28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

torn into separate States, with rival and conflicting interests, with the certainty of bickerings and border strife, detrimental alike to both, so long as this. unnatural separation continues.

By the treaty of 1803, made by Mr. Jefferson, with France, for the purchase of Louisiana, we acquired an undisputed right to the Territory of Texas; but by the treaty of 1819, made with Spain, (by Mr. John Q. Adams, as the secretary of Mr. Monroe,) for the acquisition of Florida, we lost that right. This acknowledgement I make with feelings of deep mortification: still, it is no part of my duty or purpose now to cast censure on any who were engaged in making that miserable treaty. The nation has had that subject under consideration, and upon it the nation's verdict has been passed.

It is not left for me to prove that, by the treaty of 1803, for the purchase of Louisiana, we acquired a right to Texas as a part of that Territory. It is sufficient to declare that we have the concurrent authority of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Pinckney, Clay, Adams, Jackson, and all our distinguished statesmen down to the present day, establishing the position that Texas was as much ours by the treaty of 1803 as was the island of New Orleans itself.

The commissioner of the French who delivered us possession of Louisiana, after the purchase, declared that the Rio Grande was the southwestern boundary of that territory; and our government obtained orders from the Spanish authorities for the surrender to us of all the military posts within the territory of Texas. From 1803 to 1819, our government continually asserted her claim to Texas; and uniformly, in the face of the whole world, declared her unwavering purpose never to surrender one acre of the soil, or one drop of all the rivers, lakes, and springs of a territory to which her title was so clear and indisputable. As late as the 2d of - June, 1818, but a few months before the treaty of 1819 was made, Mr. John Q. Adams, then Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe, sent George Graham, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, to Texas, in quest of certain persons who it was supposed had gone there as adventurers, to favor, perhaps, some ambitious scheme of the brother of the Emperor Napoleon. In his letter of instruction to Mr. Graham, Mr. Adams directed him to go to Galveston; and should the party have left there, he is directed to go to "Matagorda, or any other place north of the Rio Bravo, and within the territory claimed by the United States;" and to express to the leader of the expedition "the surprise with which the President has seen possession thus taken, without authority from the United States, of a place within their territorial limits, and upon which no lawful settlement can be made without their sanction." He is further directed to give due warning to the whole party "that the place is within the United States, who will suffer no permanent settlement to be made there under any authority other shan their own."

The settlements then which were made in Texas from 1803 to 1819 were made by citizens of the United States, within the territory, and upon the soil of the United States. They had a right to the protection of our laws and our flag, for they were a part of our own family, lawfully occupying a part of our own domain. They had settled there, relying on the faith of the United States, pledged to France and to Texas by the treaty of 1803. The treaty of 1803, adopted the inhabitants of Texas at that time, as citizens of the United States; and thus it appears that in 1819, the whole population of Texas, amounting according to the best estimates we have to 12,000, were actually citizens of the United States, and entitled, as such, to a sacred compliance on our part, with all the stipulations and guaranties of the treaty of 1803. We had no right to expatriate them; we had no right to abandon them, and without their consent, to sell them into colonial bondage. I will read an extract from that treaty, for the purpose of showing what were the obligations imposed upon us by its

terms:

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advan tages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and, in the mean time, shall be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they pro fess."

Here was the stipulation by which Texas had a right as soon as her population would justify it, to demand admission as a State into this Union, and until that period to claim from us protection in the

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Caldwell.

free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they professed. The binding efficacy of a treaty by which our national faith was so irrevocably pledged, was most sacredly observed by every department of our government till the formation of the treaty of 1819 with Spain. By that it was violated. By that treaty we severed the ties of kindred and of blood, and trampled in the dust all the sacred obligations of humanity and of treaty faith. We sold into bondage, to a tyrant and a despot, a part of our own family, whom we were bound, by all that is dear to freemen, to love and protect. We consigned them, so far as our act would go, without their consent, and with no fault imputed to them, to the most hateful and perpetual despotism.

I would ask gentlemen who profess so high a regard for treaty faith, how they can sanction this abandonment, this selling like cattle in the market, the very people whom we were bond by the treaty of 1803 to protect?

But, sir, although I admit that, by the treaty with Spain, we lost our title to Texas, it remains to be seen whether Spain acquired any title by the cession. I assert here that Spain never did, under that treaty,, acquire any title to Texas; and that Mexico never had any right, authority, or jurisdiction over Texas, except that which Texas herself surrendered when she joined the Mexican confederation, as a free and independent State, under the constitution of

1824.

Texas has been a free and sovereign State ever since we abandoned her in 1819. I will refer gentlemen on the other side to high and indisputable authority.

It is one of the fundamental doctrines of our own declaration of independence-the very principle that hallowed our sacred revolution—that all legitimate governments must be based upon the consent of the governed. If this doctrine be true, (and certainly American citizens will not deny it,) the first inquiry is, Did the citizens of Texas ever consent to our attempted transfer of them to Spain? No, sir. The indomitakle love of freedom, which nerved the arms and burned in the bosoms of their ancestors at Bunker Hill and at Yorktown, was the priceless inheritance of their sons in Texas. When the poisoned cup was presented to them by the treaty of 1819, they spurned it from their lips as unworthy of the descendants of freemen.

Liberty was their rightful heritage; and, true to the blood of their fathers, liberty or extermination were the only alternatives to which they would listen. Within four months after the treaty of 1819 was formed on the 23d of June, in that year-the citizens of Texas called a convention at Nacogdoches, and made to the world a solemn declaration, or protest, from which I beg leave to read a few ex

"The recent treaty between Spain and the United States of America has dissipated an illusion too long fondly cherished, and has roused the citizens of Texas from the torpor into which a fancied security had lulled them. They have seen themselves, by a convention to which they were no party, literally abandoned to the dominion of the crown of Spain, and left a prey not only to impositions already intol erable, but to all those exactions which Spanish rapacity is fertile in devising.

