Page images
PDF
EPUB

ment, which, on the following day, he withdrew | effect, though the more determined champions, and substituted the following: whether of Slavery Extension or Slavery Restriction, did not unite in it.]

And be it further enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, Slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping Into the same, from where labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

Mr. Trimble, of Ohio, moved a substitute for this, somewhat altering the boundaries of the regions shielded from Slavery, which was rejected: Yeas 20 (Northern); Nays 24 (Southern).

The question then recurred on Mr. Thomas's
amendment, which was adopted, as follows:
Yeas-For excluding Slavery from all the
Territory North and West of Missouri :
Messrs. Brown of La.,

Burrill of R. I.,
Dana of Conn.,
Dickerson of N. J.,
Eaton of Tenn.,
Edwards of Ill.,
Horsey of Del.,
Hunter of R. L.,
Johnson of Ky.,
Johnson of La..
King (Wm. R.) of Ala.,
King (Rufus) of N. Y.,
Lanman of Conn.,
Leake of Miss.,
Lowrie of Pa.,

Lloyd of Md.,

Logan of Ky.,

Mellen of Mass.,
Morrill of N. H.,
Otis of Mass.,
Palmer of Vt.,
Parrott of N. H.,
Pinkney of Md.,
Roberts of Pa.,
Ruggles of Ohio,
Sanford of N. Y.,
Stokes of N. C.,
Thomas of Ill.,
Tichenor of Vt.,
Trimble of Ohio,
Van Dyke of Del.,
Walker of Ala.,
Williams of Tenn.,
Wilson of N. J.-34,

[blocks in formation]

engrossed for a third reading by the following The bill, thus amended, was ordered to be Vote:

Yeas-For the Missouri Bill:

Messrs.

Barbour of Va.,
Brown of La.,
Eaton of Tenn.,
Edwards of Ill.,
Elliott of Ga.,
Gaillard of S. C.,
Horsey of Del.,
Hunter of R. I.,
Johnson of Ky.,
Johnson of La.,
King of Ala.,
Leake of Miss.,
Nays-Against the Bill:
Messrs. Burrill of R. I.,
Dana of Conn.,
Dickerson of N. J.,
King of N. Y.,
Lanman of Conn.,
Lowrie of Pa.,
Macon of N. Č.,
Mellen of Mass.,
Morrill of N. H.,
Noble of Ind.,

Lloyd of Md.,
Logan of Ky.,
Parrott of N H.,
Pinkney of Md.,
Pleasants of Va.,
Stokes of N. C
Thomas of Ill.,
Van Dyke of Del.,
Walker of Ala.,
Walker of Ga.,
Williams of Miss.,
Williams of Tenn-24.

Otis of Mass.,
Palmer of Vt.,
Roberts of Pa.,
Ruggles of Ohio,
Sanford of N. Y.,
Smith of S. C.,
Taylor of Ind.,
Tichenor of Vt.,
Trimble of Ohio.,
Wilson of N. J.-20.

The bill was thus passed (Feb. 18th) without further division, and sent to the House for concurrence. In the House, Mr. Thomas's amendment (as above) was at first rejected by both parties, and defeated by the strong vote of 159 to 18. The Yeas (to adopt) were,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Prior to this vote, the House disagreed to the log-rolling of Maine and Missouri, into one

not give the Yeas and Nays on this decision; but the majority was composed of the representatives of the Free States with only four exceptions; and Mr. Louis McLane of Delaware, who was constrained by instructions from his legislature. His colleague, Mr. Willard Hall, did not vote.]

[It will here be seen that the Restriction ulti-bill by the strong vote of 93 to 72. [We do mately adopted-that excluding Slavery from all territory then owned by the United States North and West of the Southwest border of the State of Missouri-was proposed by an early and steadfast opponent of the Restriction originally proposed, relative to Slavery in the contemplated State of Missouri, and was sustained by the votes of fourteen Senators from Slave States, including the Senators from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana, with one vote each from North Carolina and Mississippi.

