The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 118
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:
118
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
tutional channels. But there is no jmbiic sentiment
requiring us to violate the -constitution by annexing
Texas to this Union. It-is not the effervescence of
every feverish commotion at every presidential elec-
tion that forms public sentiment. There must be
many first and "second sober thoughts" to form it.
And now, sir, why are we called upon, in viola-
tion of the constitution, to pass the resolutions be-
fore-us? What great interest is in danger? What
institution endangered? Why are we urged to
usurp powers that do not belong to us, and violate
our oaths by annexing Texas to the Union? Gen-
tlemen seem to be cautious to refrain from giving
us us the true'reason. They talk about the interest
of manufactures, and commerce, and agriculture.
But these are not in danger. Those most inter-
ested in them are not the ones who originated this
measure, or who now demand its passage. There
is another reason—the sole reason—but -tfhich gen-
tlemen are careful not to avow. That reason _1 am
determined shall be brought to light. Now, then,
people Shall view its naked deformities before they
submit tothis measure. The gentleman from Ala-
bama [Mr. Belser] hinted at it when he spoke of
the "peculiar institutions of the South." Another
gentleman from that State [Mr. Payne] also shad-
owed it forth when he spoke of an institution whose
name was not to be mentioned by southern men on
this floor. But to understand it fully, we must go
to the correspondence which has passed between
this and other governments on this subject of an-
nexation.
The correspondence begins with a letter from
Mr. Upshur-, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Mur-
phy, our charge de affaires in Texas, in which he
States that he is informed that certain abolitionists
in England have agreed to loan Texas a sum of
money for the purpose of purchasing the slaves of
their masters, and setting them free. He declares
that this government cannot look upon such a meas-
ure in silence, nor without the most strenuous ef-
forts to prevent so great a calamity; that few calam-
ities could befal this country more to be deplored
than the abolition of domestic slavery in Texas. In
another letter to our minister in England, he urges
him to find sout the intentions of the British govern-
ment in regard to the abolition of slavery in Texas.
That government frankly admits that it desires to
see slavery abolished throughout the world, and
that it is endeavoring to obtain the acknowledg-
ment of the independence of Texas, upon the con-
dition of its abolishing slavery. If the object of our
government had been simply to benefit Texas, would
it have rejoiced at these efforts? But, on the con-
trary, it is greatly alarmed. At what? At the pros-
pect of slavery being abolished in Texas; and im-
mediately foMBS the treaty to prevent it. Mr. Cal-
houn says in his letter to Mr. Packenham, the
British minister, that the Presinent feels it his im-
perious duty to adopt the most effectual means to
prevent it; that fen• this purpose he has formed a
treaty of annexation; and that this step has
been taken as the most effectual m&ms of guarding
against the threatened danger. Here, then, the rea-
son is distinctly avowed, that the object of annexing
Texas is the prevention of the abolition of slavery
in that country^ Shall we do it? I ask northern
men if they will do it? Will-we lift up our hands
and exert_our strength to stop the onward progress
of liberty? Why should we do it? I know it is
claimed here that slavery is a national institution,
and that we are bound to protect it; that we have guar-
antied its continuance in our federal constitution; and
that if it should be abolished in Texas, it would be
endangered here. But I deny, sir, that slavery is a
national institution, or that we are bound to uphold
it. It is true that we have conferred upon slave-
holders political power in consideration of slaves
which they own. But suppose that we had agreed
to give them three votes for every five horses they
own: would we be bound to protect their horses? or
to annex a foreign nation to us to prevent its doing
anything that would affect the value or even the ex-
istence of that animal? So we have agreed to put
down domestic violence; but Ibis does not guaranty
slavery. Slavery is never to be ended by insurrec-
tion. A movement of that kind would only bind
the slave firmer in his bonds. So we have agreed
to permit the master to pursue his runaway slave in
the free States, and take him back if lie can catch
him. But slavery is no -more guarantied by this,
than it would be guarantying horses to the owner
if we should permit him to pursue them on to our
lands in case of their running away.
