The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 189
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.
the constitution, it was the bearing on the people
of the territory acquired. "We could acquire terri-
tory i territory was inanimate—it was matter. Man
was an immortal soul; man had rights peculiar to
himself; and they could not, without his consent,
transfer man from one country to another. There
was no such power; it could not be conferred.
That was his opinion, and he expressed it in'the
case of the Louisiana treaty. He maintained it
then; he conversed particularly with Mr. Madison
on the subject. He (Mr. M.) agreed with him on
that point. He (Mr. A.) showed Mr. Madison a
proposition of amendment of the constitution of
the United States, and a paper, in order to take the
vote of the people of Louisiana on that treaty.
When they annexed foreign territory to this coun-
try, they dissolved our Union; the Union was dis-
solved. We might form another; but the people of
a nation, the immortal mind, could not form apoliti-
cal union with another people without their own
consent. That was his doctrine then; it was his
doctrine now; and nothing on earth but the prece-
dent which was settled against him, could be ad-
duced against it. If a man had rights, what were
they? Were they not to live under the government
of nis own choice, and to refuse or consent to the
terms by which he was made a part of a communi-
ty to which he did not belong? In the acquisition of
territory was included the disposal of human rights.
It was not a subject of treaty; or if it was a subject
of treaty, it was between the sovereign powers who
were the first principals, viz: between the people; and
that was what he proposed in the case of Louisiana.
If his time allowed him to go through the whole course
of the transactions, and show the proposition he
made in the Senate of the United States, the propo-
sition which he made to Mr. Madison, and the
opinion he (Mr. M.) expressed to him, he could
know—
The hour having very nearly expired,
Mr. HOLMES interposed, and moved that the
gentleman from Massachusetts be allowed, by unan-
imous consent, to continue his remarks.
[A general cry of assent, but interrupted with
some few objections, was heard.]
Mr. ADAMS continued. He said he asked no
peculiar privilege. If he could not get through, it
was his fault; he could, perhaps, give the re-
mainder of his argument to the public in another
form.
Resuming, he said he took it for granted that we
should hear no more of this argument, that, after
Mr. Jefferson's ratifying the treaty of Louisiana,
we had no power to transfer it to Spain. In the ne-
gotiation by Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Monroe with the
Spanish government, in 1805, immediately after the
treaty of Louisiana, Mr. Jefferson said that these
claims—the bad and the better—were to be
the subject of negotiation with Spain; and
they did become the subject of negotiation. There
was a long negotiation, and in that nego-
tiation Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney were
authorized to settle this question of boundary, as
well as other and very great differences between the
two countries. The instructions to Mr. Erving in
1816' authorized him to accept a treaty which
should fix our boundary at the Sabine. Mr. Jef-
ferson virtually acceded to it in 1805 and 1806.
One of the consequences of it was, that the troops
of the United States and of Mexico proposed to
each other at that time by a military convention,
as the soldiers of the two governments "weie coming
too nearly in contact, and collisions were arising be-
tween them, that the troops of the United States
shouldnot go beyond the Rio Hondo, and those of
Spain should not go beyond the Sabine while the
negotiation was going on.
Mr. A. was proceeding further to remark upon
this point, when his remarks were terminated by the
expiration of the hour.
Mr, DANIELS obtained the floor; but yielded to
Mr. OWEN, who appealed to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Douglassj to modify his pending
amendment, by inserting in the place of the 3d and
4th sections thereof, a proposition which he had
prepared.
Mr. DOUGLASS complying with the request of
Mr. Owen, modified his amendment accordingly.
The amendment of Mr. Douglass to the amend-
ment of Mr. Weller,_ which amendment (of Mr.
Douglass) is the pending question, in its modified
form, is as follows:
JOINT RESOLUTION providing for the admission of
Texas as a State of the Union.
Be it resolved by the Xmatc and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assem-
bled, That the Congress doth consent that the territory
rightfully included within the limits of Texas be erected
into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a re-
publican form of government, to be adopted "by the people
of Texas, with the consent of the existing government, upon
the following conditions and guaranties, which, when
adopted as aforesaid, shall be obligatory as well upon the
people ot Texas as upon the United States.