The members from Free States who voted with the South to keep Maine and Missouri united in one bill were, Messrs. H. Baldwin of Pa.,

Bloomfield of N. J.,

Henry Meigs of N. Y., Henry Shaw of Mass., The House also disagreed to the remaining amendments of the Senate (striking out the restriction on Slavery in Missouri) by the strong vote of 102 Yeas to 68 Nays.

[Nearly or quite every Representative of a Free State voted in the majority on this division, with the following from Slave States:

The current assumption that this Restriction was proposed by Rufus King, of New-York, and mainly sustained by the antagonists of Slavery Extension, is wholly mistaken. The truth, doubtless, is, that it was suggested by the more moderate opponents of the proposed Restriction on Missouri-and supported also by Senators from Slave States-as a means of overcoming the resistance of the House to Slavery in Missouri. It was, in effect, an offer from the milder opponents of Slavery Restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that Restriction-"Let us have Slavery in Missouri, The Senate took up the bill on the 24th, and and we will unite with you in excluding it from debated it till the 28th; when, on a direct vote, all the uninhabited territories North and West it was decided not to recede from the attach of that State." It was in substance an agreement of Missouri to the Maine bill: Yeas 21; ment between the North and the South to that (19 from Free States and two from Delaware;}

Louis McLane, Del, Nelson, Md., Alney McLean, Ky. Trimble, Ky.] So the House rejected all the Senate's amendments, and returned the bill with a corresponding message.

Nays, 23; (20 from Slave States with Messrs.
Taylor of Ind., Edwards and Thomas of Ill.)

The Senate also voted not to recede from its amendment prohibiting Slavery west of Missouri, and north of 360 30', north latitude. (For receding, 9 from Slave States, with Messrs. Noble and Taylor of Ind.: against it, 33-22 from Slave States, 11 from Free States.) The remaining amendments of the Senate were then insisted on without division, and the House notified accordingly.

The bill was now returned to the House, which, on motion of Mr John W. Taylor of N. Y, voted to insist on its disagreement to all but Sec. 9 of the Senate's amendments, by Yeas 97 to Nays 76: (all but a purely sectional vote: Hugh Nelson of Va. voting with the North; Baldwin of Pa., Bloomfield of N. J., and Shaw of Mass., voting with the South).

Sec. 9, (the Senate's exclusion of Slavery from the Territory north and west of Missouri) was also rejected-Yeas 160; Nays, 14, (much as before). The Senate thereupon (March 2nd) passed the House's Missouri bill, striking out the restriction of Slavery by Yeas 27 to Nays 15, and adding without a division the exclusion of Slavery from the territory west and north of said State. Mr. Trimble again moved the exclusion of Slavery from Arkansas also, but was again voted down, Yeas, 12; Nays, 30.

DELAWARE. Louis McLane-1.

MARYLAND.-Stephenson Archer, Thomas Bayly, Thomas Culbreth, Joseph Kent, Peter Little, Raphael Neale, Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Smith, Henry R. War field-9.

[ocr errors]

P. Barbour, William A. Burwell, John Floyd, Robert S
VIRGINIA.-Mark Alexander, William S. Archer, Philip
Garnett, James Johnson, James Jones, William McCoy,
Charles F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Nelson, Severn
E. Parker, Jas. Pindall, John_Randolph, Ballard Smith,
Alexander Smyth, George F. Strother, Thomas Van
Swearingen, George Tucker, John Tyler, Jared Williams
-22.

NORTH CAROLINA.-Hutchins G. Burton, John Culpep-
per, William Davidson, Weldon N. Edwards, Charles
Fisher, Thomas H. Hall, Charles Hooks, Thomas Settle,
Jesse Slocumb, James S. Smith, Felix Walker, Lewis
Williams-12.