"The citizens of Texas would have proved themselves unworthy of the age in which they live-unworthy of their ancestry of the kindred republics of the American continent-could they have hesitated, in this emergency, as to what course to pursue. Spurning the fetters of colonial vassalage-disdaining to submit to the most atrocious despotism that ever disgraced the annals of Europe--they have resolved, under the blessing of God, to be free."

And, from that moment, they were free, by all that is held sacred in our own glorious revolution.

From 1819 to 1824, Mexico presented a continued scene of revolution and bloodshed-blending on the same page of her history the sublime tale of her war for independence, with the sickening story of intestine strife and civil war.

During this period, it is true that Texas was sometimes invaded by hostile troops, claiming to exact from her submission as a colony; but these invaders were uniformly met with the arguments of war; their demands were uniformly answered by a prompt denial, and a resistance to the very death of all Spanish dominion. Sir, Texas never did sub

H. of Reps.

mit, never was subjected by Spanish arms after her declaration of separate independence in 1819. If Spain acquired any claim to Texas by the treaty of 1819, it was imperfect without the consent of the Texians, either voluntarily given, or extorted by force. In neither way was this consent obtained, and Spain lost whatever claim she had by abandoning it.

Mexico acquired her right to independence by successful revolution; but, previously to 1824, what claim or right had she to Texas? None whatever. Texas constituted no part of the province of Mexico which was severed from Spain by the Mexican revolution. It was a part of Louisiana, and was entitled to its own separate independence. She never consented to be governed either by Spain or Mexico, nor was she ever conquered and subjected by either Spanish or Mexican arms. Till 1824 she valiantly and successfully maintained her own separate independence of all the world. In 1824, after the overthrow of Iturbide, who had attempted to establish a despotism in Mexico, and make himself its monarch, the Mexican States formed a constitution, similar in all respects to our own, by which the free Mexican States were confederated together as one national government for purely national purposes, leaving, as our constitution does, all local sovereignty to the several States respectively. Texas voluntarily joined this confederacy of free and separate States; and here is the commencement, and these the terms of all legitimate and binding connection between Texas and Mexico. Not having a sufficient population to enter the confederacy as an entire State, she united with Coahuila, and the two were admitted as one State, with an express provision that, so soon as the amount of population would justify it, Texas should be admitted as an entire and separate member of the confederacy. The first and second articles of the constitution of the State of Coahuila and Texas (for this was the title of the State) were as follows:

"Article 1. The State of Coahuila and Texas consists in the union of all its inhabitants.

"2. It is free and independent of the other United Mexi can States, and of every other foreign power and dominion."-Kennedy's Tex. vol. 2 App. No. 11, p. 445.

By the very terms of this State constitution under which Texas was received into the Mexican confederacy, she asserts her freedom and independence of the other united Mexican States. How can it be asserted, then, that Texas ever belonged to Mexico? Only as Massachusetts, or any other of the original thirteen, belongs to this Union, by virtue of a written constitution deriving its authority from the consent of the States adopting it.

But, sir, the union thus formed between Texas and Mexico has been severed, and it remains for an enlightened world to determine which of them has violated the compact of union, and what are the rights and duties of each since the separation.

After the adoption of the constitution of 1824 by the Mexican States, we look to her history in vain for that prosperity, peace, and order, which every lover of liberty would hope for Mexico still continued the theatre of ambitious intrigues for power, of intestine violence and domestic wars. In the very infancy of the republic there was little but the forms of the constitution left to the people. The substance and spirit of that instrument had yielded to the power of military usurpation. The overthrow of one usurper only made room for the rapid succession of another, more daring and contemptuous of the constitutional rights of the people. Still these wrongs were borne as well as they could be, under the hope that they would ultimately cease, and that the States might yet enjoy the blessings promised by the establishment of a free confederated government. In June, 1832, the people of Texas were harassed by bodies of armed troops stationed at different points within their borders by the tyrant Busia: mente, under the pretence of aiding the revenue offi cers. The real object of this outrage was to harass the citizens, and subdue that indomitable love of liberty in the Texians, which resisted and denounced the usurpation of the tyrant, and the danger that was threatened to the constitution.

If the Texians had submitted to this, the fact would have been at war with every incident in the history of that noble people. A meeting was called near Brazoria, and there it was resolved, at all hazards, to strike a blow.for liberty and the constitution. A similar spirit, without concert, fired the bosoms of the patriots of Texas in every other part of their extended country. One simultaneous movement was made by the people in every part of Tex

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

as where the troops were quartered; and, in less than one week from the time the first blow was struck, every Mexican post in Texas was conquered and taken, and every Mexican soldier driven from her soil. By this resistance to the unconstitutional acts of a tyrant, Texas did but reassert that she never had surrendered, and never would surren der, her liberty to Mexico or any other power.

In 1833, Texas, having, by a convention of her people, formed the requisite separate constitution, and her population being sufficient, sent her messenger, Mr. Austin, to Mexico, to submit their new constitution to the national government, together with a memorial, respectfully praying for the admission of Texas as a separate State, apart from Coahuila, into the Mexican Union, in conformity with the terms of the federal compact. Instead of granting this request-instead of acknowledging this right, secured to Texas by the constitution, as one of the very terms upon which she joined the Mexican confederacy,-her memorial was spurned, and her messenger insulted and thrown into prison. This messenger was sent to bear the new constitution and the memorial of the citizens of Texas to Mexico, under the belief that the recent triumph of Santa Anna over the tyrant Bustamente was truly the triumph of liberty. He had proclaimed himself the champion of the people's rights and of the constitution. As such, his standard was borne to the battle-field; as such, he was cheered and sustained by the shouts of the patriotic and the prayers of the good; as such, he triumphed. The sequel shows how sadly disappointed were all who looked to his success with hopes for the republic.

In the beginning of 1834 Santa Anna threw off the mask, and openly appeared as the champion of the aristocracy and the church. The liberal Congress was dissolved by force, when the term of its election had but half expired. To save appearances, a new election was ordered, and the military was posted to overawe the suffrages and procure the return of the creatures of the executive.

