The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 96
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:
96
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
and the documents referred' to showed the fact.
And still our country tried annexation under these
circumstances! Again: in 1833, General Jackson
W' his Secretary of State, and in
3835 General Jackson and Mr. Forsyth, his Secre-
tary of State, renewed the proposition. Yet, in the
very face of these state documents, they were told
by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Win-
throp] that the whole scheme had been devised by
a President not elected by the people ! It occurred
to him, (Mr. D.,) at this moment, that he might have
done the gentleman [Mr. Winthrop]' injustice. It
"was possible, inasmuch as the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Adams] did originate the meas-
ure that his colleague [Mr. Winthrop] had refer-
red to him, [laughter,] when he had said that the
scheme was originated by a President not elected
by the people. [Renewed laughter.] If so, he
thought it unjust in the gentleman to make such an
allusion: if made with reference to the gentleman
from Massachusetts, lie thought it ought to be re-
sented; if it was not made to him, it was not sus-
tained by the facts.
Before proceeding to the main argument, Mr. D.
proposed to touch upon another topic, that had been
alluded to both by the gentleman from Massachu-
setts and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. J.
R. Ingersoll,] to wit, as to the western boundary
of the state of Texas, or of the original colony of
Louisiana, with reference to the fact whether
this question was one of annexation or of rean-
nexation to the Union. In so far as the merits
of the call were concerned, Mr. D. acknowl-
edged that he deemed it immaterial; but he wished
to exhibit it so far as the truth was concerned.
It would be found, by looking into the records of
the time, that, in the communication addressed by
the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Adabis] to Don Onis, in 1818, it was stated that the
first settlement ever made in the country between
the Sabine and the Rio del Norte, upon the Gulf of
Mexico, was made in lti8o by La Salle, under the au-
thority of the French government. They find it
also there stated that the settlement thus made, in
connection with the settlement previously made on
the Mississippi and Illinois rivers by La Salle and
Hennepin, formed the basis of the French colony
under the title of Louisiana; that that title remained
with France from the time of the settlement to
1762, when it was transferred by France to Spain.
In 1800, it was receded by Spain to France, in vir-
tue of the treaty of St. lldefonso; again it was held
by France to 1803, when it was ceded to the United
States. It was true, in all these cessions of the
Louisiana colony no boundaries were defined; but it
was also true that, by the treaty of St. lldefonso, it
was conveyed by the extent and boundaries of the
original territory of Louisiana, as it was also con-
veyed wi*h the same extent and boundaries in 1803
to the United States. Then, if they could ascertain
what the original boundaries of Louisiana were,
they found out where the western boundary of the
United States was under the treaty of 1803; and
hence they found out whether it was now a question
of annexation or of reannexation.
It was sufficentfor him to say, on the authoiity of
the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, that
France had always contended, when the territory be-
longed to her, that the boundary was west of the Rio
del Norte; also, that while Spain held possession of
Louisiana, under the treaty from France, there was
reason to believe that Spain regarded the Del Norte
as the boundary, from the fact that while Spain
held possession. Lopez, the geographer to the King
of Spain, made a map, and marked the Del Norte
as the boundary, and from the additional fact, that
a geography was also published about that time by
another distinguished geographer in Spain, which
made the same statement.
These facts, taken with others to be derived from
the records before him, showed clearly that the
Del Norte was the western boundary ofthe territory
of Louisiana; and hence the western boundary of
the United States under the treaty of 1803.
Having shown that France had always so re-
garded it when she owned the country, and that
Spain had always so regarded it when she owned
the country, he now proceeded to show that the
United States had always regarded it in like manner.
For this purpose, he referred to the fact that Mr.
Pinckney and Mr. Monroe had asserted to the
French government, that the title of the United
States to the Del Norte was as perfect as it was to
the island of New Orleans; that Mr. Monroe again,
ij) I8J6, stated that the United -States had nevsr
doutited it; and, further, that the gentleman frem
Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] in 1818, in a letter to
Don Onis, took the same giound, and repeated the
statement of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney, that
our title, as far as the Del Norte, was as perfect as
our title to the island of New Orleans.