SOUTH CAROLINA.-Josiah Brevard, Elias Earle, James Erwin, William Lowndes, James McCreary, James Overstreet, Charles Pinckney, Eldred Simkins, Sterling Crawford, John A. Cuthbert, Robert R. Reid, William GEORGIA.-Joel A. Abbot, Thomas W. Cobb. Joel

Tucker-9.

Terrill--6.

ALABAMA.-John Crowell-1.

MISSISSIPPI.-John Rankin-1.
LOUISIANA.-Thomas Butler-1.

KENTUCKY-Richard C. Anderson, jr., William Brown.
Benjamin Hardin, Alney McLean, Thomas Metcalf, Tun-
stall Quarles, Geo. Robertson, David Trimble-8.
TENNESSEE.-Robert Allen, Henry H. Bryan, Newton
Cannon, John Cocke, Francis Jones, John Rhea-5.

Total Yeas from Slave States, 76; in all 90.
NAYS-Against giving up the Restriction on
Slavery in Missouri:

NEW-HAMPSHIRE.-Joseph Buffum, jr., Josiah Butler,
Clifton Clagett, Arthur Livermore, William Plumer, jr.,
Nathaniel Upham-6.

MASSACHUSETTS (including Maine).-Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen, Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, Walter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Jonas Kendall, Martin ton, Jeremiah Nelson, James Parker, Zabdiel Sampson, Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Marcus MorNathaniel Silsbee, Ezekiel Whitman-16.

RHODE ISLAND.-Nathaniel Hazard-1.
John Russ, Gideon Tomlinson-4.
CONNECTICUT.-Jonathan O. Moseley, Elisha Phelps,

The Senate now asked a conference, which the House granted without a division. The Committee of Conference was composed of Messrs. Thomas of Illinois, Pinkney of Maryland, and Barbour of Va. (all anti-restrictionists), on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. Holmes of Mass., Taylor of N. Y., Lowndes of S. C., Parker of Mass., and Kinsey of N. J., on the part of the House. (Such constitution of the Committee of Conference was in effect a surrender of the Restriction on the part of the House.) John Holmes of Mass., from this Com-Clark, Jacob H. De Witt, John D. Dickinson, John Fay, mittee, in due time (March 2nd), reported that, 1. The Senate should give up the combination of Missouri in the same bill with Maine. 2. The House should abandon the attempt to restrict Slavery in Missouri.

3. Both Houses should agree to pass the Senate's separate Missouri bill, with Mr. Thomas's restriction or compromising proviso, excluding Slavery from all Territory north and west of Missouri.

The report having been read, the first and most important question was put, viz:

Will the House concur with the Senate in so much of the said amendments as proposes to strike from the fourth section of the Missouri) bill the provision prohibiting Slavery or involuntary servitude, in the contemplated State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes?

On which question the Yeas and Nays were demanded, and were as follows: YEAS-For giving up Restrictions on

souri:

Mis

MASSACHUSETTS. Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes,

Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw-4.
RHODE ISLAND.-Samuel Eddy-1.

CONNECTICUT.-Samuel A. Foot, James Stephens-9.
NEW-YORK.-Henry Meigs, Henry R. Storrs-2.

VERMONT.-Samuel C. Crafts, Rollin C. Mallary, Ezra Meech, Charles Rich, Mark Richards, William Strong-6. NEW-YORK.-Nathaniel Allen, Caleb Baker, Robert William D. Ford, Ezra C. Gross, James Guyon, jr., Aaron Hackley, jr., George Hall, Joseph S. Lyman, Robert Monell, Nathaniel Pitcher, Jonathan Richmond, Randall S. Street, James Strong, John W. Taylor, Albert H. Tracy, Solomon Van Rensselear, Peter H. Wendover, Silas Wood-22.

NEW-JERSEY.-Ephraim Bateman, John Linn, Henry

Southard-3.

