The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 108

                                
108
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
"Williams, Weo.'Uvard, Joseph A. Wright, Yancev, and
Yost-US. 1
NAYS—Messrs. Abbot, Arrington, Ashe, Baker, Bar-
fiogfihBarnard, Milton Brown, Jeremiah Brown, Buffing-
ton, Burt, Campbell, Carroll, Chilton, Clinch, Clingman,
Crahstoa, Garrett Davis, Deberry, Pellet, Dickey, Fish,
Florence, Foot, Giddings, Goggin, Willis Green, Grinnell,
OHd&r,. Haralson, Harper, Holmes, Hudson, Joseph R In-
fersoll, Irvin, Jenks, Cave Johnson, Perley B. Johnson,
ohn P. Kennedy, Daniel P. King, Mollvaine, Marsh, Ed-
ward J. Morris, Freeman H. Morse, Moseley, Newton, Pater-
eon, Peyton, Pollock, Elisha R Potter, Preston, Ramsey,
Charles M. Reed, Rhett, Rockwell, Rodney, Rogers, Sam-
ple, Schenok, Senter, Severance, Albert Smith, Caleb B.
Smith, Stephens, Andrew Stewart, Summers, Thomasson,
Tilden, Tyler, Vance, Vanmeter, Vinton, Wethered, John
White, and, Winthrop—174.
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
The House resolved itself into Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union—Mr. Hopkins in
the chair—and resumed the consideration of the res-
olution for the annexation of Texas to the Union.
Mr. C. B. SMITH, who had the floor from yes-
terday, said there had been no question, since the or-
fanization of this government, ever discussed in the
alls of Congress, more important than this ques-
tion of the.annexation of Texas to the United States.
He did not desire, in the remarks he should now
make, to discuss this question in the spirit of party,
for, if there wa3 any question which should appeal
to them as Americans, as patriots, and as lovers of
their country, and which should call upon them to
discard from their minds all party considerations, it
was this. It was a question which rose far above
all party considerations: it was a question which
was destined to affect the continuance of this
government, and the perpetuity of our institutions
and our glorious republic. He regretted, with the
gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Yancey,] who ad-
dressed them yesterday with so much fervid elo-
quence, and he deprecated, with that gentleman, the
introduction of party topics; but he regretted also
that the gentleman from Alabama did not add to the
force of his precept the force of example. He
would not follow that gentleman into an examina-
tion of Hartford conventionism; he would not at-
tempt to refute the stale charges of federalism
which had been made against the party with which
he (Mr. S.) was associated. He did not think it
necessary that charges of that kind should be re-
futed.
They were told but a few days since, by the
chairman ■ of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
that but one short year ago the measure of
annexation would have been discountenanced
and rejected by an overwhelming vote if it had
been bronght forward; and there was not a
man amongst them who did not know that to
be true- There was not a man amongst them that
did not know that the sentiments, feelings, wishes,
and judgment of the American people were against
this question in every shape and form. Yes, and
no longer ago than one short year. And why had
the annexation of Texas become so popular? Why
was it that the individuals who, twelve months ago,
stood up and gave utterance to sentiments in ac-
cordance with the wishes of the people, should
now, for the expression of the same sentiments, be
denounced as traitors to the country? They had
been charged with treachery to the government and
to the country, because they desired to raise their
voice in opposition to this measure; at a time, he
repeated, when—they were told by the gentleman
under whose auspices this measure was now
brought forward—the opinion of the people was al-
most universally against it. Why was this? Be-
cause the appliances of party had been resorted to;
because it had been incorporated into the democratic
creed; because a powerful political party had seen
the propriety of inscribing Texas on their banner.
It was the spirit of party which had given it the
imposing aspect which it had assumed, and all the
influence which it exercised. ,
There were a great number of objections which
he entertained to the annexation of Texas, and he
would allude to as many as he could within the lim-
its of his hour: it must, however, be apparent, that
no one could discuss this subject fully in that short
period. He could do no more than glance at his ob-
jections, and therefoie he should not drag into the
aiscussion any collateral issues. He should have
- been glad if some of the gentlemen opposite would
have given them some reasons why Texas should
be annexed. The gentleman from Alabama, [Mr.
