both houses. Among these was a joint resolution submitted to the senate by Mr. Foster, of Tennessee : “That congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the republic of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the state of Texas,' with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the states of this union." The resolution was followed by these conditions and guaranties :

1. The adjustment of questions of boundary arising with other governments, to be laid before congress for its final action.

2. All mines, salt springs, public edifices, pavy, fortifications, and other public property, to be ceded to the United States; but all public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, and all vacant and unappropriated lands to be retained by the state, and applied to the payment of her debts, for which the general government was in no event to become liable.

3. By consent of the state, four new states formed out of the territory thereof, might hereafter be admitted; those formed out of territory south of the Missouri compromise line, to be admitted with or without slavery, as the people of each might desire.

It will be seen that this resolution does not prescribe any form or mode of annexation. In regard to this, Mr. Foster was not determined. He was in favor of annexation; and if any mode could be devised which should appear to him to be in conformity to the constitution, he would unite in effecting the measure on the principles contained in his resolution.

In the house, on the 25th of January, the debate in committee of the whole having terminated at two o'clock, the committee proceeded to vote upon the resolution reported by Mr. Ingersoll, from the committee on foreign affairs, and on the various proposed amendments. After disposing of a number of these amendments, and amendments to amend the same, Mr. Milton Brown, of Tennessee, moved to amend a pending amendment, by substituting a resolution offered by himself on the 13th, similar to that of Mr. Foster of the senate; and which, on motion of Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, was amended by adding, that, " in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of the said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited.” Mr. Brown, having accepted this amendment, his proposition, as modified, was adopted, 199 to 99. The question was then taken on Mr. Weller's amendment, as amended by the substitution of that of Mr. Brown, and decided in the affirmative, 110 to 93.

The committee of the whole then rose, and reported to the house the resolution of the committee on foreign affairs, all after the enacting clause having been struck out, and Mr. Brown's resolution inserted. The speaker having announced the report of the committee of the whole, a number of members immediately sprung to the floor, and addressed “Mr. Speaker.” Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, who was recognized by the chair, observed that it was time to put an end to this exciting question, and moved the previous question, which was seconded, 107 to 97, and the main question ordered to be put, 113 to 106: and the question, shall the house concur with the committee of the whole in adopting Mr. Brown's amendment, was taken, and decided in the affirmative : ayes, 118; noes, 101. The resolution was then ordered to a third reading, 119 to 97, and finally passed, 120 to 98.

From the classification of the vote as given by Niles, it appears that, of the 120 members who voted for the resolution of annexation, 112 were democrats, 53 from free, and 59 from slave states, and 8 were whigs—all from slave states. Of the 98 who voted in the negative, 28 were democrats, all from free states, and 70 were whigs, 52 from free, and 18 from slave states. Of the members from New York, 9 democrats voted for annexation, and 14 democrats and 10 whigs against it.

Another classification was as follows: The number of democrats voting was 140–81 from free, and 59 from slave states. Of the 81, ,53 were for, and 28 against the annexation. The number of whigs voting was 78—52 from free, and 26 from slave states. Of the latter, 8 were for, and eighteen against. The 59 democrats from the slave states all voted for, and the 52 whigs from the free states all voted against annexation.

In the senate, on the 4th of February, Mr. Archer, from the committee on foreign relations, made a report on the joint resolution from the house to annex Texas. The report was accompanied by two resolutions—the first declaring that the resolution from the house be rejected; the other, that the several bills, resolutions, petitions, and memorials on the subject in the senate, and referred to the committee, be laid on the table. Mr. Buchanan, one of the committee, dissented from the report,