IlitiUltItU 
 
LETTER 
 
 OP 
 
 MR. WALKER, OF MISSISSIPPI, 
 
 RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS; 
 
 IN REPLY TO 
 
 THE CALL OF THE PEOPLE OF CARROLL COUNTY, KENTUCKY, TO 
 COMMUNICATE HIS VIEWS ON THAT SUBJECT. 
 
 f /;-*.■> 
 
 iyorc 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE GLOBE OFFICE. 
 1844. 
 
fi 1 
 
LETTER. 
 
 Washington City, Jan. 8, 1844. 
 Gentlemen: Your letter, dated Ghent, Carrol 
 county, Kentucky, November 25th, 1843, has been 
 received. It contains the resolutions of a meeting of 
 the people of that county, in favor of the annexation 
 of Texas, and requestmg the candidates for the 
 presidency and vire presidency of the Union to make 
 "known to (you) or to the public" .their views on 
 this subject. As a committee, you have tnciismitted 
 me these proceedings, together with a special letter, 
 addressed to me as a candidate for the "vice presi- 
 dency," requesting my opinions on this question. I 
 am not a candidate for the vice presidency. The 
 only State in which my name has been designated, 
 to any considerable extent, for this station, was my 
 own; and knowing how many, with much older and 
 better claims than mine, were named for this office, 
 for this and other reasons, by letter dated November 
 20, 1843, addressed by me to the democratic con- 
 vention which assembles this day in Mississippi, my 
 name is withdrawn unconditionally. 
 
 The treaty by which Texas was surrendered to 
 Spam, was always opposed by me; and in 1826, 
 1834, and 1835, various addresses were made by 
 me, and then published, in fovor of the reannexa- 
 tion of Texas; and the same opinions have been 
 often expressed by me since my election, in 1836, 
 t the Senate of the Union. 
 , It was a revolution in Mexico that produced the 
 \-.onflict for independence in Texas. The citizens of 
 Texas liad been invited there by Mexico, under the 
 ■olemn guaranty of the federal constitution of 1824. 
 _rhi.s constitution, to which Texas so long and faith- 
 ■ully adhered, was prostrated by the usurper Santa 
 \nna.. After a .severe struggle, the people of Mexico 
 were subdued by a mercenary army; the States were 
 annihilated, and a military dictator was placed at 
 the head of a central despotism. In the capital of 
 Mexico, and of the state of Coahuila and Texas, 
 the civil authorities were suppressed by the bayonet; 
 the disarming of every citizen was decreed, and the 
 soldiery of the usurper proceeded to enforce this 
 edict. The people of Texas resolved to resist, and 
 perish upon the field of battle, rather than submit to 
 tlie despotic sway of a treacherous and sanguinary 
 military dictator. Short was the conflict, and glori- 
 ous the issue. The American race was successful; 
 tlie armies of the tyrant were overthrown and dis- 
 persed, and the dictator himself was captured. He 
 was released by Texas, and restored to his country, 
 having first acknowledged, by a solemn treaty, the 
 independence of Texas. After the fall of Santa 
 Anna, and the total route and dispersion of the 
 'Mexican army, and when a resubjugation had be- 
 come hopeless, I introduced into the Senate the res- 
 olution acknowledging the independence of Texas 
 It was adopted in March, 1837, and the name of 
 Texas inscribed on the roll of independent nations 
 feubsequently, France, England, and Holland, have 
 recognised her independence; and Texas now has all 
 the rights of sovereignty over her territory and peo- 
 ple, as full and perfect as any other nation of the 
 world. It was to Spain, and not to Mexico that 
 we transferred Texas by treaty; and it was by a 
 revolution in Mexico, and the recognition of her inde- 
 pendence, not by Spain, but by this republic and other 
 