Then commenced the overthrow of the last vestiges of popular government in Mexico. One by one the Mexican States were overthrown and subdued by Santa Anna, till the bloody drama of Zacatecas terminated all opposition to the usurper in the old Mexican States. The constitution was destroyed; the government overthrown; and, on the 5th of October, 1835, a military central despotism was erected by Santa Anna on its ruins, and he was proclaimed the dictator of the republic of Mexico. Texas alone continued to give the banner of the constitution to the breeze; she alone remained unconquered and free. Seeing that all her sister republics had been conquered, that the constitution had been destroyed-that an invasion of her territory was actually in preparation by the tyrant, whose sword was still dripping with the blood of his unoffending countrymen, Texas could not, she did not, hesitate what course to pursue. Her people flew to arms for the preservation of their liberties. She called upon the older States of the confederacy to rally under the banner of the constitution, and freely, nobly offered her "support and assistance to such of the members of the Mexican confederacy, as would take up arms against military despotism." Her voice was unheeded by her sisters, and she was left alone to fight the battle of freedom. She was invaded by the armies of Santa Anna. The citizens rallied to the defence of their country, and in December, 1835, the whole Mexican army, with their commander, Gen. Cos was defeated and cap. tured. Thus again did the brave Texians drive every hostile foot from their soil.

In the articles of capitulation made with Gen. Cos, it was stipulated—

"That General Cos and his officers retire, with their arms and private property, into the interior of the republic, under parole of honor that they will not, in any way, oppose the re-establishment of the federal constitution of 1924."

So far from having revolted from a lawful government, she has taken up arms and freely poured out her blood to sustain and establish the constitution which Santa Anna had overthrown.

Still Santa Anna persisted in his determination to conquer Texas, and early in the year 1836 the tyrant himself, at the head of 8,000 men, entered Texas, openly avowing his determination to subject to indiscriminate slaughter all who should resist his authority. In the mean time the people of Texas, on the 2d of March, 1836, by their delegates, assembled in convention at Washington, declared their indepedence. How sublime is the spectacle which the young State of Texas presents to the

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Caldwell.

world at this trying period of her history! On the one hand an invading army, powerful, disciplined, and well provided with all the sinews of war; commanded by an experienced general, whom his flatterers had called the Napoleon of America, rampant with victory and burning for conquest; on the other, an infant State, thinly populated, without money, arms, or soldiery-with nothing to stay the ruthless invader, and protect their freedom, except the indomitable will, the unconquerable purpose not to be enslaved.

It was at a period like this, when hostile bayonets were bristling within her borders, and the deeptoned roar of the enemy's cannon proclaimed the approach of Santa Anna at the head of his victorious and relentless army, that the people of Texas, nerved by the justice of their cause, unterrified, calm, and self-poised, proclaimed their glorious declaration of in ependence and appealed to the Supreme Arbiter of the destiny of nations. The following is an extract from that declaration:

"We, therefore, the delegates, with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended; and that the peo ple of Texas do now constitute a FREE, SOVEREIGN, AND INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently submit the issue to the supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations."

I need not dwell upon the subsequent events of the history of Texian revolution. They are familiar to us all. For a short time Santa Anna seemed irresistible. His victorious arms were stained with atrocities and cruelty that would have melted Atilla, the scourge of nations, to compassion. Who can read the cold blooded massacre of his four hundred prisoners of war at Goliad, the detachment of the noble Fannin, without visiting upon its savage author his deepest execrations? This detachment surrendered, after a hard fought field, under stipulations agreed upon and signed by the officers of both armies that they should be "received and treated as prisoners of war according to the usages of civilized nations," and that "they should receive every comfort, and be fed as well as the Mexican soldiery." Sir, I will not undertake to discribe the heartrending scene that followed. I will not undertake to characterize the perfidity, the fiendish cruelty of this more than barbarian victor. I will merely ask the indulgence of the House while I read an extract from a letter of a Mexican officer who seems to have been an unwilling intrument in the massacre of this ill fated detachment:

"This day-Palm Sunday, March 27th-has been to me a day of most heartfelt sorrow. At six in the morning the execution of four hundred and twelve American prisoners was commenced, and continued till eight, when the last of the number was shot. At eleven commenced the operation of burning their bodies. But what an awful scene did the field present when the prisoners were executed, and fell dead in heaps! And what spectator could view it without horror! They were all youug-the oldest not more than thirty-and of fine florid complexions. When the unfortu nate youths were brought to the place of death, their lamen tations, and the appeals which they uttered to Heaven in their own language, with extended arms, kneeling or pros trate on the earth, were such as might have caused the very stones to cry out in compassion."-Pease's History of Texas, page 339.

The war still raged on, till, on the field of San Jacinto, on the 21st of April, 1836, the little Texian army, by an achievement unsurpassed in splendor by any of ancient or of modern times, conquered and captured Santa Anna and his army. This glorious victory placed the flag of Texas forever above the reach of tyrants. It was declared by the Senate of the United States, in a resolution introduced by Mr. Clay on the 18th of June, 1836, to be "decisive of the independence of Texas."

By this victory, I have said, Santa Anna himself, the commander-in-chief of the Mexican army, and dictator of the republic of Mexico, was taken prisoner. Should not his forfeited life have paid the penalty of his crimes? Rather than trust my own feelings with the decision of the question, I will quote the following passage from Vattel:

"There is, however, one case in which we may refuse to spare the life of an enemy who surrenders. It is when that enemy has been guilty of some enormous breach of the law of nations; and particularly when he has violated the laws of war. This refusal of quarter is no natural consequence of the war, but a punishment for his crime-a punishment which the injured party has a right to inflict."-Book 3, chap. 8, sec. 141.

