Page images

Nays, 23; (20 from Slave States with Messrs. D LAWARK.-Louis McLane-1. MARYLAND.-Stephenson Archer, Thomas Bayly, Taylor of Ind., Edwards and Thomas of Ill.) Thomas Culbreth, Joseph Kent, Peter Little, Raphael The Senate also voted not to recede from its Neale, Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Smith, Henry R. Waramendment prohibiting Slavery west of Mis-field-9. souri, and north of 36° 30', north latitude. (For receding, 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.

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 Committee, 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 prohibfting 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 Mis


MASSACHUSETTS.—Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes,

Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw-4.

RHODE ISLAND.-Samuel Eddy-1.

CONNECTICUT.-Samuel A. Foot, James Stephens-2.
NEW-YORK-Henry Meigs, Henry R. Storrs-2.
NEW-JERSKY-Joseph Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey,

aard Smith-3.

VIRGINIA.-Mark Alexander, William S. Archer, Philip P. Barbour, William A. Burwell, John Floyd, Robert S. 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 CulpepFisher, Thomas H. Hall, Charles Hooks, Thomas Settle, William Davidson, Weldon N. Edwards, Charles per, Jesse Slocumb, James S. Smith, Felix Walker, Lewis Williams-12.

Erwin, William Lownd s, James McCreary, James OverSOUTH CAROLINA.-Josiah Brevard, Elias Earle, James street, Charles Pinckney, Eldred Simkins, Sterling Tucker-9.

Crawford, John A. Cuthbert, Robert R. Reid, William

GEORGIA.-Joel A. Abbot, Thomas W. Cobb. Joel


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.
Cannon, John Cocke, Francis Jones, John Rhea-5.
TENNESSE-Robert Allen, Henry H. Bryan, Newton

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, Wal

ter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Jonas Kendall, Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, James Parker, Zabdiel Sampson, Nathaniel Silsbee, Ezekiel Whitman-16.

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

VERMONT.-Samuel C. Crafts, Rollin C. Mallary, Ezra Meech, Charles Rich, Mark Richards, William Strong-6. Clark, Jacob H. De Witt, John D. Dickinson, John Fay, 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


[blocks in formation]

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;
Walker of Ky., from the Slave States.
with Lemuel Sawyer of N. C., and David
Clay of Ky., being Speaker, did not vote.)
This defeat broke the back of the Northern

Ber-resistance to receiving Missouri as a Slave

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

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

ander 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."by which any of the citizens of either of the 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.


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


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 Beveral 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 decisively-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 bal-
lot 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 Mis-
souri that the Constitution of that State should
not be construed to authorize the passage of
any Act, and that no Act should be passed,
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 Honse
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 com-
plied with the condition, and became an ac-
cepted member of the Union. Thus closed the
last stage of the fierce Missouri Controversy,
which for a time seemed to threaten
other controversies have harmlessly threatened
--the existence of the Union.


-as so many

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, corruptious of her ballot-boxes, and outrages upon her people, which earned for their authors the appellation of Border Ruffians.


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

other southwestern States, began to concentrate 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

Mexico, but had very few civilized inhabitants 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 mnade prisoners by the Spanish military authori-Rock Journal, which announced his exodus and ties. No line had ever been drawn between the two colonies; but the traditional line between 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


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


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

destination, significantly added: "We shall, doubtless, hear of his raising his flag there 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 revolution. 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 important 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 calculated 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:



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 of these United States, still pertinaciously adhered to, and intended soon to be consummated: THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS TO THIS UNION. In the press of business inci

[ocr errors]

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, interisted in the continuance of Domestic Slavery and the Slave-trade in these United States, have solemnly and enalterably determined that it shall be speedily carried into execution; and that, by this admission of new Slave Territory and Slave States, the undue ascendency of the Slure-holding power in the Government shall be secured and riveted beyond all redempKon!!

That it was with these views and intentions that set

[blocks in formation]

"It may not be improper here to remark that, during the last session of Congress, when a Senator from Mississippi proposed the acknowledgment of Texan independence, it was found, with a few exceptions, the members of that body were ready to take ground upon it, as upon the subject of Slavery itself.

With all these facts before us, we do not hesitate in believing that these feelings influenced the New England Senators, but one voting in favor of the measure; and, indeed, Mr. Webster had been bold enough, in a public speech recen ly delivered in New-York, to many thousand citizens, to declare that the reason that influenced his opposition was his abhorrence of Slavery in the South, and that it might, in the event of its recognition, become a slaveholding State. He also spoke of the efforts making in favor of Abolition; and that, being prefeeling, it would become irresistible and overwhelming.

lements were effected in the province, by citizens of the United States, difficulties fomented with the Mexican Government, a revolt brought about, and an Indepen-dicated upon and aided by the powerful influence of religious dent 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.