 nations, that Mexico acquired any title to Texas. 
 It was by a successful revolution, and the expulsion 
 of Spanish power, that Mexico, unrecognised by 
 Spain, acquired all her right to this territory; and it 
 is by a similar successful revolution that Texas has 
 obtained the same territory. These principles have 
 been recognised for many years by Mexico, and by 
 this republic; and it is absurd in Mexico now to 
 attempt to recall her unequivocal assent to these 
 doctrines, and ask to be permitted to change the 
 well-settled law of nations, and oppose the rean- 
 nexation of Texas. It is an admitted principle of 
 the law of nations, that every sovereignty may cede 
 the whole or any part of their territory, unless re- 
 strained by some constitutional interdict; and which, 
 if it exist, may be removed by the same sovereign 
 power which imposed the limitation. There is, how- 
 ever, no such limitation in the constitution of Texas, 
 which is a single central government, with the same 
 authority to make the cession, as appertained to 
 France or Spain, in the transfer of Louisiana of 
 Florida. Nor does it change the question of power, * 
 that these were distant colonies; for the sovereignty 
 extends alike over every portion of the nation: and 
 this principle was fully recognised, when Mr. Ad- 
 ams, as President, and Mr. Clay, as Secretary of 
 State, in 1825 and 1827, by instructions to our min- 
 ister atMexico; and General Jackson, as President, 
 and Mr. Van Buren as Secretary of State, by sub- 
 sequent similar instructions in 1829, endeavored to 
 procure from Mexico the cesson of Texas, then a 
 contiguous and integral portion of the Mexican con- 
 federacy. And if a nation may cede a portion of her 
 territory, being completely sovereign overthe whole, 
 she may certainly cede the whole; and, in any event 
 this would be a question, not of our right to receive, 
 but of the authority of the ceding nation to make the 
 transfer, or simply an inquiry, whether we obtain- 
 ed a good or a bad title. In this case, the title would 
 be unquestionable; for Texas being independent in 
 fact, and so recognised by ourselves, and the great 
 powers of Europe, as completely sovereign through- 
 out her territory, Mexico could make no just ob- 
 jection to the transfer. 
 
 In 1836, this question, together with that of rati- 
 fying their constitution, was submitted by the con- 
 stituted authorities to the people of Texas, who, 
 with unparalleled unanimity, (there being but ninety- 
 three dissenting votes,) decided in favor of reannexa- 
 tion. 
 
 Texas, then, has already assented to the reannex- 
 ation, not merely by the act of all her authorities, 
 but of her people, and made it a part and parcel of 
 the organization of the government itself; and he 
 who, with the knowledge of these facts, would now 
 deny the power of Texas to assent to the reannexa- 
 tion, must reject and discard the great fundamental 
 principle of popular sovereignty. Surely, then, no 
 one will contend that monarchies may transfer, and 
 we receive, their colonies and subjects, without and 
 against their consent; but that the entire people of 
 a single republic, in whom resides the only right- 
 ful sovereignty, cannot cede, nor we receive, their 
 own territory, and that monarchs have more power 
 than the people, and are more truly sovereign. 
 Texas, then, having the undoubted right to transfer 
 
tlic w liole, or any part of the territory, there can be 
 no difference, as a question of coiistitutional power, 
 between our right to receive a part or the whole of 
 the territory. 
 
 The reannexation, then, can be accompHshed by 
 any one of three modes. 1st, by treaty; 2d, by an 
 act of Congress, without a treaty; and 3d, by the 
 authority reserved to each State, to extend their 
 boundaries, and annex additional territory with the 
 sanction of Congress. 
 
 1st. By treaty. — This right was established in 
 ths cession of Louisiana and Florida, and cannot 
 now be questioned, without menacing the organiza- 
 tion of tlie government and integrity of the tJnion;- 
 for, by virtue of this power, three States and sev- 
 eral Territories now compose a part of the republic. 
 In 1842, we acquired territory by treaty, and at- 
 tached it to the States of New York and Vermont. 
 There was there no disputed boundary, for the call 
 was for a certain parallel of latitude — a mere ques- 
 tion of measurement — M'hich, when made, placed 
 this territory within the undoubted limits of Canada; 
 in consequence of which, we had abandoned the 
 fortress erecting at Rouse's Point, and the ground it 
 occupied, (which was a part of this territory,) which 
 we acquired by the treaty of 1842. The question 
 of the power of annexation by treaty is settled, and 
 incorporated into the very existence of the govern- 
 ment and of the Union. 
 
 2d. The object may be accomplished by act of 
 Congress, without a treaty. — The language of the 
 constitution is: "New States may be admitted by 
 the Congress into this Union; but no new State 
 shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of 
 any other 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." The grant 
 is unlimited, except that the boundary of an exist- 
 ing State cannot be disturbed by Congress without 
 the assent of the State legislatures "New States 
 may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
 This is the broad language of the constitution; and, 
 to confine it to territory then acquired, is to interpo- 
 late most important words into that instrument. 
 Nor could it have been the intention of the framers 
 of the constitution to prevent the acquisition of new 
 territory. Louisiana was not then a part of the 
 Union, but it was a most important part of the val- 
 ley of the Mississippi, containmg New Orleans, 
 and the whole of the western, and the most essen- 
 tial part of the eastern portion of that territory, 
 with both banks of its great river for many lum- 
 dred miles above its mouth, and the only outlet of 
 ths products of the mighty valley starting at the 
 Youghiogany in Maryland, and the Alleghany in 
 New York, uniting at Pittsburg, where they form 
 the Ohio, to the outlet of all into the Gulf. If we 
 look at the condition of many of the States when 
 the constitution was framed, we will find it could 
 never have been adopted had it forbidden the ac- 
 qliLsition of the only outlet of all the products of 
 the West. The waters of western Maryland, and 
 of western New York, commingle with those of the 
 Ohio and Mississippi. There stood Pittsburg at the 
 head of the Ohio; and one-third of Pennsylvania is 
 intersected by streams which water a part of the 
 great valley. Virginia then included Kentucky; 
 three-fourths of her territory was within the great 
 valley, and the Ohio and Mississippi itself were its 
 boundary for more than a thousand miles. North 
 