But Santa Anna begged for his cruel and cowardly life; and it was spared by his brave and generous conquerors. On the 14th of May, 1836, Santa Anna, then the dictator of Mexico, acknowledged

H. of Reps.

by treaty, in the most solemn form, "the full, entire, and perfect independence of the republic of Texas." By this treaty his life was spared; and that part of his army commanded by General Filisola, four thousand in number, which was completely in the power of the Texians, was permitted to return in peace to Mexico. Since that period the independence of Texas has been solemnly acknowledged by the United States and by England, France, Holland and Belgium. For nine years has she maintained that independence since her connection with Mexico was dissolved, with a government infinitely more stable, permanent, and enlightened than the government of Mexico ever

was.

If there are any so hardy, after this brief review of the history of Texas, as to assert that Spain acquired any title to Texas by the treaty of 1819, or that Mexico ever had any claim to her except such a claim as the government of the United States has by virture of the constitution to Massachusette, or any other of our free and sovereign States, they must deny the doctrine of our declaration of independence, that "all legitimate governments are based upon the consent of the governed." To deny that she is now rightfully absolved from all connection with Mexico under the constitution, would be to assert the monstrous doctrine that if a military despot should destroy our government, trample our constitution in the dust, and establish upon its ruins here at Washington, by the sword, a central despotism-himself the dictator-Massachusetts, and the other free States of this Union, would be bound by his will, and would have no right to resist it. Let me ask the gentleman from Massachusetts what the Old Bay State would do in a case like this? What would the Old Dominion do? What would any and all of our States do? They would do as Texas has done. Resist! resist the tyrant! Ay, to the very death would they resist his treason! And God grant that if ever such an alternative is presented, they may be as successful in their resistance as has been the young republic of Texas. Sir, she is free!-free by all that is sacred in our own glorious struggle for liberty! That Americans should deny it, is disgraceful and absurd. She is not only of right free, but she has achieved and maintained her freedom by the noblest patriotism and the most undaunted valor. And yet we are told that to admit Texas into the Union is "robbery" that we are robbing Mexico. If gentlemen who talk about robbing Mexico had lived in the glorious days of our revolution, the universal joy which pervaded the country at the result of the battle of Yorktown might perhaps have been marred by the hoarse croaking of "robbery" of England of her fair possessions.

Having thus established that Texas is free and sovereign, and fully capable of contracting for herself, as a nation, independent of all the powers on the globe, I shall proceed to the inquiry whether we should admit her as a State into this Union. I might close the argument here, by again referring to the clause in the treaty of 1803, by which we bound ourselves to admit her upon a proper application, and at a proper time. That time has come. She now most earnestly entreats us to comply with the bargain. The difficulty presented by our own bad faith in the treaty with Spain, has been removed by Texas herself. The jewel which we threw so lightly away, has been reclaimed by the bravery of her sons; and most magnanimously does she offer to restore it. She says to us, although you have forfeited your title to our lands, our rivers, our commerce, our vast resources, we bring them all back, redeemed by the valor, the patriotism, the virtue of our sons-make them a free offering, and in return only ask that you will comply with your stipulations with France and with us, and permit the "lone star" to nestle amid the folds of your glorious flag. Can we refuse? Dare we, upon principles of justice to Texas, and of self-interest, be guilty of the injustice, the folly, of rejecting her?

When the prodigal son, who had voluntarily abandoned his father's house and wasted his living, returned with repentance, the fatted calf was killed, and he was welcomed with joy to the paternal mansion. Here is the return of one who did not voluntarily depart, but was driven from us, penniless and without the means of support, bringing back a rich estate, won nobly and without dishonor, and offering to surrender it all to be restored to favor. Sir, if the application is unsuccessful here, I warn gentlemen that an appeal will be taken where it cannot

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

fail-before the great tribunal of the American people.

It is objected that we have no constitutional warrant for this proceeding. That question has already been so ably argued that I need not enter upon a minute examination of it. When it was proposed to reannex Texas by treaty, it was denounced as an unwarranted and mischievous usurpation of power by an "accidental," ambitious, irresponsible President, and that it would be a declaration of war against Mexico; and that the President had no power to declare war. In my simplicty, I did, suppose that these objections, however groundless, were at least honestly made. But now, when we come forward and obviate these objections by proposing that Congress shall, by act or resolution, admit Texas as a State into the Union, it is urged by the same party that Congress cannot do it, because Congress cannot make a treaty. The federal party seem, for once, to be stricken with a sudden alarm for the safety of the doctrine of strict construction.

This is truly a strange state of things. A great and growing nation, wishing to extend her domain, to enlarge the area of freedom, to reclaim a part of her lost territory that would furnish homes and wealth to twenty millions of her people, to procure for herself a boundary that will give more security to her present exposed and defenceless frontier than armies, fleets, and military posts; and yet, we are told that we have no power to do it-that the President and Senate cannot do it by treaty, and that Congress cannot do it by law. If the general government has not the power, where is it? It is an attri bute of sovereignty that certainly is not annihilated. No, sir; it cannot be lost: it either remains with the State sovereignties or is vested by the constitution in the general government. The difficulty is easily solved by recurring to first principles and examining the nature and objects of our different govern

ments.

Mr. Madison, who acted so prominent a part in the formation and adoption of our constitution, says, in the 45th No. of the Federalist, p. 292:

"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the seve ral States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

Here, then, the powers of the two governments are defined by a contemporaneous writer whose authority is acknowledged by all parties, and who tells us that the powers reserved by the States relate to objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. This power of reannexing Texas, in any mode you please, certainly cannot be embraced among the powers intended to be reserved to the States, because it relates not to internal but to external affairs. If any further argument were necessary to show that it is not one of the reserved powers of the States, I would refer the committee to that clause in the constitution which prohibits any State, without the consent of Congress, from entering into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power. It must be clear to every one that this essential attribute of sovereignty is not retained by the States in their State capacities. Then, to argue that it is not conferred upon the general government, would be to charge our forefathers, who framed the constitution, with the folly-nay, the madness-of having annihilated one of the essential attributes of sovereignty,

But, sir, when we point gentlemen to the continued action of this government on this subject since 1803, by which the prosperity and security of the Union have been so incalculably enhanced-when we point to the treaty with France for Louisiana, the treaty with Spain for Florida, to the admission of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri into the Union, and the formation of a territorial government in Florida-we are told that this is an entirely different affair, and that history furnishes no precedent for merging the sovereignty of one nation in that of another. Gentlemen admit the right of monarchies to sell, transfer, and barter off whole colonies, without consulting the wishes of the people thus sold and transferred, but deny that a people can dispose, by their own free will, of their territory, because this is destroying their sovereignty.