PENNSYLVANIA.-Andrew Boden, William Darlington, George Dennison, Samuel Edwards, Thomas Forrest, Samuel Gross, Joseph Hemphill, Jacob Hibschman, Joseph Heister, Jacob Hostetter, William P. Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, John Murray, Thomas Patterson, Robert Philson, Thomas J. Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, James M. Wal lace-21.

OHIO.-Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, John W. Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. Ross, John Sloane -6.

INDIANA.-William Hendricks-1.
ILLINOIS.-Daniel P. Cook-1.

Total, Nays, 87-all from Free States.

(The members apparently absent on this im portant division, were Henry W. Edwards of Conn., Walter Case and Honorius Peck of N. Y. and John Condit of N. J., from the Free States; with Lemuel Sawyer of N. C., and David Walker of Ky., from the Slave States. Mr. Clay of Ky., being Speaker, did not vote.)

This defeat broke the back of the Northern

NEW-JERSEY Joseph Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey, Ber-resistance to receiving Missouri as a Slave

aard Smith-8.

PENNSYLVANIA.-Henry Baldwin, David Fullerton-2.
Total from Free-States 14.

State.

Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., now moved an amendment, intended to include Arkansas Territor

under the proposed Inhibition of Slavery west of Missouri; but this motion was cut off by the Previous Question, (which then cut off amendments more rigorously, according to the rules of the House, than it now does), and the House proceeded to concur with the Senate in inserting the exclusion of Slavery from the territory west and north of Missouri, instead of that just stricken out by, 134 Yeas to 42 Nays, (the Nays being from the South). So the bill was passed in the form indicated above; and the bill admitting Maine as a State, (relieved, by a conference, from the Missouri rider,) passed both Houses without a divison, on the following day. Such was the virtual termination of the struggle for the restriction of Slavery in Missouri, which was beaten by the plan of proffering instead an exclusion of Slavery from all the then federal territory west and north of that State. It is unquestionable that, without this compromise or equivalent, the Northern votes, which passed the bill, could not have been obtained for it.

THE THIRD MISSOURI STRUGGLE.

Though the acceptance of Missouri as a State, with a Slave Constitution, was forever settled by the votes just recorded, a new excitement sprang up on her presenting herself to Congress (Nov. 16, 1820),) with a State Constitution, framed on the 19th of July, containing the following resolutions:

The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws, First, for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated; and, Second, to prevent bona fide emigrants to this State, or actual settlers therein, from bringing from any of the United States, or from any of their Territories, such persons as may there be deemed to be slaves, so long as any persons of the same description are allowed to be held as slaves by the laws of this State. It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary, First, to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, and settling in, this State, under any pretext

whatever.

The North, still smarting under a sense of its defeat on the question of excluding Slavery from Missouri, regarded this as needlessly defiant, insulting, and inhuman, and the section last quoted as palpably in violation of that clause of the Federal Constitution which gives to the citizens of each State (which blacks are, in several Free States), the rights of citizens in every State. A determined resistance to any such exclusion was manifested, and a portion of the Northern Members evinced a disposition to renew the struggle against the further introduction of slaves into Missouri. At the first effort to carry her admission, the House voted it down-Yeas, 79; Nays, 93. A second attempt to admit her, on condition that she would expunge the obnoxious clause (last quoted) of her Constitution, was voted down still more deoisively-Yeas, 6; Nays 146.

The House now rested, until a joint resolve, admitting her with but a vague and ineffective qualification, came down from the Senate, where it was passed by a vote of 26 to 18-six Senators from Free States in the affirmative. Mr. Clay, who had resigned in the recess, and been succeeded, as Speaker, by John W. Taylor, of New-York, now appeared as the leader of the Missouri admissionists, and proposed terms of

