The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 91
xv, 408, 421 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
iy different and antagonistic to those under which
gentlemen acted in their precipitate ru-h towards
annexation, fit could not be overlooked, (said Mr.
I.,) however; in the heat and fury of the late canvass,
we had been carried away with the belief that
the mass of the nation were in favor of this or that
particular policy. ' It could hot be doubted that a
great portion of the people of the United States
were - not favorable to annexation. However it
might be with the people of Texas, Mr. I. strong-
ly dissented from the idea that the.people of the
United States were en masse favorable to a measure
of so deep and vital interest, the effects of which
"were to last for centuries, and whose results were
to be so disastrous and terriblgj Mr.-I. further
gave a graphic picture of the horrors of the blood,
carnage, and devastations of war. -
fOn the score ofslavery alone, Mr. I. proceeded to
say, he would oppose the annexation of Texas.
He spoke of the compromises of the constitution,
which had made Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
York, as well as South Carolina, North Carolina,
Delaware, all sisters of a common confederacy, for
their mutual defence and protection. He said, let it
hold together until the columns of this temple should
crumble; and if the day of ruin ever should come,
let them all share it alike; but, on the other hand,
if, instead of the preservation of the constitution, and
of the liberties of the people, we were to carry ihe
system of slavery beyond the bounds of the consti-
tution, he would be the first to step forward and say,
if he could say with any thing like effect, "Thus
far shailt thou go, and no fariher." Why, -when
the law ofthe United States said we should not ad-
mit a single slave into the territory of the United
States—when the constitution of the United States,
ratified in 1789, had postponed, at the request of
the southern States, the inhibition just, leferred to, to
1808—here we were, in one fell swoop, to intro-
duce five-and-twenty thousand slaves into the
United States; and this, as they were told, to dimin-
ish the influence of slavery !
Mr. I., in a manner very imperfectly heard,
(as was the case at times with many others, par-
ticularly the latter portions of his remarks,) refer-
red to the discussions which had grown out of
the Missouri question at the time it was raised, and
said that the argument was at that time considered
worse than absurd, that, by the extension of slave-
ry, they went to reduce, diminuih, and cripple its
powers. No: the system would be confirmed and
strengthened; and blessed would it be if, this meas-
ure being adopted, the time, did not come when
the .middle and some of the southern and western
States, where slavery was now waning, and which
were disposed to consider it an evil, did not become,
not the holders, the employers, the workers, but the
breeders of slaves for the South.
03f all the arguments, however, which had been
offered in support of annexation, one which appear-
ed the feeblest and worst was that of the benefits
which would ennte from the addition of this vast
extent of territory. What did we want of a further
extent of territory, merely considered by itself? Had
we not territory enough? Was there not in those
vast regions which surrounded us, where cen-
turies must elapse before there w.is a Fu-
sibility of bringing it to the suindnrd of Eu-
ropean population—Mas there not enough here
far all the wants and necessities of man' Mr. I.
here quoted an eloquent extract, which was said
many, many years ago, before Florida and .Louisi-
ana were introduced into the Union, in description
ofthe vaslncss of this yet unexplored world, which
opened to mankind itself "interminable solitude's."
We did not want temtory. The danger of this
country was that it would break to pieces at its ex-
tremities—these extremities being made more dis-
. tant. from the centra! government; which, after all,
was like the heart, from which issued and was cir-
culated the spring of life throughout ihe whole sys-
tem to its farthest extremities. Mr. I. opposed the
idea of removing at a wider distance from the centre
these extremities./
It was not, therefore, (continued Mr. I.,) to any
or in all of these considerations, that could be found
support for the annexation of Texas. But they
were told that we needed this vast extent of virgin
soil of Texas for the production of the great staple
of the world'. Did not their southern friends tell
them that a great evil'of the times was the over-
production of that staple? And were they going
to annex a country to us in Order to swell
the tide which should, waft to foreign lands
the over-production of an article already abund-
ant., and which they so loudly complained
hardly compensated for the labor and expense of its
production at present? But, besides, what did we
know of this country with reference to its fertility
and power of production? J Mr. I. spoke of a con-
versation he had recently. held with a gentleman—
a man of education and of experience in the world
—who had lived for eighteen months on this very
soil of Texas—who had given him to understand
that Texas was so much covered with swamps and
marshes, that its rivers were so shallow, beginning
with its western river (the Bravo) and running over
to the Sabine itself, and that this country was so
little capable of relieving itself from the effects of
these marshes and swamps, that the very produc-
tion of that staple in the quantities that were prom-
ised was a matter of very great doubt; and that
Mississippi was worth many to one more than Tex-
as itself in regard to the production of cotton. And
when they talked of prairies, why the prairies of
Indiana, of Illinois, the prairies of our own West,
(as we had that happy and glorious West at this
moment,) were worth thousands of the , prairies of
Texas. Mr. I. referred to a work recently publish-
ed in that country as confirmatory of these views of
his informant.
In reply to ihe argument that the deserts bordering
the Rio Del Norte would form an impassable barrier
into the country, Mr. I. proceeded to say that
there were not deserts there such as were found in
some parts of Asia and Africa. There were here
oases—places where there would be the means of
establishing military positions, whence those inim-
ical could make encroachments into the neigh-
boring civilized territory.