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Caldwell.

Sir, it does not become Americans, who profess to believe that all legitimate governments are based upon the consent of the governed, thus to advocate the divine right of kings, and to sneer at that fundamental and sacred doctrine of our glorious declaration of independence, which teaches that the will of the people of any country is the only legitimate source of authority, power, and government.

The doctrine that one sovereignty cannot be rightly merged in another, had not its origin in this land. It was borrowed from the politicians of Great Britain, who have an interest in opposing the admission of Texas into our Union.

Lord Aberdeen, in the British House of Lords, has said, when speaking upon this subject, that "it was a question new and unexampled in the history of public law, which demanded, and would receive, the earliest and most serious attention of her Majisty's government."

Here is a direct threat on the part of Great Britain to interfere, under the false pretext that one government cannot merge its sovereignty in an

other.

Many others might be referred to if I had time. But it is not necessary to go to Great Britain for arguments against the admission of Texas, since there has not been one advanced by any gentleman on this floor against it, which would not meet with the hearty approbation of Lord Aberdeen himself.

But let me ask whether there is no precedent for this. Ask Great Britain where are the independent governments of Ireland, of Scotland, and of Wales? That they were once free, is attested by history and by song. That they loved that freedom, bear witness, oh! shades of Bruce and of Wallace! But where are the sovereignties of those gallant people? The classic highlands of devoted Scotland may reverberate with

"The hurried question of despair, Where is my freedom? and echo answers, where !

The sovereignty of these nations has been lost and swallowed up by the insatiate ambition of England. But there are other examples. Our own government furnishes one. Where are the independent sovereignties of Massachusetts, Virginia, South Carolina-of all the old thirteen States! They were once, each of them, as separate, independent, sovereignties as is Texas now. I will be told, of course, that they have not parted with their separate sovereignties, only in a limited sense; in so far as they have by compact conferred certain general powers on the federal government for the good of the whole, and that in all other matters they retain their separate Sovereignties.

Now, sir, this is precisely what Texas wants to do, and what we want her to do-to join the confederacy as Massachusetts did, and surrender those powers to the general government which Massachusetts surrendered, and retain that which Massachusetts retained; and all this by the free and voluntary consent of both contracting parties. But we are met here with the bold annunciation that a new partner cannot be taken into the firm without the consent of all the original partners. This may strike the capacity of a county court lawyer, but it can have no weight with statesmen. We have got the consent of every partner in the firm expressly stipulated in the articles of partnership. The constitution expressly provides that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of another State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."

Here we have the power to admit new States, limited only by the discretion of Congress, except where the new State is to be formed within the jurisdiction or out of the Territory of another State or States, and then we must have the consent of the legislature of the State or States immediately concerned. This restriction upon that specified class of cases shows clearly that no limitation was intended to be placed upon the power to admit new States formed out of territory which was not then embraced within the limits of the United States. In addition to the express and incontrovertible language of the constitution on this subject, this is proven to be the intention of the framers of the constitution by the fact that the old articles of confederacy made provision for the admission of Canada; and the constitution was formed not to curtail, but to enlarge, the powers of the general government;

H. of Reps.

and by the further fact, that propositions were made in the convention to restrict the power to admit new States, to such States as should be formed within the territory of the United States; and all such propositions were voted down, and the unrestricted power, as we find it in the constitution, solemnly adopted. In his commentary on this clause of the constitution, Mr. Madison says, in the 14th No. of the Federalist:

"A second observation to be made is, that the immediate object of the federal constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive States which we know to be practicable; and to add to them such other States as may arise in their own bosoms, or in their neighborhoods, which we cannot doubt to be equally practicable."

The States of Rhode Island and North Carolina, which, for some time after the adoption, by the other States, of the federal constitution, would not adopt it, but existed and were recognised as separate and distinct sovereignties, were subsequently admitted into the Union. Vermont, which, neither under the articles of confederation nor at the time of the adoption of the constitution, formed any part of the United States, but claimed her own separate Sovereignty, was afterwards, on her application to Congress, admitted as a free and separate member of the confederacy. Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, which at the time of the adoption of the consti. tution formed a part of the Louisiana territory, and belonged to the King of Spain, have since been admitted into the Union upon a footing with the original thirteen States.

Sir, it is too late for gentlemen to attempt to interpolate restrictions and limitations upon an expressly granted power, which would conflict with the plain, common-sense interpretation of the clause, with the cotemporaneous construction given to it by the framers of the instrument, with the history of its adoption, and with the uniform action of our government under it for more than half a century.

Mr. Chairman, I regard this pretended constitutional objection as a mere masked battery, behind which gentlemen entrench themselves, to conceal from public scrutiny the real ground of their opposition to this measure.

I must assert my belief that, on the part of a large majority of those who oppose this measure, it is merely factious, and to serve party ends. But, sir, there is a deeper objection than this on the part of other gentlemen. This objection was shadowed forth by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL] when he declared that

"The great danger to be apprehended in this government was, that the extremities would fly off by means of the cen trifugal force so constantly manifested by the States."

Following up this view, he stated, in substance, that

"The central government was the heart from whence the stream of life must flow; and the extremities being too ponderous, it must fall to pieces."

With entire respect for that gentleman, I must take issue with him upon this as one of the true grounds of opposition.