Yancey,] though he declaimed with so much vin-
dictiveness against irrelevancy in others, failed to
give on? reason for annexation. He (Mr. S.) had
looked in vain through the published report of that
gentleman's speech for a single argument. The
gentleman indulged in bitter denunciation of the
North, and of Massachusetts, and the other free
States; and he wasted much of his eloquence in lav-
ish praise of the South; but through the whole of
that gentleman's effort he could not find-a single ar-
gument why Texas should be annexed. True the
gentleman sought to show that we might do it con-
stitutionally. He (Mr. S.) differed from the gentle-
man on that ground; but if he had no constitutional
scruples, his objections were so insuperable that he
was called upon to oppose it with all the energies
which he possessed. [Re believed the framers of the
constitution never contemplated that by virtue of
that instrument this government would attempt to
annex to this country territory belonging to a for-
eign government. With as much propriety they
might annex territory of the government of England
or of France; or call upon the people of Eng-
land and of Franco to organize themselves into
States to be incorporated into this Union. The pow-
er to acquire territory even by treaty, in the instances
which had been so often referred to, was seriously
doubted by Mr. Jefferson, and it was only justified
and sanctioned by the necessity of the case—the
navigation of the Mississippi and the possassion of
New Orleans being deemed essential to the security
and well being of this country. Without, how-
ever, attempting to elaborate the constitutional dis-
cussion, he maintained that if we had the power to
acquire territory, it could only be done by treaty;
Congress had no power by legislation, without
an utter disregard of the constitution, to bring any
tepritory into this Union."
■But was it expedienT to annex Texas to this
Union? On this ground, too, his objections were in-
superable. It was alleged that Texas was free: and
yet, by annexation, they were called upon to "ex-
tend the area of freedom." Were the people ofTexas
enslaved? Were they groaning in bondage and un-
der oppression? They were told the free govern-
ment of Texas was in full operation, and that the
Texians were capable and able to sustain them-
selves against all the powers that might rise up
against them. If, then, they were free—if they
were enjoying a republican government, and living
under a constitution modelled on our own, why
could they not enjoy their liberties under their
own, as well as under our constitution? And how,
then, were they to "extend the area of freedom" by
annexing Texas to this Union? They were told
that the independence of TexasTiad been achieved
on the plains of San Jacinto; but by whom was it
won? By citizens of Texas? No; every gentleman
knew that it was won by citizens of the
United States—by those who had gone there
in violation of the obligations which we owe
to Mexico, to fight the battle; and who,
after gaining the victory, returned to, and were now
in, the United States. Yes, we achieve, the victory,
overthrow the power of Mexico, render Texas tem-
porarily free and independent; and then, as one of
the fruits of that victory, .we say we will annex
Texas to our government, jljrequent reference had
been made to the efforts of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts [Mr. Adams] to acquire Texas; but he
called upon gentlemen to point to a solitary attempt
made by the gentleman to acquire it by force. The
attempt was to accomplish it by treaty—to purchase
the territory from Mexico; the attempt was made
twenty-five years ago to obtain it in a lawful, and
upright, and honorable manner; but now they were
called upon to rob Mexico, and to embark in an ex-
pedition of conquest. There was no parallel what-
ever between this and the earlier attempts to acquire
Texas; and he now asserted that this proceeding
was a violation of treaty stipulations, and its ac-
complishment would indelibly stam the national
escutcheon; and, however much they might pride
themselves on national honor, the condemnation of
the civilized world would rest upon them for this
act of unholy and unwarrantable spoliation.}
He then proceeded to notice some articles which
'had appeared in the Globe on this subject—a paper
which, he supposed, would be good authority with
the party opposite. The first to which he referred
was published on the 29th of April, 1844, in ap-
proval of Mr. Van Buren's Texas letter. [Some
gentleman remarked that was a year ago.] He was
told that was a year ago; he was aware of that, and
in this day of progressive democracy, a year was a
long time. He then quoted from articles publish-
ed in the Globe on the 1st, 4th, and 15th of May, and
commented on them as he proceeded. He then said
he might also refer to the letter of Mr. Van Buren,
the letter of Mr. Forsyth, and to others, which con-
demned this annexation, and which expressed th«
views of the American people.