compromise, which were twice voted down by the Northern members, aided by John Randolph and three others from the South, who would have Missouri admitted without condition or qualification. At last, Mr. Clay proposed a Joint Committee on this subject, to be chosen by ballot-which the House agreed to by 101 to 55; and Mr. Clay became its Chairman. By this Committee, it was agreed that a solemn pledge should be required of the Legislature of Missouri that the Constitution of that State should not be construed to authorize the passage of any Act, and that no Act should be passed, "by which any of the citizens of either of the States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States." The Joint Resolution, amended by the addition of this proviso, passed the House by 86 Yeas to 82 Nays; the Senate concurred (Feb. 27th, 1821,) by 26 Yeas to 15 Nays-(all Northern but Macon, of N. C.); Missouri complied with the condition, and became an accepted member of the Union. Thus closed the last stage of the fierce Missouri Controversy, which for a time seemed to threaten-as so many other controversies have harmlessly threatened -the existence of the Union.

EXTENSION OF MISSOURI,

The State of Missouri, as originally organized, was bounded on the west by a line already specified, which excluded a triangle west of said line, and between it and the Missouri, which was found, in time, to be exceedingly fertile and desirable. It was free soil by the terms of the Missouri compact, and was also covered by Indian reservations, not to be removed without a concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. Messrs. Benton and Linn, Senators from Missouri, undertook the difficult task of engineering through Congress a bill including this triangle (large enough to form seven Counties) within the State of Missouri; which they effected, at the long session of 1835-6, so quietly as hardly to attract attention. The bill was first sent to the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary, where a favorable report was procured from Mr. John M. Clayton, of Delaware, its Chairman; and then it was floated through both Houses without encountering the perils of a division. The requisite Indian treaties were likewise carried through the Senate; so Missouri became possessed of a large and desirable accession of territory, which has since become one of her most populous and wealthy sections, devoted to the growing of hemp, tobacco, etc., and cultivated by slaves. This is the most proSlavery section of the State, in which was originated, and was principally sustained, that series of inroads into Kansas, corruptions of her ballot-boxes, and outrages upon her people, which earned for their authors the appellation of Border Ruffians.

THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

The name of Texas was originally applied to a Spanish possession or province, lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande del Norte, but not extending to either of these great rivers. It was an appendage of the Viceroyalty of

itself in Texas. The emigrants carried rifles; many of them were accompanied by slaves; and it was well understood that they did not intend to become Mexicans, much less to relinquish their slaves. When Gen. Sam. Houston left Arkansas for Texas, in 1834-5, the Little Rock Journal, which announced his exodus and destination, significantly added: "We shall,

Mexico, but had very few civilized inhabitants | other southwestern States, began to concentrate down to the time of the separation of Mexico from Spain. On two or three occasions, bands of French adventurers had landed on its coast, or entered it from the adjoining French colony of Louisiana; but they had uniformly been treated as intruders, and either destroyed or made prisoners by the Spanish military authorities. No line had ever been drawn between the two colonies; but the traditional line be-doubtless, hear of his raising his flag there tween them, south of the Red River, ran somewhat within the limits of the present State of Louisiana.

When Louisiana was transferred by France to the United States, without specification of Doundaries, collisions of claims on this frontier was apprehended. General Wilkinson, commanding the United States troops, moved gradually to the west; the Spanish commandant in Texas likewise drew toward the frontier, until they stood opposite each other across what was then tacitly settled as the boundary between the the two countries. This was never afterward disregarded.

In 1819, Spain and the United States seemed on the verge of war. General Jackson had twice invaded Florida, on the assumption of complicity on the part of her rulers and people -first with our British, then with our savage enemies and had finally overrun, and, in effect, annexed it to the Union. Spain, on the other hand, had preyed upon our commerce during the long wars in Europe, and honestly owed our merchants large sums for unjustifiable seizures and spoliations. A negotiation for the settlement of these differences was carried on at Washington, between John Quincy Adams, Mr. Monroe's Secretary of State, and Don Onis, the Spanish embassador, in the course of which Mr. Adams set up a claim, on the part of this country, to Texas as a natural geographical appendage not of Mexico, but of Louisiana. This claim, however, he eventually waived and relinquished, in consideration of a cession of Florida by Spain to this country-our government agreeing, on its part, to pay the claims of our merchants for spoliations. Texas remained, therefore, what it always had been-a department or province of Mexico, with a formal quit-claim thereto on the part of the United States.