"This language, coming from so distinguished an individual as Mr. Webster, so familiar with the feelings of the North and entertaining so high a respect for public sentiment in New England, speaks so plainly the voice of the North as not to be 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 entirely disregard the efforts of the fades, and the opinions of such men as Webster, and others who countenance such danPresi-gerous doctrines.

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
dent, 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 un-
warrantable aggressions of bodies of our own citizens,
enlisted, organized and officered within our own borders,
and marched in arms and battle array upon the terri-
tory, and against the inhabitants of a friendly govern-
ment, in aid of freebooters and insurgents, and the pre-
mature 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


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, 1838, 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:

"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.

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

The speech of Mr. Adams, exposing the whole system of duplicity and perfidy toward Mexico, had marked the of opposition which began to come up from all parties in conduct of our Government; and the emphatic expressions 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 p.oject is rearly, if not wholly abandoned, and that, at least, there is now no serious danger of its consummation.

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 ferred for a more favorable moment for its accomplish ment, we refer to a few evidences of more recent development 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 District in which our present Chief Magistrate resided The Hon. Henry A. Wise, a member of Congress fron when elected Vice-President, and who is understood to be more intimately acquainted with the views and designs 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
one more Northern State be admitted, and the equilibrium is
gone-gone forever. The balance of interests is gone-the safe-
guard of American property of the American Constitution
of the American Union, vanished into thin air. This must b
the inevitable result, unless by a treaty with Mexico, THE SOUTH
South stop at the Sabine, (the eastern boundary of Texas,) while
the North may spread unchecked beyond the Rocky Moun-

"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 inter-tains AND THE SOUTHERN SCALE MUST KICK THE BEAM."
esting 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 Con-
federacy; 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 per-

milied 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

Finding difficulties, perhaps, in the way of a cession by Treaty, in another speech delivered in April, 1842, on a 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."

He said of Texas, that--"While she was, as a State, weak and almost powerless in resisting invasion, she was herself irresistible as an invading and a conquering power. She had but a sparse population, and neither men nor money of her own, to raise and equip an army for her own defense; but let her once raise the flag of foreign conquest-let her once proclaim a crusade against the rich States to the south of her-and in a moment volunteers would flock to her standard in crowds, from all the States in the great valley of the Mississippi-men of enterprise and valor, before whom no Mexican troops could stand for an hour. They would leave their own towns, arm themselves, and travel on their own cost, and would come up in thousands, to plant the lone star of the Texan banner on the Mexican capitol. They would drive Santa Anna to the South, and in boundless wealth of captured towns, and rifled churches, and a lazy, vicious, and luxurious priesthood, would soon enable Texas, to pay her soldiery, and redeem her State debt, and push her victorious arms to the very shores of the Pacific. And would not all this extend the bounds of Slavery? Yes, the result would be, that, before another quarter of a century, the extension of Slavery would not stop short of the Western Ocean. We had but two alternatives before us; either to receive Texas into our fraternity of States, and thus make her our own, or to leave her to conquer Mexico, and become our most dangerous and formidable rival.

"To talk of restraining the people of the great Valley from emigrating to join her armies, was all in vain; and it was equally vain to calculate on their defeat by any Mexican forces, aided by England or not. They had gone once already; it was they that conquered Santa Anna at San Jacinto; and three-fourths of them, after winning that glorious field, had peaceably returned to their homes. But once set before them the conquest of the rich Mexican provinces, and you might as well attempt to stop the wind. This Government might send i's troops to the frontier, to turn them back, and they would run over them like a herd of buffalo.

"Nothing could keep these booted loafers from rushing on, till they kicked the Spanish priests out of the temples they profaued."

Mr. Wise proceeded to insist that a majority of the people of the United States were in favor of the annexation; at all events, he would risk it with the Democracy of the North. "Sir," said Mr. Wise, it is not only the duty of the Government to demand the liquidation of our claims, and the libera

tion of our citizens, but to go further, and demand the nonsurrection is raised on our borders, and let a horde of slaves, and Indians and Mexicans roll up to the boundary line of Arkan sas and Louisiana? No. It is our duty at once to say to Mexico, If you strike Texas, you strike us; and if England, sanding by, should dare to intermeddle, and ask, 'Do you take part with Texas ?' his prompt answer should be, Yes, und ugainst you.'

invasion of Texas. Shall we sit still while the standard of in

Such, he would let gentlemen know, was the spirit of the whole people of the great valley of the West." Several other members of Congress, in the same debate, expressed similar views and desires, and they are still more frequently expressed in conversation.