Jn all these provisions, we nowhere bind ourselves
to act. We merely permit certain things to be done.
A guaranty implies something more. It requires ac-
ion, if necessary to fulfil the guaranty.
To annex Texas we are called upon to act—to
act to sustain slavery. We .have never agreed to do
any such thing. The North will never submit to
do it.
Mr. WELLER commenced by observing that
perhaps lie ought to apologize for attempting to ad-
dress the House after so much had been said on
this question by some of the ablest gentlemen it con-
tained. Under such circumstances he did not expect
that he could say anything-worthy of peculiar at-
tention; and were it not that he represented a portion
of the American people who were deeply interested
in this subject he should be content to give a silent
vote. During the six years that he had been a rep-
resentative on this floor, there had been various
questions submitted for the decision of Congress that
were calculated to affect every interest in the coun-
try; but during'no period of those six years had any
question been submitted to the American people so
well calculated to affect all their interests for weal
or wo, in all coming time, as that which nojv was
submitted to theur consideration. It was a question
affecting not merely particular sections of this
Union; it was one of national importance—a ques-
tion which was calculated" to affect the manufactur-
ing, the agricultural, the navigating, and every
other interest. It was a question, then, on which
every representative of the people here, from every
section of this Union, was called upon to exercise
his bestjudgment. He had listened to the speeches
of the gentlemen who had preceded him, and who
had presented constitutional arguments by which
they advocated the measure; but he should not at-
tempt to recapitulate those arguments; and it would
be a work of supererogation to attempt to add any-
thing to the arguments of his friends from Virginia
and Illinois [Mr. Bayly and Mr. Douglass] on the
constitutional points involved. 'It would be suffi-
cient for hnn to say that the power to annex was
an incident of sovereignty. If it were necessary
for the preservation of our democratic institutions
to annex new territory, and they had no power to
do it, this government would be an impracticable
machine.'
In an early period of our history, the question
affecting the navigation of the Mississippi river at-
tracted much attention. In I78G, upon a mere ru-
mor being put into circulation that a treaty was
about to be formed between this government and
Spain, by which we were to abandon the naviga-
tion of the Mississippi for twenty-five or thirty
years, an excitement was produced which threat-
ened to lead to a dissolution of the Union. Such
a question was well qualified to excite that section
of the country from which he came. It was fore-
seen that the portion of the country whose interests
were to be affected by the navigation of the Missis-
sippi was to be the abiding place of a large portion
of the American people; and unless they reserved
the free right to the navigation of the Mississippi,
they would not be able to transmit their produce to
a foreign market. Now, in 1795, by another treaty
between this government and Spain, it was stipu-
lated that we wcie to enjoy the right to navigate the
Mississippi, and to deposite our produce on the
island of New Orleans. It was first limited to three
years, but it was continued for seven years.
In 1802, under the administration of Mr. Jeffer-
son, when we cast our eye over the map of the Uni-
ted States, we saw that, on the northern frontier,
were the vast possessions of the British empire; on
the southwest the French government had undis-
puted posse-.sion of the mouth of the Mississippi,
down which tile vast productions of that valley must
float to find their way to a market. Here were two
of the most powerful nations of the earth—one on
the extreme north and the other on the southwest;
and unless this government eouhl be dispossessed
of its possession—unless the United States^ could
obtain indisputable possession of the Mississippi,
the interests of that great section of the Union could
never be promoted, nor its resources developed.
Now, the treaty of St. lldefonso, which had teen
referred to by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr.
Douglass,] was a retrocession by tile Spanish gov-
ernment France of cdl her possessions on the Gulf
of Mexico. That treaty was negotiated secretly,
and a French author whom he had consulted said
that the negotiation was not known to this day.