When our constitution was framed, there was a party in this country who were in favor of centralization; of giving to the general government enlarged powers. This same party afterwards attempted, by implication and construction, to derive for the general government the powers which they could not prevail upon the States to surrender directly in the constitution, at the time that instrument was framed. They were called the federal party. During all this time there was another party, with Mr. Jefferson at its head, who resisted the encroachments of consolidation, and contended that the central government was not the heart from whence life flowed to the States; but that the sovereignty of the States was the great palladium of our freedom. This was called the democratic party. When Mr. Jefferson proposed to purchase Louisiana, and add her rich domain to our territory, and secure the commerce of the Mississippi, who opposed that measure, which has added so incalculably to our wealth, our prosperity, and our glory? Sir, it was the federal party; and precisely for the same reasons which are now offered for the opposition to the reannexation of Texas-the danger of enlarging our territory-the danger of falling to pieces. The real danger apprehended by those gentlemen is this. In proportion as you enlarge the territory, do you increase the difficulties of centralization? In proportion as you increase the number of sovereign States, do you increase the difficulties of consolidation? Every State that you add to the Union is another sentinel placed upon the watch-tower of freedom. Every star that you add to our constellation is but

28TH CONG.....2D SESS.

another eye to guard the jewel of liberty. That jewel is State sovereignty.

In proportion as you increase the variety of soil, climate, productions, occupations, pursuits, and customs of the different States, do you increase the necessity of local legislation for each, and destroy the possibility of consolidation; for one central government could not adapt one code of laws to all their various domestic wants, and consequently will never be permitted to invade the sanctuary of State sovereignty.

The States, in the mean time, extended over a territory yielding every variety of production of nature and of art, enjoying all the blessings of free internal trade, mutually dependent, each upon the whole, for protection and defence, whilst each has entire control over its own domestic household, would continue happy in their prosperity, and secure in the enjoyment of their own separate inde. pendence.

There is no danger to be apprehended from an extension of our territory, so long as we continue to administer our government upon the true principles of the constitution. By our federative system, so wisely adopted in that constitution, the State governments are left in full and undisturbed possession of all sovereign power over their own internal police, and all the local questions affecting life, liberty, and property. To the general government are delegated powers of a national character, and over such questions as do not demand, by diversity of soil, climate, and occupation, peculiar local legislation. The power to govern and direct the operations of war-the treaty-making power-the power to regulate commerce-the power to coin money, and to regulate post offices and post roads-and the power to collect and disburse the revenues necessary for all these purposes,-may safely and successfully be exercised by one federal government for this whole continent, so long as you confine that gov ernment to the powers delegated in the constitution, and leave to State legislation, as was intended by the wise framers of our matchless form of government, all local questions, which, from diversity of occupation or of interest, or peculiarity of sentiments or education, demand the guardianship and care of a State legislature, chosen by, and responsible to, the people only immediately interested in

their action.

When we are taunted here by gentlemen with being strict constructionists, and still advocating what they choose to call a doubtful power, I throw it back upon them, and declare that it is as a strict constructionist that I advocate the admission of Texas. The doctrine of strict construction is held sacred, as being the means of guarding the sovereign powers reserved by the States from invasion by the general government. I advocate the admission of Texas into the Union, as I have shown, as one of the means of preventing this encroachment. The federal party oppose it for precisely the same reason. I am the advocate of State sovereignty: they are the advocates of a dangerous enlargement of the powers of the general government-an enlargement that would ultimately sweep from existence the reserved rights of the States, and bury all our bright hopes in the horrors of consolidation-perhaps of despot

ism.

But to revert to the objection as made. Is there any danger of this government "flying to pieces" by an extension of our territory? Mr. Madison, in the 14th article of the Federalist, says: "as the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre which will barely allow the representatives of the people to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs." This position can derive no additional strength from any argument of mine. It needs none; and I will, therefore, merely add that on this point, no difficulty need be apprehended in this age of railroads, steamboats, and locomotives.

The gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MARSH,] more candid than other whigs upon this floor, has given a new direction to this question. He asserted in his argument yesterday, that this whole matter was but a scramble for political power between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. Ah! we have it at last. "Conceal it as they may (said that gentleman) it must come to this." Let it come, if he wishes. In God's name, let it go to Kentuckylet it go to Ashland-to every whig in the slave

Annexation of Texas-Mr. Caldwell.

holding States, that the whole opposition to this measure is a scramble on the part of the North for political power.

[A voice: "A political scramble on the part of the South."]

Ah! (continued Mr. C.) what interest has the South in making a scramble for political power! Can she have any except for self-preservation? Has the North any fear that the slaveholding States would, if they had the power, interfere with the domestic institutions of the North? That they would, by class legislation, wring and extort bounties from the labor of the North for their own aggrandisement? Every candid man from the North will tell you he has no such fear. We ask no boons, no bounties, no monopolies-we do not seek to op press the North or in any way to interfere with their domestic or local affairs or institutions. The slaveholding States have never asked any thing but to be let alone to be permitted to enjoy in their own way their own liberty, and the fruits of their own honest industry. We only desire that the North shall not, by their unjust and insolent interference, disturb our peace, distract our citizens, and endanger our security. What, then, can be the object of the North in this great scramble for political ascendency? Does she desire to destroy the balance of power that she may meddle with our slavery, and, for the gratification of incendiary fanatics, force us into measures in regard to our domestic institutions which they have no right to interfere with? And is this the argument, addressed upon this floor, to whigs of Kentucky and the other slaveholding States that they must vote against the admission. of Texas into this Union, in order that the North may enjoy the unrestricted power of meting out to us, according to her gracious will, our allotted share of happiness or misery, of security or danger, of prosperity or ruin? Let it go to Kentucky; let us hear her response through her representatives upon this floor, and through her organs at home; let us know at once whether the sons of the gallant pioneers of that noble State are so degenerate as to sacrifice in their mad devotion to party all that is dear to them and their posterity; whether they are prepared tamely to surrender their dear-bought liberties, their noble independence, the very safety of their wives and children, to the faithless keeping of the federalists, the abolitionists, and the fanatics of the North. Sir, although I am not one of the party which has had the ascendency in that State, I will venture here to answer for her. It would be foul dishonor to impute to her any such craven spirit! A State so rich in her history of individual daring and of personal valor, can never be so easily enslaved!

