The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 95
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.
9$
x' He however observed that he did now begin to
feel some sympathy with the people of Texas, who
had been deluded and betrayed by false pretences and
promises. Where was the promise which the Presi-
dent of the United States dared to give to the people
of Texas at the outset of this negotiation!'—that
promise which the President of the United States
dared to give, that, if the treaty was entered upon,
two-thirds of the Senate would ratify. But he
would no longer discuss this matter. He-saw it
was beginning to be a sore topic. The chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs admitted that
there was now- some fear of annexation if there
should be much longer delay: there \(?ere some per-
sons in Texas who appeared, to be changing their
minds; and so they were here not only to get the
start of our own people, but to pass a snap judg-
ment on the will and judgment of the people of
Texas. He (Mr. W.)' did think there was some
reaction on the subject of annexation; and hence, he
repeated, he began to have some sympathy with the
people of Texas
jjie then proceeded to state his grounds of opposi-
tion to the passage of these annexation resolutions,
on which this debate in Committee of the Whole
was based. He said, as he had said on a previous
occasion, that the whole scheme was unconstitu-
tional in substance and in form; that it was contrary
to the la of nations, and was a violation of the
good faith of our own country ; and, in his judgment,
it was eminently calculated to involve this country in
an unjust and dishonorable war. He also objected
to it on account of its relation with domestic slavery.
He was one of those who utterly denied the au-
thority of this government to annex a foreign State
to this government by any process short of an ap-
peal to the people in the form which the constitu-
tion prescribed for its amendment.*' He also read
an extract from the oft-quoted letCSr of Mr. For-
syth—which set forth doctrines that were held
by the whole of Mr. Van Buren's cabinet—on
the question of annexation, which he said contained
not one word approaching a pretence of any right to
reannex Texas. That letter admitted that the ter-
ritory here in question went beyond that territory
which was ceded by France in 1803, which treaty
had been quoted here so often as a precedent on
which to rely as a justification for this proposed
acquisition of territory. There were, if he under-
stood them, gentlemen who claimed here to be
guided by precedent, while they refused to be guided
by precedent on any other question. They rejected
the idea that the signature of Washington and of
Madison to a bank of the United States had settled
a precedent of its constitutionality; and they hailed
the return to the sub-treasury system as a return to
that original constitutional purity fiom which it had
been perverted by Washington and Madison! Yes,
a restoration by Jackson and Tyler of constitu-
tional purity from which Washington and Madison
had departed! If the old Roman orators of which
they read could look into each other's face without
laughing, he could not cojjceive how some modern
gentlemen could do so. (They denied the constitu-
tion ility of a bank of the United States, of a tariff
to protect and encourage domestic industry—they
denied the force of precedent in every other instance,
but they relied on the precedent which they found 111
the cession of Louisiana. Now, he was no de-
t-piser of precedent, especially such precedents as
were afforded by the eaily cabinets, for which he
had the most deferential respect; but he could not
understand tills disregard of precedent in all other
eases than this annexation of' Texas, and such a
precedent as the cession of Louisiana afforded.
Why, they knew that Mr. Jeffeison, in his letter to
Mr, Breckenridge, acknowledged that they were
doing an act which went beyond the constitution,'
-And he read an extract from a letter written by Mr.
Jefferson, in which he expressed the opinion that
the limits of the United States were fixed; that
the constitution of the United States was made for
the territory so-limited;and that he could nut believe
but that the intention was not to permit Congress to
admit new States which should be foimed out of
new territory, not included in those limits. Mr.
Jefferson did not believe that Congress had such
power: and who did believe it? There were com-
promises in the constitution; and he would here take
occasion to say that Massachusetts had been falsely
(harged with a design to violate those compromises
t ecause she had thought lit to submit a proposition
to am^nd the constitution.
He made some further observations on this point,
aad on the equipoise given in the confederacy by
the free and slave States, and of a design now enter-
tained to give slavery the preponderance;(jSind went
on, as was understood, to say that the annexation
of Texas would be such a change of the country as
would require an alteration of the constitution.
There was a power by which every State had a
right to say if it would enter' into new compacts in
the same way in which they said whether they-
would enter into that which now binds them to-
gether; and if anything appealed to States rights it
was this question of annexation.. He (Mr Win-
t'heop) dealt out no threats against this Union; they
were the abundant product of other soils than of
Massachusetts; they_ loved the Union, aiid were
content to abide by itf;and in support of this asser-
tion he read an extraSt from the recent message of
Governor Briggs, and added, in the name of Massa-
chusetts, let the day perish, let it not be joined to the
days of the year, nor come within the number of
the months, when it shall be said, let this Union be
dissolved, flf, however, there was any act which
would absolve them from their allegiance to that
sacred instrument, the constitution, it was this pro-
posed act for the annexation of Texas.-"!
\fle next proceeded to his second proposition, that
this project was an unconstitutional inform as
in substance. And here he read an extract from
Mr. Gallatin to support the position he had as-
sumed. He said the constitution provided a legis-
lative and an executive power, providing a treaty-ma-
king power of the executive and the Senate of the
United States; ajnd while such a power existed, the
resolutions jiow on the table of this House had no
sort of right to be there. This House had no au-
thority to make treaty compacts with foreign pow-
ers. This House might be called upon to carry out
treaties made by the treaty-making power, by the
appropriation of money, and in other ways; and here
gentlemen might differ as to the obligation to carry
out the provisions of the treaties already made; but
so far as respected the making of treaties, the exer-
cise of that power was alone with the executive and
the Senate, which could alone advise and consent to
such matters. Jt was the doctrine of the constitu-
tion that one third of the States—and those might
be even the smallest, might forbid alliances
with foreign powers."; The functions of this House
began and ended with domestic legislation, and yet
here they had a plain and undisguised proposition
to enter into alliances with another nation, by means
of a treaty which had been rejected by the treaty-
making power. ' He knew the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs had omitted the word
treaty, and had taken care to use the word "se tle-
nient," and "Texas consenting;" but it related to
laws, and lands, and persons, out of our territory,
and therefore it belonged to the treaty-making
power. He here made some allusions to the re-
marks made on a preceding day by Mr. Belser of
Alabama, and remarked that the very essence of the
treaty-making power was a contract with a foreign
power.