The treaty was made in 1800, but had not been
divulged and made public till two years after; and it
i was a very curious fact that, at the commencement
of the negotiation of the treaty of 1803, by which
we obtained Louisiana, (negotiated by Mr. Living-
ston and Mr. Monroe,) the French minister (Tal-
leyrand) denied that they had then obtained posses-
sion of that country; but on Mr. Monroe telling him
that he had seen the treaty,-he admitted it, but said,
he .did not v>ish it made public.
®fow, this treaty of 1803, it was asserted, did not
extend so far as to embrace the country now known
by the name of Texas. That it was the opinion of
Mr. Jefferson in 1803 that it did, could not be
controverted. He might read, did time permit,
numerous extracts from the writings of Mr. Jeffer-
son showing that he had always understood the
western boundary of Louisiana was the Rio del
Norte. Such was the opinion of all the statesmen
of the country concerned in the negotiation. By
this treaty of 1803 we had stipulated that those re-
siding upon that territory should be admitted, as
soon as consistent with the principles of the federal
constitution, to all the rights, privileges, and immu-
nities of the most favored citizens of the United
States^?
Now the people of Texas were asking, when the
opportunity presented, that we should carry out the
solemn pledge made to the French government by
the treaty of] 803.
/ Mr. W. referred to the shortness of the time al-
lotted, and said he should be unable to pursue the
course of argument he had marked out for himself.
The main objection, he proceeded to say, to the an-
nexation of this territory was, that the object of its
movers was to perpetuate the institution of slavery.
This was the objection which had been raised by
every gentleman who had spoken on the opposite
side of the question. His colleague [Mr. Hamlin]
said that he (Mr. W.) had submitted a proposition
which stood on nothing, but the effect of which
would be to perpetuate slavery. What said the
great embodiment of whigery about it? Mr. W.
confessed he would be unwilling to vote upon this
question, to take upon himself the responsibility of
adding so large and extensive a country to the
American republic, if it had not been passed upon
by the American people. But this question had
been passed upon by the people. The Baltimore
convention which nominated Mr. Polk had said to
the world that if he was elected annexation would
take place. He knew not how it was elsewhere;
but in his section of the country this was the great
question in the canvass. He did not attend a popu-
lar gathering in the West of the democratic party,
on whose banner was not inscribed "Texas;'" ay,
"Texas now." The people of the West felt that the
annexation was absolutely necessary, in order to
give them the full benefit of the navigation of the
Mississippi river. He might show, did not the
shortness of the time prohibit, what had been said
by members of the British Parliament as to the
importance of the navigation of the Gulf of
Mexico; that they had said if America obtained
possession of Texas, with a small naval force in
the Gulf of Mexico she could cripple and destroy
their commerce.
■ But his colleague had said that this question of
slavery was the only question connected with an-
nexation. What did the great embodiment of the
whig party say? That the subject of slavery ought
not to affect the question one way or the other; that
it would be unwise to refuse a permanent acquisition
on account of a temporary disadvantage. (Mr. W.
read an extract from the letter of Mr. Clay contain-
ing these and other similar declarations.) These
were Mr. W.'s views on the subject; but did they
accord with the sentiments of a great part of the
party who had voted for Mr. Clay? Sir, (said Mr.
W.,) the people have become wiser than their
schoolmasters. Hi? colleague had said that this
question of slavery was the only question involved
111 this matter; his great leader said it had nothing
to do with it. Now here was a difference between
these two great men—between the leader of the
whig party and the quasi leader of the abolition
party of the north of Ohio. Upon this question of
slavery, during the six years in which he had had
the honor of a seat on this floor, he had feared that
the efforts of a certain sect, who were attempting to
interfere with the institution of slavery, were calcu-
lated, if not designed, to destroy the Union; and he
had exerted hip efforts lo defeat them. The institu-
tion of slavery was a constitutional institution. Let
no man say that he was a northern man with
southern principles; I scorn the imputation,
said Mr. Weller. I am a western man with
constitutional principles. I conceive that there
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/m1/134/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.