The Hon. Thomas W. Gilmer, a member of Congress from Virginia, and formerly a Governor of that State, numbered as one of the "Guard," and of course understood to be in the counsels of the Cabinet, in a letter bearing date the 10th day of January last, originally designed as a private and confidential letter to a friend, gives it as his deliberate opinion, after much examination

and reflection, that TEXAS WILL BE ANNEXED TO THE UNION; and he enters into a specious argument, and presents a variety of reasons in favor of the measure. He says, among other things:

terest and a frontier on the Gulf of Mexico, and along our in

Having acquired Louisiana and Florida, we have an interior to the Pacific, which will not permit us to close our eyes, or fold our arms, with indifference to the events which a few years may disclose in that quarter. We have already had one question of boundary with Texas; other questions must soon arise, under our revenue laws, and on other points of necessary intercourse, which it will be difficult to adjust. The institutions of Texas, and her relations with other governments, are yet in that condition which inclines her people (who are our own countrymen,) to unite their destinies with ours. THIS MUST BE DONE SOON, OR NOT AT ALL. There are numerous tribes of Indians along both frontiers, which can easily become the cause or the instrument of border wars."

None can be so blind now, as not to know that the real design and object of the South is, to "ADD NEW WEIGHT TO HER END OF THE LEVER." It was upon that ground that Mr. Webster placed his opposition, in his speech on that subject in New-York, in March, 1837. In that speech, after stating that he saw insurmountable objections to the annexation of Texas, that the purchase of Louisiana and Florida furnished no precedent for it, that the cases were not parallel, and that no such policy or necessity as led to that, required the annexation of Texas, he said: "Gentlemen, we all see, that by whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slaveholding country; and I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do anything which shall extend the Slavery of the African race on this continent, or add other slaveholding States to the Union. When I say that I regard Slavery as in itself a great moral, social, and political

evil, I only use language which has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of Slaveholding States. I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further


In conclusion he said:

"I see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of Texas to the Union; no advantages to be derived from it; and objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment, decisive character.

"I believe it to be for the interest and happiness of the whole Union, to remain as it is, without diminution and without addition."

To prevent the success of this nefarious project--to preserve from such gross violation the Constitution of our country, adopted expressly "to secure the blessings of liberty," and not the perpetuation of Slavery-and to prevent the speedy and violent dissolution of the Union --we invite you to unite, without distinction of party, in an immediate expression of your views on this subject, in such manner as you may deem best calculated to answer the end proposed.

[blocks in formation]

WASHINGTON, March 3rd, 1848.

[NOTE.-The above address was drawn up by Hon. Seth M. Gates, of New-York, at the suggestion of John Quincy Adams, and sent to members of Congress at their residences, after the close of the session, for their signatures. Many more thar the above approved heartily of its positions and objects, and would have signed it, but for its premature publication, through mistake. Mr. Winthrop, of Mass., was one of these, with Gov. Briggs, of course; Mr. Fillmore declined signing it.]

The letters of Messrs. Clay and Van Buren, taking ground against annexation, without the consent of Mexico, as an act of bad faith and aggression, which would necessarily result in war, which appeared in the spring of 1844, make slight allusions, if any, to the Slavery aspect of the case. In a later letter, Mr. Clay declared that he did not oppose annexation on account of Slavery, which he regarded as a temporary institution, which, therefore, ought not to stand in the way of a permanent acquisition. And, though Mr. Clay's last letter on the subject, prior to the election of 1844, reiterated and emphasized all his objections to annexation under the existing circumstances, he did not include the existence of Slavery.

The defeat of Mr. Van Buren, at the Baltimore Nominating Convention-Mr. Polk being selected in his stead, by a body which had been supposed pledged to renominate the ex-President-excited considerable feeling, especially among the Democrats of New-York. A number of their leaders united in a letter, termed the "Secret Circular," advising their brethren, while they supported Polk and Dallas, to be careful to vote for candidates for Congress who would set their faces as a flint against annexation, which was signed by



Silas Wright, then a Senator of the United States, and who, as such, had opposed the Tyler Treaty of Annexation, was now rua for Governor, as the only man who could carry the State of New-York for Polk and Dallas. In a democratic speech at Skaneateles, N. Y., Mr. Wright had recently declared that he could never consent to Annexation on any terms which would give Slavery an advantage over Freedom. This sentiment was reiterated and amplified in a great Convention of the Demo

« PreviousContinue »