The natural advantages of this region in time attracted the attention of American adventurers, and a small colony of Yankees was settled thereon, about 1819-20, by Moses Austin, of Connecticut. Other settlements followed. Originally, grants of land in Texas were prayed for, and obtained of the Mexican Government, on the assumption that the petitioners were Roman Catholics, persecuted in the United States because of their religion, and anxious to find a refuge in some Catholic country. Thus all the early emigrants to Texas went professedly as Catholics, no other religion being

tolerated.

Slavery was abolished by Mexico soon after the consummation of her independence, when very few slaves were, or ever had been, in Texas. But, about 1834, some years after this event, a quiet, but very general, and evidently concerted, emigration, mainly from Tennessee and

shortly." That was a foregone conclusion.

Of course, the new settlers in Texas did not lack pretexts or provocations for such a step. Mexico was then much as she is now, misgoverned, turbulent, anarchical, and despotic. The overthrow of her Federal Constitution by Santa Anna was one reason assigned for the rebellion against her authority which broke out in Texas. In 1835, her independence was declared; in 1836, at the decisive battle of San Jacinto, it was, by the rout and capture of the Mexican dictator, secured. This triumph was won by emigrants from this country almost exclusively; scarcely half a dozen of the old Mexican inhabitants participating in the revolu tion. Santa Anna, while a prisoner, under restraint and apprehension, agreed to a peace on the basis of the independence of Texas-a covenant which he had no power, and probably no desire, to give effect to when restored to liberty. The Texans, pursuing their advantage, twice or thrice penetrated other Mexican provinces-Tamaulipas, Coahuila, etc.,—and waved their Lone-Star flag in defiance on the banks of the Rio Grande del Norte; which position, however, they were always compelled soon to abandon--once with severe loss. Their government, nevertheless, in reiterating their declaration of independence, claimed the Rio Grande as their western boundary, from its source to its mouth, including a large share of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, Durango, and by far the more impor tant and populous portion of New Mexico. And it was with this claim, expressly set forth in the treaty, that President Tyler and his responsible advisers negotiated the first official project of annexation, which was submitted to the Senate, during the session of 1843-4, and rejected by a very decisive vote: only fifteen (mainly Southern) senators voting to confirm it. Col. Benton, and others, urged this aggressive claim of [boundary, as affording abundant reason for the rejection of this treaty; but it is not known that the Slavery aspect of the case attracted especial attention in the Senate. The measure, however, had already been publicly eulogized by Gen. James Hamilton, of S. C., as cal culated to "give a Gibraltar to the South," and had, on that ground, secured a very general and ardent popularity throughout the SouthWest. And, more than a year previously, several northern members of Congress had united in the following:

To THE PEOPLE OF THE FREE STATES OF THE

UNION.

stituents and our country as members of the 27th ConWe, the undersigned, in closing our duties to our congress, feel bound to call your attention, very briefly, to the project, long entertained by a portion of the people and intended soon to be consummated: THE ANNEXATION of these United States, still pertinaciously adhered to, OF TEXAS TO THIS UNION. In the press of business incl

dent to the last days of a session of Congress, we have not time, did we deem it necessary, to enter upon a detailed statement of the reasons which force upon our minds the conviction that this project is by no means abandoned: that a large portion of the country, interested in the continuance of Domestic Slavery and the Slave-trade in these United States, have solemnly and unalterably determined that it shall be speedily car ried into execution; and that, by this admission of new Slave Territory and Slave States, the undue ascendency of the Slave-holding power in the Government shall be secured and riveted beyond all redemp Kon!!