But he wished here to notice one more point made
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Discover-
ing, as the gentleman had had done, that all the evi-
dence was against him as to the point of the Sabine
being the true boundary of Louisiana; that the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts must J>e convicted of er-
ror by reference to the historical facts of the case,
the gentleman had asserted that that question had
been previously settled by the act of 1812, estab-
lishing the Sabine as the boundary. Did not the
gentleman know that, that act did not purport to
define the boundary between the United States and
Spain? On the contrary, Mr. D. referred to the
act to show that it only made the boundary of the
State of Louisiana, leaving the rest of the territory
to be organized into territories as Congress shall
direct. If the gentleman insisted that that act did
fix'the boundary between us and Spain, by the
same construction it was inevitable that that por-
tion of the act fixing the northern boundary of the
State would make it the northern boundary of our
territory on the west of the Mississippi, and thus
would exclude Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa from
the Union.
Again: he wished once more only to pay his re-
specTs to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The
gentleman said the act of 1812 did establish the
boundary between Spain and the United States, and,
by that act, that we lost Texas, and not by the
treaty of 1819. If this were so, it furnished them
with an instance in which the Congress of the
United States had contracted with a foreign nation
on the subject of boundaiy, without referring it to
the treaty-making power at all. And thus it proved
to them that Congress had the power to sell our
country to a foreign nation, and of course, that it.
had the power to buy it back again; which annihi-
lated his own objection that Congress had no power
tojuy foreign territory at all.
now came to the consideration of the treaty
of IS03, by which we purchased the territory of
Louisiana, extending to the Rio del Norte, and in-
cluding Texas. In that treaty was inserted an arti-
cle [the 3d] declaring that the inhabitants of the
ceded territory should be admitted into our Union,
as soon as possible, on.an equal footing with the
other States, and that they should be protected in
the enjoyment of their property and their rights
and privileges, and especia ly in the exercise of
their religion. That very treaty,'which the gentle-
man admitted included Texas, contained a solemn
pledge that the whole of the territory, including
Texas, should be admitted into the Union, and that
the inhabitants thereof should be protected in the
enjoyment of all their rights; and yet, in defiance
of that solemn pledge, the treaty of 1819 sold
Texas and the people of that country to a foreign
despot, and conveited American citizens into the
serfs of a foreign despotism, depriving them of their
religion, and of all their rights and privileges, in. vio-
lation of the solemnjiledge, and of the faith and
honor ofthe nationTj Were there not here some
materials for the gentleman from Massachusetts,
who had just taken his seat, [Mr. "Winthrop,] to
dwell on the heightof philanthropy, and his zeal for
the extension of the erea of freedom. Might he
not here well exert his eloquence to extend to them
the protection of the government in the enjoyment of
their religion, and then rights and pnvilegcs, and to re-
deem the pledge that was violated by the treaty of 18195
But the gentleman said, that although the treaty of
1819, did violate the trealy of J803, yet, inasmuch
as this government ratified it, we thereby lost all
right and title to Texas. He admitted that fact,
and admitted it with humiliation. He admitted that,
by our own fault, we had lost all right or pretext
of right to that fine country. He applied to this ■
case the strict principle of law, that no nation,
more than an individual, shall be permitted to take
advantage of his wrong. Hence he set up no claim
of right to the possession of Texas. Yet at the
same time he set up the principle though we had, by
our own fault, lost all right, we had not freed our-
selves from the obligation to redeem the pledges
given hy the treaty of 1803. We were still hound
to fulfil the stipulations of that treaty, and bring the
people of Texas into our Union, provided they de-
mand of us the fulfilment of the pledge there given.