We had been told by Mr. Van Buren, in his last
letter, that the relations between this government
and Mexico had not undergone any change such as
to change the position then assumed, anil that was,
that it would be dishonorable. It would be at this
time equally dishonorable. He referred to these
facts for the purpose of showing the vacillations and
changes in regard to great national questions which
party politics were able to create.
x Another objection, and a very important one, was,
that by annexing Texas to this Union, we assumed
the payment of her debts. He knew there were
many gentlemen on this floor who, when the indebted
States had asked assistance in getting rid of their
burdens, had denounced the very attempt as treason
to the government. The party with whom he was
connected had been denounced from one end of
the Union to the other because they had intimated
the desire that the general government, through its
public domain, should furnish some aid to these in-
debted States. Yet these very individuals, who
were so loud in their denunciations in this instance,
were now willing to assume the untold millions of a
foreign debt. It was true that, by the treaty, as-
sumption was limited to ten million; but did not
every man known that honor, honesty, every prin-
ciple of common justice would bind us pay those
debts to the last farthing, although they amounted to
one hundred millions. Could we take Texas with
that immense extent of fertile domain on which
the gentleman from Alabama had expatiated,
with all her resources, and all her wealth,
and then repudiate her debts. There would be in
this a more damning condemnation than in robbing
Mexico of her possession. Should we now add to
that infamy—which, he was sorry to say, had al-
ready attached itself to the American name by the
repudiation of some of the debts of our States—that
of assuming the wealth and the resources ofTexas,
and then repudiating her debts? We could not do
it, unless we were willing to disgrace ourselves in
the eyes of the civilized world.
What were these debts? Why did not gentlemen
who were so anxious to annex Texas, tell us what
they were? Were they ten millions of dollars?
No man would limit them to that. They had been
estimated by some at fifty millions of. dollars, and
even more. If Texas desired admission into the
Union, why did she not come forward and give us
a schedule of her resources and debts? They were
leaping in the dark on this question.
Another objection which he had to the annexa
tion of Texas was, that no gentleman on this floor
knew the relations subsisting between Texas and
European nations—what commercial treaties had
been entered into by her with Great Britain and
other nations—or what were the obligations growing
out of those treaties, and what would be their effect
upon us. It was said that there was a treaty be-
tween Texas and England, by which the right of
search had been surrendered by her to England.
How far might our commerce be molested under
this—how far our honor be tarnished by the exer-
cise of that power by Great Britain—a power which
this country had always resisted, and which, he
trusted, we always would resist?
. 'Another objection: there was a great variety of
propositions here for the introduction of Texas;
they had assumed every variety of shape, but yet
he had seen no proposition here which settled the
important question of slavery. Were we going to
admit this territory, and leave this question to be
the subject of future contest—to be the means of
giving, at some subsequent time, to this nation a
shock which it would hardly be able to sustain? If
this territory was to be annexed, now .was the time
for this important question to be settled. He knew
the friends of slavery were afraid to touch the ques-
tion now, but were for postponing it; and when here-
after the vital question came up of admitting the
States which should be formed out of its territory,
we should have another Missouri question, which
would shake this government from its centre to its
circumference, on which the antagonistic feelings of
the North and South would be stirred up, and when
there would be less inducement than at present for
compromise. Now was the time, and he called on
every lover of his country—every one desirous of
the perpetuity of our Union—to decide that it should
now be settled before it was too lateJ
Another question, and a question which he tow