That it was with these views and intentions that setlements were effected in the province, by citizens of the United States, difficulties fomented with the Mexican Government, à revolt brought about, and an Independent Government declared, cannot now admit of a doubt; and that, hitherto, all attempts of Mexico to reduce her revolted province to obedience have proved unsuccessful, is to be attributed to the unlawful aid and assistance of designing and interested individuals in the United States, and the direct and indirect coöperation of our own Government, with similar views, is not the less certain and demonstrable.

The open and repeated enlistment of troops in several States of this Union, in aid of the Texan Revolution; the Intrusion of an American Army, by order of the President, far into the territory of the Mexican Government, at a moment critical for the fate of the insurgents, under pretense of preventing Mexican soldiers from fomenting Indian disturbances, but in reality in aid of, and acting in singular concert and coincidence with, the army of the Revolutionists; the entire neglect of our Government to adopt any efficient measures to prevent the most unwarrantable aggressions of bodies of our own citizens, enlisted, organized and officered within our own borders, and marched in arms and battle array upon the territory, and against the inhabitants of a friendly government, in aid of freebooters and insurgents, and the premature recognition of the Independence of Texas, by a snap vote, at the heel of a session of Congress, and that, too, at the very session when President Jackson had, by special Message, insisted that "the measure would be contrary to the policy invariably observed by the United States in all similar cases;" would be marked with great injustice to Mexico, and peculiarly liable to the darkest suspicions, inasmuch as the Texans were almost all emigrants from the United States, AND

BOUGHT THE RECOGNITION OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE WITH THE
AVOWED PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THEIR ANNEXATION TO THE

UNITED STATES. These occurrences are too well known
and too fresh in the memory of all, to need more
than a passing notice. These have become matters
of history. For further evidence upon all these and
other important points, we refer to the memorable
speech of John Quincy Adams, delivered in the House of
Representatives during the morning hour in June and
July, 1888, and to his address to his constituents, de-
livered at Braintree, 17th September, 1842.

The open avowal of the Texans themselves-the frequent and anxious negotiations of our own Government -the resolutions of various States of the Union-the numerous declarations of members of Congress-the tone of the Southern press-as well as the direct application of the Texan Government, make it impossible for any man to doubt, that ANNEXATION, and the formation of several new Slaveholding States, were originally the policy and design of the Slaveholding States and the Executive of the Nation.

The same reference will show, very conclusively, that the particular objects of this new acquisition of Slave Territory were THE PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY AND THE CONTINUED ASCENDENCY OF THE SLAVE POWEER.

The following extracts from a Report on that subject, adopted by the Legislature of Mississippi, from a mass of similar evidence which might be adduced, will show with what views the annexation was then urged:

"But we hasten to suggest the importance of the annexation of Texas to this Republic upon grounds somewhat local in their complexion, but of an import infinitely grave and interesting to the people who inhabit the Southern portion of this Confederacy, where it is known that a species of domestic Slavery is tolerated and protected by law, whose existence is prohibited by the legal regulations of other States of this Confederacy; which system of Slavery is held by all, who are familiarly acquainted with its practical effects, to be of highly beneficial influence to the country within whose limits it is permittel to exist.

The Committee feel authorized to say that this system is cherished by our constituents as the very palladium of their prosperity and happiness, and whatever ignorant fanatics may elsewhere conjecture, the Committee are fully assured, upon the most diligent observation and reflection on the subject, that he South does not possess within her limits a blessing with which

I

the affections of her people are so closely entwined and so com pletely enjibred, and whose value is more highly appreciated, than that which we are now considering.