In one of the communications made by the Piesi-
dent of the United States to the Senate during the
last summer, one of the reasons (said Mr. I.) for the
annexation of Texas was the attachment of our
brethren of Texas to this particular country and
Union. Mr. I. said no word of disparagement
against them or any of them; some of them he knew
and believed to be men of honor and integrity. But
when those who had gone into a foreign country
partly with and partly without laws, and had
made an abandonment partial or exclusive of
their native country—when they came forward
at this time and alleged to us that they ought
to be admitted into the Union, because of their at-
tachment thereto, he should not be over anxious to
act m so important a matter to comply with then-
temporary wishes. They had gone there seeking
their fortune, attaching themselves to a particular
state of things then existing, and likely to exist for
centuries; they had chosen their position and coun-
try; they had that position and country. And if
there had been one or two administiations at a
peiiod that had sought the return of Texas to a
connection with the United States, among other
things, to relieve the hardships of those who had
abandoned their former homes, what would be eaid
of those subsequent administrations of Jackson and
Van Euren, in which no calculation or desire for
rearmexation, or lather of annexation (for at that
time, the English language, copious as it was, had
not furnished such a word us "reannexation") had
been manifest; but on the contrary, a scrupulous
determination to maintain an entire neutrality with
reference to Mexico and Texas, and to abstain fi.im
inteiference 111 their affaiis' No; there was nothing
more in that argument than in the others tn which
he had adverted. What, then, he asked, was the
argument to sustain this?
Here Mr. I. was cut off by ihe expiration of his
hour.
Mr. P,\YNE next obtained ihe floor. It vra-
not his purpose (he said) to entertain the House
'with a foui ill of July oration upon this occasion.
He believed that the preposition under considera-
tion was one. susceptible of a.gnnient; and, so far as
he was capable, he should confine his remarks oil
this question to argument alone. He took this oc-
casion to remark that he should not descend to the
argument, of negro-brcedtng to which the gentleman
had alluded who had just taken his scat. He thought
this question aiose above every consideration; it
was a great naiional question, and in that li^ht he
proposed to consider it. "What experience the gen-
tlemen might have had in the science of negro-
breeding, it did not become him to speak on this
occasion.
It occurred to him. that, in the examination of this
ouestion, only three or four points were to be con-
sidered; and if they could be decided affirmatively,
this whole question was settled. Hehad hoped that
some, gentleman would have preceded him who
would have examined these points as presented By
the representation of the opponents of the annexa-
tion of Texasjn the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions. He understood the speech made by the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Winthrop,] 'a
member of that committee, when the report of the
majority of the committee was presented to the
House, to be. a sort of manifesto under which the
opponents of the annexation of Texas were to rally.
The gentleman, however, who had preceded him
had taken occasion to allude only to one argument
of the gentleman.
The gentleman from Massachusetts had said that
to annex Texas was a violation of the constitution;
that it was contrary to national law, and that it
would be dishonorable to the nation, and inexpe-
dient.
These were the positions assumed by the gentleman;
and it was in reply to these positions he intended to
speak. Qh regard to the power of this government to
admit new States into the Union, he simply proposed "
to refer to a clause m the constitution which settled,
as he thought, that question. The clause to which
he alluded was in these words: "New States may
be admitted by the Congress into this Union." It
was true that this power conferred on Congress was
attended with certain limitations, which are:
"but no new -State shall be formed or erected
within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor
any State be formed by the junction of two or
more States, or parts of States, without the con-
sent of the legislatures of the States concerned,
as well as of Congress." We do not design, said
Mr. P., to interfere with any of the limitations pre-
scribed by the constitution, but to ad mit T exas into the
Union, in virtue of the power given in the first mem-
; ber of the clause. The power here given was ex-
[ press and clear. There was no limitation in that
power which applied to Texas. Now, it would
perhaps not be amiss, _in the examination of this
question, to go back to the beginning of the govern-
ment, and look into the motives which led to the
adoption of this clause in the constitution. It would
be remembered that, after the revolution which sev-
. ered the connection between this country and the
British crown', there was a strong desire on the part
of a majority of the people of this country to annex,
under one form of government, all the British prov-
inbes—Canada and Nova Scotia as well as the old
thirteen States—and for this reason the clause was
inserted. It was not 'necessary to dwell longer on
this pait of the subject, because, in regard to it, the
constitution was clca and express. ; But the gentle-
man, in his manifesto, said that it was contrary to
national law to admit Texas as a member of this
Union. Now here he must be pardoned for looking
for a few moments at the_ position which govern-
ments occupy in regard to each other. He spoke,
of course, of sovereign and independent govern-
ments, as he trusted he should demonstrate Texas
to be before he took his seat.
/ According to national law they occupied the same
positions in regard to each other that individuals did
towards one another in a state of nature; and in fact
national law was natural law. An individual in a
state of nature had a right to perform any act ne-
cessary for either of two purposes. One was, to
preserve his own life, the other to perpetuate and
peifect his existence. An individual in a state of
nature might rightfully deprive another of life in
self-defence, for the leasees above given, and it
would be denominated justifiable homicide. He
had a right to perform ally other act necessary for
self-preservation, and to perfect his existence, pro-
vided he did not interfere, with the rights of others;
which he should show, in the course of his remarks,
was not intended to be done in the admission of
Texas into the Union.
(He would here, also remark that governments
weie composed of integral parts—the loss of either
of which would injure the whole; and that, there-
fore, it was necessary to preserve all the parts from
mutilation, in order to preserve the whole. Now,
was the annexation of Texas necessary for either
the one or the other of the objects he had mentioned?
Was it necessary to preserve the integrity of the
Union in all its parts, or was it necessary to perfect
and perpetuate this Union? There might be differ-
ences of opinion on this subject. Some gentlemen . -
might entertain the opinion that neither the one nor ;
the other was necessary; but he was clearly of ^
opinion that they w'ere all essential to the preserva-
tion and perfection of our Union.j
[No one acquainted with the geographical position
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/107/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.