Threats of disunion are thundered in our ears by some of the distinguished sons of the Union-loving, constitution-loving State of Massachusetts.

We are told that, to admit Texas, would be a flagrant violation of the compact of union, which "would not only produce a dissolution, but would fully justify it." This language falls strangely on the ears of western men. To talk of disunion with us, is considered little better than treason. We do not suffer our minds to dwell on such a theme; and if we hear it hinted at, we dismiss it from us with indignation and abhorrence. It may do for the old Commonwealth of Massachusetts to talk of disunion. She may unite with the survivors of the Hartford convention in threatening it; but let me warn Massachusetts that she cannot dissolve the Union. You will hear no threats of that sort from the West. We love the Union, and though the North and the South might both threaten its existence, the young giant of the West would bear aloft its banner as the rallying point of freemen, and the emblem of all our happiness and hope. But these threats are idle, and intended for agitation.

If I understand the interest and sagacity of Massachusetts rightly, she is the last State that will ever take a final farewell of the sisterhood. I have greatly mistaken the character of her people, if they are willing to relinquish the advantages which the Union has given, and will continue to give them. Massachusetts knows too well that her sterile rocks have been made to blossom as the rose by this Union; and she knows too well that one continued stream of wealth has been poured into her lap from the sunny South and the fertile West; and will continue to flow while the Union lasts. She, too, well understands that, if the bounties which she now enjoys were withdrawn, she must revert back to that condition of sterile hills and rock-bound coasts, which greeted the Pilgrim fathers, when first they

H. of Reps.

gazed upon Plymouth rock. Where would she find a market for her manufactures, with a protection of 30 to 300 per cent.?-a protection that no other government ever gave to one portion of its citizens at the expense of another? She will not so far belie her character for Yankee shrewdness, as to forego all these advantages, to follow the lead of a parcel of unprincipled fanatics in an unholy crusade against southern institutions.

Again, it is objected that we must not admit Texas on account of her debt. I myself am in favor of the proposition which allows Texas as a State to retain her own public lands, and pay her own debts. But suppose we were to assume her debts: would not her vast and rich domain, her fertile lands, pay it back ten times over? and was not that very debt incurred in consequence of our bad faith? Was not that debt, together with the blood of her sons, the price at which she bought back and re-established that freedom of which we deprived her, when we cast her off, and transferred her to a foreign despot by the treaty of 1819?

But that debt is a mere bagatelle. Gentlemen who on all other occasions are so fond of public debt, need not hope to frighten any one with so contemptible a bugbear. If we were to assume the debts of Texas, we should but do an act of justice; it would be but a poor reparation for the wrongs we have inflicted-wrongs that appeal to us by every feeling of humanity-by every principle that should govern our councils here.

But, I repeat to satisfy gentlemen here, we will let Texas pay her own debts, and keep her own lands to pay them with. This is a better bargain for Texas, than if we paid her debts. It is sometimes objected-though I believe that objection is now almost abandoned-that this measure will involve us in war. This argument needs no answer, but the memorable declaration of the immortal Jackson: "We will ask nothing but what is right, and we will submit to nothing that is wrong." We will do no wrong to any nation by the admission of Texas, and if any nation chooses to declare war against us on account of it, it will be an unjust war on her part; and let her beware of the consequences; for our part, guided by a consciousness of the rectitude and justice of our course, we will meet the issue

as becomes us.

I will not have time, in the brief hour which is allotted me, to enter, as I would wish to do, upon an examination of the advantages which would result to us, and the reasons that appeal to us in favor of this measure. The facts which I have already stated, with a mere glance at the map and geogra phy of that country, will show at once, to the poorest capacity, that the advantages are innumerable, and the reasons imperative. Texas is described by historians and geographers as possessing a most delightful and salubrious climate, and a soil of unexampled fertility. In Pease's geographical sketch of that country he says:

"The attempt to describe the middle regions of Texas must be feeble indeed, since the subject is one to which neither pen nor pencil can do justice."

Her bottom lands are composed of a rich alluvion, ten to twenty feet in depth. Her prairies are equally rich, with a depth of soil from four to ten feet. The quantity of agricultural productions is almost incredible. Two crops in a single year may be raised and matured on the same land. And it is said by the same writer, that a single laborer may, by tilling the soil, support his family and clear a thousand dollars a year. The great staple of the world (cotton) can be raised there in greater abundance, and with less difficulty than on any other part of the globe. The soil and climate are infinitely better adapted to the production of sugar than in the most favored sugar districts of Louisiana. The experiments there, also, in the production of tobacco (our second great article of export) have been attended with eminent success. All the delicious fruits of the tropical regions may be grown there without difficulty, and in the greatest perfection. It is a land of inexhaustible productions, of perennial spring and perpetual flowers.

With a territory larger than that of all France, and a soil and climate such as I have described, Texas has the best harbor on the Gulf of Mexico, and a greater extent of navigable rivers than the same extent of territory can boast on any part of the American continent.

In order that we may the better understand and appreciate the advantages arising from the admission of Texas, let us look at the consequences of refusing her admission. England is at present de

Suppose Texas is not admitted into this Union, and a treaty should be formed between her and England, as it certainly will be, by which British manufactures are admitted into Texas at a very low rate of duty, and Texian cotton admitted in England free of duty, or even at any rate of duty materially less than our cotton is admitted: this advantage in favor of Texian cotton, together with the natural advantages of soil and climate, would rapidly bring into cultivation all the cotton lands of Texas; and she alone could, and in a short time would, supply every factory in England, to the entire exclusion from that market of every bale of our cotton. There is no object on earth so dear at this moment to England as this. There is nothing for which she would make such sacrifices as to be relieved from her dependence on us in this particular. She would think it cheaply acquired at the cost of millions of money, and half a century of patient and arduous diplomacy. Texas be not admitted, she will surely accomplish it; and our southern States, no longer finding a market for their cotton, must, of necessity, curtail its pro-duction, and in its stead raise grain, and stock, and tobacco. This would be a great injury to the southern States. But the evil would not stop there. Kentucky and the other western States could no longer find a market in the South for their stock and grain, because the South would produce her own supplies. They could no longer find a market there for their bagging and bale rope, because the demand for those articles in the southern States would be decreased by the diminished production of cotton; and lastly, their tobacco must find the markets glutted by the addition of southern tobacco. They could not sell their stock, their grain, or their hemp in Texas, except subject to a tariff, which would exclude the latter article entirely. The West, then, would be driven to manufacturing to a considerable extent, as the only means of living. The effect of all this upon the North must be seen at a glance. It will curtail and cripple the market in the South for her manufactured articles; and instead of her present rich market in the West, she would find rival manufactures struggling into existence there, by the force of absolute necessity.