*

*

*

*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

last session of Congress, when a Senator from Mississippi pro-
"It may not be improper here to remark that, during the
posed the acknowledgment of Texan independence, it was
found, with a few exceptions, the members of that body were
rely to take ground upon it, as upon the subject of Slavery
itself.
lieving that these feelings influenced the New England Sena-
"With all these facts before us, we do not hesitate in be-
tors, but one voting in favor of the measure; and, indeed, Mr.
Webster had been bold enough, in a public speech recently
delivered in New-York, to many thousand citizens, to declare
that the reason that influenced his opposition was his abhor-
rence of Slavery in the South, and that it might, in the event of
of the efforts making in favor of Abolition; and that, being pre-
its recognition, become a slaveholding State. He also spoke
dicated upon and aided by the powerful influence of religious
feeling, it would become irresistible and overwhelming.

"This language, coming from so distinguished an individual as Mr. Webster, so familiar with the feelings of the North and England, speaks so plainly the voice of the North as not to be entertaining so high a respect for public sentiment in New misunderstood.

"We sincerely hope there is enough good sense and genuine love of country among our fellow-countrymen of the Northern States, to secure us final justice on this subject; yet we cannot consider it safe or expedient for the people of the South to ensuch men as Webster, and others who countenance such dantirely disregard the efforts of the fanatics, and the opinions of gerous doctrines.

"The Northern States have no interests of their own which require any special safeguards for their defense, save only their domestic manufactures; and God knows they have liberal scale; under which encouragement they have imalready received protection from Government on a most proved and flourished beyond example. The South has very peculiar interests to preserve: interests already violently assailed and boldly threatened.

"Your Committee are fully persuaded that this protection to her best interests will be afforded by the annexation of Texas; which will furnish us a permanent guaranty of protection.” an equipoise of influence in the halls of Congress will be secured,

The speech of Mr. Adams, exposing the whole system of duplicity and perfidy toward Mexico, had marked the conduct of our Government; and the emphatic expressions of opposition which began to come up from all parties in the Free States, however, for a time, nearly silenced the clamors of the South for annexation, and the people of the North have been lulled into the belief that the project is nearly, if not wholly abandoned, and that, at least, there is now no serious danger of its consumma

tion.

Believing this to be a false and dangerous security; that the project has never been abandoned a moment, by its originators and abettors, but that it has been de ment, we refer to a few evidences of more recent deferred for a more favorable moment for its accomplish velopment upon which this opinion is founded.

The last Election of President of the Republic of Texas, is understood to have turned, mainly, upon the question of annexation or no annexation, and the candidate favorable to that measure was successful by an overwhelming majority. The sovereign States of Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi, have recently adopted Resolutions, some, if not all of them, unanimously, in favor of annexation, and forwarded them to Congress.

The Hon. Henry A. Wise, a member of Congress from the District in which our present Chief Magistrate resided be more intimately acquainted with the views and dewhen elected Vice-President, and who is understood to signs of the present administration than any other member of Congress, most distinctly avowed his desire for, and expectation of annexation, at the last session of Congress. Among other things, he said, in a speech delivered January 26, 1842:

"True, if Iowa be added on the one side, Florida will be added on the other. But there the equation must stop. Let gone-gone forever. The balance of interests is gone-the safeone more Northern State be admitted, and the equilibrium is guard of American property-of the American Constitutionof the American Union, vanished into thin air. This must be the inevitable result, unless by a treaty with Mexico, THE SOUTH CAN ADD MORE WEIGHT TO HER END OF THE LEVER? Let the South stop at the Sabine, (the eastern boundary of Texas,) while tains AND THE SOUTHERN SCALE MUST KICK THE BEAM." the North may spread unchecked beyond the Rocky Moun

Treaty, in another speech delivered in April, 1842, on a Finding difficulties, perhaps, in the way of a cession by motion made by Mr. Linn, of New-York, to strike out the salary of the Minister to Mexico, on the ground that the design of the EXECUTIVE, in making the appointment, was to accomplish the annexation of Texas, Mr. Wise said, "he earnestly hoped and trusted that the President was as desirous (of annexation) as he was represented to be. We may well suppose the President to be in favor of it, as every wise statesman must be who is not governed by fanaticism or local sectional prejudices."

« PreviousContinue »