First. That said State be formed, subject to-the adjust-
ment by the government of the United States of all ques-
tions of boundary that may arise with other governments.
Second. That the constitution of said State of Texas, with
the proper evidence of its adoption by the people thereof, be
transmitted to the President" of the United States, that the
same may be laid before Congress at its next session.
Third. That Texas shall retain her public lands and other
public property, and remain, as at present, responsible for
her debts.
Fourth. That if, hereafter, with the consent of tlie legisla-
ture of the State now proposed to be admitted, new States
be formed within the jurisdiction of said State, said new
States shall not exceed three in number, m addition to the
said State; and such new States shall be admitted into the
Union .with or without the institution of slavery, as the
people, in each one of said States respectively may, at the
time of their application to Congress for admission, deter-
mine.
Mr. DANIELS resumed the floor, and proceeded
with his remarks. He alluded, before entering upon
the main argument, to the charge made by Mr.
Clincman upon the democratic party of the Senate
of North Carolina, in admitting one of that party into
the Senate of that State on a certificate, and, after it
was ascertained to be a forged certificate, they refused
to expel him from their body; and he entered into a
detailed investigation of the facts of the case, estab-
lishing, as he contended, a conclusive refutation of
this charge, and an entire vindication of the integri-
ty of the course of the democratic party in the Sen-
ate of that State.
Approaching now the subject more immediately
under consideration, and including the arguments
raised against the annexation under three general
heads, he laid down, first, the proposition that we
had the power under the constitution of admitting
Texas by either of the modes submitted to the con-
sideration of the committee. Permit him here to
express the regret with which he was obliged to
differ from his friend from Virginia, [Mr. Drom-
coole,) whose positions were generally well con-
sidered and correct. In this case the gentleman, it
seemed to him, had confined himself to too narrow
a construction of the constitution—a construction
which was at variance with that held by the party
to which, with the gentleman, he belonged, and at
variance with the practice of the government
itself.
Mr. D. continued his argument, to show that the
clause in the constitution for the admission of new
States, was without limitation or restriction. He
continued hie! argument on that branch of the
subject, until the expiration of his hour.
Mr. A. P. STONE next obtained the floor, and
proceeded to argue the question in view of the con-
stitutional power possessed by this government to
annex Texas to this Union. It could be done by
the treaty-making power. It could be done under
the power to prepare for the common defence of the
Union. He also went over other grounds, whereon
he based his aigument, concluding with the declara-
tion that he had no doubt of its constitutionality.
The question m relation to its sectional character,
he said, had been first heard from Massachusetts; it
had been said it would extend the institution of
slavery, but he believed it would operate in a direct
contrary manner, and make some of the States free
which were now slave States.
He predicted that the worn-out soils of Virginia,
Maryland, &c., were to be occupied and restored by
the Yankees of New England; and he argued that the
annexation of Texas would not increase the relative
importance and power of the slaveholding States.
In reply to the argument of the gentleman from
Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] he contended, instead
of defrauding the creditors of Texas by annexing
her to us, inasmuch as we took a portion of her
means of payment, that, on the-contrary, her means
and advantages which would enable her to pay
those debts would be infinitely increased.
Notwithstanding the guarded manner in which
the objections had been brought forward to this
measure, the gentleman from Vermont [understood
to be Mr. Marsh] had developed the true reason,
viz: the fear on the part of gentlemen that the con-
summation of this measure would be the admission
of a State or more which would vote to destroy and
forever break down that system of robbery and op-
pression which was fastened on the country in 1842.
From this Mr. S. digressed into an examination at
some length of the present tariff, showing its inequal-
ities and injustice of operation; that the promised
results therefrom had npt been realized; ana that the
benefits which had been ascribed to it were the re-
sults of other causes. If the annexation of Texas
would conduce to the repeal of this system of rob-
bery, and to the establishment of a system of free
trade, this would be with him a sufficient reason for
voting therefor.
Mr. S. having concluded—
\Mr. F. H. MORSE next obtained the floor, and
addressed the committee in opposition to the meas-
ure, contending that the admission of Texas would
bring into Congress additional strength in opposition
to the protective system; and further, that it'would
lead to the extension and perpetuation of slavery.