 ' Carolina then included Tennessee, and was bounded 
 for hundreds of miles by the river Mississippi; and 
 Georgia then embraced Alabama and Mississippi, 
 and was not only bounded for several hundred 
 miles by the great river, but advanced to within a 
 few miles of the city of New Orleans. Is it possi- 
 ble that all these States, in forming the constitution, 
 could have intended to prohibit forever the acquisi- 
 tion of the mouth of the Mississippi, then in the 
 hands of a hostile and despotic foreign power? The 
 constitution contains no such suicidal provision; and 
 all the liistorical facts, both before and after its 
 adoption, are against any such anti-American re- 
 striction. As to a treaty, it is only necessary as in- 
 dicating flie assent of the ceding nation; and if that 
 has been given already, as in the case of Texas, 
 without a treaty, our acceptance may be made by 
 Congress. Suppose the constitution of Texas for- 
 bid the cession, except by Congress: when their 
 Congress passed the assenting law, could not we 
 accept, by act of Congress.' Or suppose Texas, or 
 any other contiguous territory, was vacant and un- 
 claimed by any power: could we not annex it by 
 act of Congress? One of the grounds assumed in 
 Congress, and by our government, in defence of our 
 title to Oregon, is its alleged discovery and occu- 
 pancy by us, (long before the treaty with France,) 
 being one of the acknowledged modes by which 
 nations acquire territory; but if we can only ac- 
 quire territory by treaty, then tliis ground, upon 
 which we claim title to Oregon, must be abandoned. 
 It would be strange, indeed, if the treaty-making 
 power (which, mider our constitution, is purely an 
 executive power) could annex territory, and yet 
 that the Executive, and both Houses of Congress 
 combined, could not. Then, if France or S]iain had 
 forever refused to cede to us Louisiana or New Or- 
 leans, could we never — no, not even by conquest in 
 war — have occupied and annexed them by act of 
 Congress? Congress, then, having the undoubted 
 power to annex territory, and admit new States, 
 and Texas having assented in advance, may be 
 either admitted at once, as a Territory, or a State, 
 or States, or Congress may provide for the prospec- 
 tive admission of one or more States from Texas, 
 as has often heretofore been done as to other new 
 States, the whole question of annexation not being, 
 one whether this government has the power, but only 
 how it must be exercised; and whether only by one 
 of the branches of this government, or by all com- 
 bined. And if the power vested in Congress by 
 the constitution to admit new States, does not of 
 itself embrace territory then constituting a part of 
 the Union, as well as all future acquisitions, there is 
 no power to admit new States, except out of terri- 
 tory which was a part of the Union when the con- 
 stitution was formed; but as this interpretation can- 
 not prevail without expelling three States from the 
 Union, and forbidding the admission of Iowa, it 
 must be conceded that this power of Congress to ad- 
 mit new States does extend to future acquisitions. 
 This being the case, what can be more clear than 
 that Congress may admit a State or States out of 
 Texas, if her assent is given, as we perceive it haa 
 been, in a form as obligatory as a treaty? In truth, 
 the power to ajinex territory by treaty does not so 
 much exist as a mere implication from the treaty- 
 making power, as from the grant to Congress to 
 admit new States out of any territory whatever, 
 although not then a part of the Union; and the right 
 to annex by treaty results mainly as a means of 
 obtaining, when necessary, the assent of another 
 
government, especially when that assent can be ob- ' 
 tained in no other manner. 
 
 Something like this was done by the annexation, 
 by Congress, of the Florida parishes to the State of 
 Louisiana. They had been claimed, and remained 
 for many years after the cession of Louisiana, in 
 the exclusive occupancy of Spain, when the Ameri- 
 can settlers revolted, assembled their convention, de- 
 clared their independence, and, by a successful revo- 
 lution, wrested this territory from the dominion of 
 Spain, and Congress recognised the acts, and as- 
 sumed and paid the debts of the insurgent conven- 
 tion; and the legislature of Louisiana, after the adop- 
 tion of her constitution, and admission into the 
 Union, without this territory, subsequently, by mere 
 legislative enactment, with the consent of Congress, 
 fmnexed it to the State of Louisiana. 
 