Mr. Calhoun himself had laid down all this matter
with more clearness and emphasis, even, he thought,
than Mr. Pinckney, to whom the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. J. R. Ingersoll] had alluded.
Mr. W. here read several extracts from a speech
of Mr. Calhoun on the question of commercial trea-
ties, in which the doctrines were laid down "that
Congress cannot make a contract with a foreign
nation;" that whenever ordinary subjects of legisla-
tion can only be accomplished by a contract with a
foreign nation, they pass from the jurisdiction of
the legislature to that of the treaty-making power,
&c., &c.
In this argument of Mr. Calhoun, (said Mr. W.)
there is an unanswerable objection to this whole
business now before them.
< Mr. W. said if he had the time he would allude
to the precedents quoted by the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr: Bei.ser] in support of the authority
for legislative contracts with foreign nations. One
of the acts to which the gentleman had referred, was
simply an act taking possession of Louisiana, after
the treaty had been negotiated and ratified. An-
other was a resolution for taking possession of
Florida, from which Mr. W. read to show that it
provided simply for the temporary occupation of
said territory, and at the same time declared express-
ly that the territory remained subject to future stipu-
lation. Such were the examples referred to by the
gentleman from. Alabama to sustain this monsttous
assumption of power on the part of the legislative
bocjy!
~'ith reference to this matter of'reannexation,"
there was mighty force in a syllable. If the friends
of Texas had shown as much of the suaviter inmoio
as of theforliler in re, it would have entitled them to
much more respect. This little word "re" was
about the only matter in question...
Mr. W.'s remarks were here terminated by the
expiration of his hour
Mr. DOUGLASS was successful above many
competitors m obtaining the floor. Before proceed-
ing with his remarks, he said he would renew the
proposition he had at first made, as an amendment
to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr.
Weller,] by offering the whole series of his reso-
lutions, with the preamble, as an amendment to the
amendment.
Mr. COLLAMER raised the question of order,
whether it could be done.
The CHAIRMAN replied that it was competent
for the gentleman to modify his resolution'into the
form which he preferred.
Mr. DOUGLASS proceeded with his remarks.
The gentleman from Massachusetts who had just
taken his seat [Mr. Winthrop] had seemed to con-
sider it incumbent on the friends of the' annexation
of Texas to the Union to deal, altogether with argu-
ments, and to show thereby that they had the right
to do what they proposed, and in the -form which
they proposed; whereas he claimed entire exemp-
tion on the part of their opponents from dealing
in argument; but that it was sugicient for them
simply to content themselves by saying "no, no,"
to everything they proposed. Mr. D. admitted that
it was "incumbent of,the advocates of this measure
to sustain it by argument, and he would not com-
plain Of their opponents for taking the course the
gentleman had marked out for them, for he candidly-
believed that,before the discussion terminated,it would
appear that, for them, discretion was the better part
of valor, and that the best course for them would be
to content themselves with perpetually saying "No,
no." -
One word in relation to the origin of the Texas
question. The gentleman from Massachusetts had
been pleased to tell them that it had been devised by
a President of the United States not elected by the
people; and the gentleman had passed censure on
the President and the hero of the Hermitage for'the
interest and zeal they had manifested on this ques-
tion of annexation. Mr. D. denied that the acci-
dental President of the Um'ted States had the credit
of originating the project of the annexation ofTexas
to the Union. The honorable gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts [Mr. Adams] could assert a claim to that
honor, founded on the fact that when President of
the United States in 1825, he and his secretary (Mr.
Clay) proposed to annex Texas to this Union, and
offered millions of dollars in order to secure this
valuable acquisition. Mr. D. briefly reviewed the
history ef the action of the government with refer-
ence to the annexation of Texas, noticing first the
renewal of the attempt by Mr. Adams in 1827,
when it was proposed to reannex Texas under the
existence of all that state of facts which the oppo-
nents of the measure now brought forward as con-
clusive evidence that it could not be done consistent-
ly with our treaty stipulations, and the faith and
honor of the government. Then, Texas and
Mexico severally were revolted colonies to
Spain, their independence not acknowledged, the
war_ then raging; and while that war was
continuing between Mexico and Texas, as revolt-
ed colonies on the one hand, and Spain on
the other, the gentleman from Massachusetts
and Mr. Clay had twice attempted to reannex Tex-
as, and then adopt the unconstitutional war which
they were told so much of. Yes; lie took the facts
from the official State papers of our country; and
on these facts he denied the credit to Air. Tyler of
having originated this Texas hobby for the purpose
of making political capital.
He also referred to the fact that one of the first
acts of General Jackson's administration, following
the footsteps of his lllustiious predecessor, was the
Older of General Jackson to Mr. Van Buren, his
secretary, to instruct our minister at Mexico to
make a contract to reannex Texas—to offer some
five millions of dollars for the accomplishment of
this great and useful object; and to say that the
fact of the pending war between Spain and Mexico
would be an inducement to be urged upon Mexico
why she should accept the five millions of dollar*
in order to take that.money and uree the war mors
vigorously against Spaiii. When "that proposition
wag made by Mr. Van Buren in 1829, Spanish
troops were yet in Mexico; war then existed-
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/m1/111/: accessed May 6, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.