Thus, if Texas is not admitted into the Union, she must, and will, by the production of this great staple of the world, (cotton,) revolutionize all the departments of labor and capital in this Union. On the other hand, if we admit her, we will still have in our possession all the valuable cotton lands of the world; and as her rich soil is gradually reclaimed from the wilderness and subjected to culture, we will find the market for our stock, and grain, and hemp, and the manufactures of the North, increasing and expanding with the increase and growth of our population and productions. The time will come when Texas will support a population and a commerce equal to that of the entire Union at present: all this will be ours. But if any portion of our people more than another ought to advocate this measure, it should be those who so continually clamor for protection to home labor. By this means they will secure to our own people the whole coasting and internal trade of Texas, and in return for our stock and grain and hemp and manufactured goods, sold there under the protection of our revenue laws, we would receive from her a full and adequate supply of sugar for the whole Union; and thus keep among our own people the millions that are annually sent abroad for sugar: for Texas and Louisiana can and will ultimately supply the

to insurrection;, there she could invade our territory through our weakest and most defenceless frontier, and there her powerful navy in the gulf could cooperate with her invading army in an attack upon New Orleans.

Who can say that, in such a state of things, our infant settlements in Oregon must not perish?-that our frontier settlements in the southwest must not fall a prey to the savage scalping-knife, or to the deeper horrors of a negro insurrection?-and that New Orleans itself, with all the wealth and commerce of the Mississippi valley, must not enrich the mercenary soldiery of a British army? But it has been asked on this floor whether England will consent to our taking Texas? and whether there is any agreement by which she is to be permitted to take Cuba in turn?-and this from an American citizen in an American Congress! "Oh! shame, where is thy blush!"

No, sir, no. England should never be permitted to plant her standard on another acre of American soil, or on another island in the Gulf of Mexico, so long as one drop of American blood continues to course the veins of an American citizen.

As my time is just about expiring, I will conclude by saying that we are bound to admit Texas by all the sacred obligations of treaty faith, of kindred and of blood; they are the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters of our own people, speaking the same language, imbued with the same love of liberty, governed by similar laws, kneeling at the same altar, and worshipping the same God. Their appeal to us cannot be rejected. We are bound by considerations of security, of self-interest, and self-preservation. Duty, justice, and philanthropy require it; necessity imperatively demands it.

IN SENATE,

MONDAY, February 3, 1845.

"ANNEXATION" IN THE NORTH.

Mr. PORTER presented a memorial, numerously signed by citizens of Detroit, Michigan, which was read at the Secretary's table, as follows:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

The undersigned, citizens of Detroit, Michigan, respectfully call the attention of Congress to a subject of the greatest inter est to the people of the United States-one which we regard as vitally connected with the permanent prosperity of the North, the glory of the whole nation, and the perpetuity of our free institutions. We refer to the acquisition of Canada; an object, the importance of which did not fail to attract the attention of our forefathers, asfattested by the Articles of Confederation. It would be useless to discuss the advantages of such an acquisition to the United States; they present themselves to every one in any degree acquainted with the geography and the commercial and military wants of the country. None can be more sensible of these advantages, none, we are confident, will labor with more alacrity to secure them by all constitutional and peaceful means, than your honorable bodies. To give to the United States the control of the entire valley of the St. Lawrence, is to give thein the undivided empire of the great lakes; to augment to an incalculable amount the commerce of the country; to remove forever the necessity of expenditures for fortifications on the Northern frontier; and to close, for all future time, the ave nues of invasion from this quarter. The history of the Revolu tionary war and of the war of 1812 sufficiently demonstrate the necessity of the acquisition of Canada in a military point of view. The treasure which has been expended in defending us against invasiou would, we doubt not, be more than sufficient to compensate Great Britain for the transfer; and recent events, and the recommendation of some of her most eminent states. men, indicate that a well-lirected negotiation would result in an arrangement which would forever relieve her from the burden of maintaining and defending that Province, and incorporate it with the United States. A large portion of the population, especially of Upper Canada, have emigrated thither from the United States, and the friendship of the great mass of the people of Lower Canada for American institutions is well known. Such an acquisition would introduce into the Union a highly civilized, intelligent, and liberty loving people, and would give a powerful impulse to the cause of human freedom throughout the world. And your petitioners would further state, that the proposed acquisition of Texas, now pending before your honorable bodies, will make the annexation of Canada indispensable to the just balance and equipoise of the Union, with reference to its two great sectional and institutional divisions. The accession of so large a territory on the South will require a large addition to the North. Justice will demand it; and nothing else, in the opinion of your petitioners, will ever reconcile the Northern people to that cherished project of their Southern brethren. Both or neither, is essential to the harmony if not to the integrity of the Union.

Your petitioners would therefore respectfully pray that negouations may be opened with the British Government for the acqu sition of Canada, by purchase or otherwise; and that in any act, resolution, or other proceeding which may be adopted by Congress for the annexation of Texas, a provision may be inserted, as a condition precedent, that the same shall not take effect until Canada shall also be annexed to the United States. And your petitioners will ever pray, &c.

Mr. FOSTER raised the question of reception. He did so, he said, with extreme reluctance, and would have been happy to have seen some other Senator, more prominent before the country and