Texas had demanded the fulfilment of that pledge;
and if we idesired to maintain our reputation for
honor and good faith before the civilized world, we
were bound to fulfil it. If he had the time to spare,
he could show that, within three months after the
signature of the treaty of 1819, the people of Texas
assembled together in solemn council, and put forth
to the world a solemn protest against being sold to
the king of Spain, and pledging themselves never to
acknowledge the validity of the bargain. He gave
jthat statement of facts as he found it in Nfles's
'Roister/
yyir. D. next took a view of the great commercial
advantages that would result from the annexation
of Texas, and pointed to the great and increasing'
nidiket that would be opened by it to our northern
manufactures; and also pointed out the security that
would be afforded by obtaining better boundaries
than we now have, and thus avoiding collision with
foreign powers. He then, in reply to the gentle-
man from Massachusetts, went into the question as
to the power of this government to admit foreign
States into the Union, or to annex foreign territory
to it. The gentleman (he said) had taken high
ground, and met the question by refusing to argue
it, though he required arguments from the friends of
the measure. Those who were opposed to the an-
nexation of Texas seemed to have adopted the plan
of raising up objections,, of suggesting difficulties,
and of keeping the friends of the measure employed
in removing them, so that they would be prevented
from going into the main question. They had
found that the people were against them on that sub-
ject, and that they had expressed their will more
unequivocally in favor of the annexation of Texas
than on any of the issues that were presented for
their consideration. They therefore were reluctant
to argue the question on its merits, and preferred a
discussion on collateral issuesp
. Ho agreed with the gentleman from Massachu-
setts that, if we annexed Texas to the Union, it
must be done consistently with the constitution, and
he was satisfied that Congress had the constitutional
power to doit. /In regard to the power to annex
foreign territory to the Union, he had only to call
the attention of gentlemen to the fact that, in the arti-
cles of the old confederation, there was a proviso that
Canada might be admitted into the Union as a mat-
ter of right, whenever she asked it, and that any
other colony might be admitted with the consent of
nine States. What other colonies were alluded to?
The old thirteen States were included in the con-
federacy, and therefore none of them could have
been alluded to. Butgentlemcn said that the colonies
of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, were alluded
to, but he would ask if Florida could not have been
admitted under that article. It certainly was the in-
tention of the framers of the confederacy to admit
foreign States into the Union if they could get nine
States to vote for it. Mr. D. went on to show that
after the confederacy, the power of admitting foreign
States mto the Union was not restricted by the con-
stitution, but enlarged by it. Propositions to restrict
the admission of foreign States into the Union were
made in the convention which framed the constitu-
tion, and were rejected; after which the convention
adopted the clause giving Congress the power of
admitting new States into the Union. What else
did they do? They struck out the proviso requiring
the assent of nine States for the admis-
sion of new States, and inserted the proviso that
Congiess might do it. They also voted down the
proviso requiring two-thirds, and provided that Con-
gress might do it by the votes of a majority. Mr.
D. then referred to the treaties of Louisiana and
Florida, to show the power of Congress to acquire
foreign territory, and to the admission of Louisiana,
Missouri, &c. into the Union, to show the power of
Congress to admit territory so acquired into the
Union as States. Mr. D. then went into an expla-
nation of the powers oi'Congress to pass such laws
as are necessary to cany the powers given by the
constitution into effect, drawing a distinction be-
tween the grounds of indispensable necessity, as
hold by the democratic party, and the latitudmarian
doctrine of convenience and expediency, as held by
their opponents, contending for the constitutionality
of the admission of Texas on the former grounds.
^He did not pretend to say that all the incidental
powers were properly derived from the enumerated
ones; but he did say that, in relation to all these
questions, there was no express power in the con-
stitution for their exercise. Congress, said the con-
stitution, might admit new State© into the Union;
and it was- now conceded that it included Texas;
Congress might, therefore, make such laws 8s. were
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/m1/112/: accessed April 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.