He further contended that it would be a robbery of
Mexico, -for that those who had achieved the inde-
pendence of Texas „were citizens of the United
States, and were furnished with aid from this
countryj
tJVlr. ELLIS next obtained the floor, and address-
ed the committee during the allotted hour in earnest
support of the general principles of the annexation of
Texas, and in exposition of the .manifold advan-
tages, in every point of view, which would accure to
our country in all its sections and interests from the
consummation of this scheme. He argued (in-re-
ply to the objection frequently urged) that the ex-
tension of our territory, with the administration of
just and equal laws, and the establishment of the
principles of freelrade, instead of weakening, would
vastly strengthen and tend to perpetuate the exis-
tence of our republic. There were no objections
brought against this scheme, he said, but would be
approved by Lord Aberdeen, and responded to by
the entire nation of England. He maintained that
the verdict of the people at the late election had been
rendered in favor'of annexation, and he invoked the
assembled representatives of the people to come up,
and, with an enlarged national view of the benefits
which would result therefrom to our republic
throughout all its future existence, carry out that
verdict^
Mr. NORRIS spoke in favor of annexation, &nd
Mr. DARRAGH against it. They both spoke at
so late an hour that our reporters could not report
them. Their speeches will probably be written out
at length for our Appendix. Wc have requested the
favor of Mr. Norris to write his out; and we shall
make the same request of Mr. Darragh when we
shall have an opportunity of speaking to him.
Mr. STEPHENS next obtained the floor, but
gave way for a motion to rise; when the committee
rose and reported progress, and
The House then adjourned.
The following notices of petitions, presented to-
day, were handed to the reporters by the members
presenting them:
By Mr. E. D. POTTER: The petition of Joseph Gleason,
and 107 other citizens of Van Wert county Ohio, asking for
the establishment of a post route from Upper Sandusky,
Ohio, to Fort "Wayne, m the State of Indiana: referred to
the Committee on the Post Office and Fos>t Roads. Also, the
petition of John Hollister, and otheis, asking an appropiia-
tion for the payment of certain claims against the Ottawa
Indians: referred to the C ornmittee on Indian Aflairs.
JBy Mr. MOSELk: Two petitions Jiom citizens ci
Bufialo, for the continuation oi the seawall to piotectthe
harbor of Butialo.
By Mr. PETTIT: The petition of Isaac H. Wiight, of
Indiana, piaying for leave to enter certain lands on a
credit of ten years: referred to the Committee on Public
Lands.
By Mr. SIMONS: Petitions from citizens of Farrington,
New Harttord, and Harwinton, m. Connecticut, iemonstia-
ting against the annexation of Texas to the Union; which
v. ere refened to the Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union Also, memorials from citizens oi the same
towns, m Connecticut, praying for the repeal, or abroga-
tion of all slave laws in the District of Columbia; which
were referred to the Committee ior the District of Columbia.
JBy Mr. WASHINGTON I-IUNT: The petition of citizens
ef Niagara county, New York, for an appropriation to im-
prove the harbor of Eighteen Mile creek, on Lake Ontario.
Also the petition of citizens of Lockport, New York, for a
grant of land to extend the Wabash and Eiie C3iidl
By Mr J.*MES BLACK* The petition of 124 citizens of
Cumberland county, State of Pennsylvania, praying Con-
gi ess that a bill may be passed for the organization of Ore-
gon into o Territory of the United States, and that notice be
given to Great Britain that the joint occupancy shall ter-
minate at the end of twelve months; and, after that period,
they be required to withdiaw their claims, and psy duties,
as m other ports otthe United States.
By Mr. THOMAS SMITH: The memorial* of David B. Ab-
bot, of Ripley county. Indiana, remonstrating against the
constitutional power of Congress employing and paying
chaplains, on the ground "that hiring pieachest officially,
and paying them out of the people's money, aw acts of
supererogation, unauthorized by the constitution, and tians-
cendingtfie powers delegated to the national legislating
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/m1/205/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.