 3d. The annexation may be accomplished by one 
 of the States of the Union, with the sanction of Con- 
 gress. — That each of the States possessed the power 
 to extend her boundaries before the adoption of the 
 constitution, will not be denied; and that the power 
 still exists, is certain, unless it is abandoned by the 
 State in forming the government of the Union. 
 Now, there is no such abandonment, unless it is 
 found in the following clause of the constitution: 
 "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, 
 enter into any agreement or compact with another 
 State, or with a foreign power." Each State, then, 
 may, with the consent of Congress, "enter into any 
 agreement or compact with another State, or with a 
 foreign poicer.''^ Texas, if not ours, is a foreign 
 power; and if she, by law, assents to the reannexa- 
 tion, in whole or in part, to Louisiana, or to Arkan- 
 sas, and those States, by law, agree to the annexa- 
 tion, it is "an agreement or compact" between a for- 
 eign power and a State of the Union, and is clearly 
 lawful, with "the consent of Congress." It would 
 not be a treaty, which is the exercise of an executive 
 power, but a compact by law, and precisely similar 
 to the numerous compacts, so called, by which, by 
 acts of Congress and of a State legislature, so many 
 agreements, especially with the new States, have 
 been made by mere legislative enactments. Nor 
 need the assent of Congress be given in advance; it 
 was not so given on the admission of Tennessee, 
 Arkansas, and Michigan; but if given subsequently, 
 it would ratify the previous extension of their 
 boundaries by Louisiana or Arkansas. There 
 are, then, these three modes, by any one of which 
 Texa.y may be reannexed to the American Union. 
 1st. By treaty; 2d. By act of Congress, without a 
 treaty; and, 3d. By the act of a State, with the sanc- 
 tion of Congress. But, if it be otherwise, and the 
 constitution only applies to territories then attached 
 to the Union, and delegates no power for the acqui- 
 sition of any other territory, nor prohibits the exer- 
 cise of the pre-existing power of each State to ex- 
 tend her boundaries, then there would remain in 
 each State the reserved right of extension, beyond 
 the control of Congress. I have not asserted the 
 existence of such a right in a State; but, if the 
 clauses quoted do not confer the authority on Con- 
 gress, and the reannexation is refused on that 
 ground, then the annexing power, as a right to en- 
 large their boundaries, would result to any one of 
 the States, and, with the consent of Texas, could 
 be exercised. Perceiving, then, what power results 
 to the States, from the denial of the power of an- 
 nexation by Congress, let us agitate no such ques- 
 tion in advance of a denial of its own authority by 
 Congress, but discuss the question on its merits alone. 
 
 Is it expedient to reannex Texas to the Amer- 
 ican Union.' This is the greatest question, since 
 the adoption of the constitution, ever present- 
 ed for the decision of the American people. Texas 
 was once our own; and, although surrendered by 
 treaty to Spain, the surrender was long resisted 
 by the American government, and was conceded to 
 be a great sacrifice. This being the case, is it not 
 clear that, when the territory, which wc have most 
 reluctantly surrendered, can be reacquired, that ob- 
 ject should be accomplished.' Under such circum- 
 stances, to refuse the reannexation is to deny the 
 wisdom of the original purchase, and to reflect upon 
 the judgment of those who maintained, even at the 
 period of surrender, that it was a great sacrifice of 
 national interests. 
 
 Texas, as Mr. Jefferson declared, was as clearly 
 embraced in the purchase by us of Louisiana as 
 New Orleans itself; and that it was a pai-t of that 
 region, is demonstrated by the discovery, by the 
 great Lasalle, of the source and mouth of the Mis- 
 sissippi, and his occupancy for France west of the 
 Colorado. Our right to Texas, as a part of Louisi- 
 ana, was asserted and demonstrated by Presi- 
 dents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John 
 duincy Adams. No one of our Presidents has 
 ever doubted our title; and Mr. Clay has ever main- 
 tained it as cleai- and unquestionable. Louisiana 
 was acquired by a treaty with France, in 1803, by 
 Mr. Jefferson; and in the letter of Mr. Madison, 
 the Secretary of State, dated March 31, 1804, he 
 says, expresing his own views and those of Mr. 
 Jefferson, that Louisiana "extended westwardly to 
 the Rio Bravo, otherwise called Rio del Norte. 
 Orders were accordingly obtained from the Spanish 
 authorities for the delivery of all the posts on the 
 west side of the Mississippi." And in his letter of 
 the 31st January, 1804, Mr. Madison declares that 
 Mr. Laussat, the French commissioner who deliver- 
 ed the possession of Louisiana to lis, announced the 
 "Del Norte as its true boundary." Here, then, in 
 the delivery of the possession of Louisiana by 
 Spain to France, and France to us, Texas is in- 
 cluded. In the letter of Mr. Madison of the 8th 
 July, 1804, he declares the opposition of Mr Jeffer- 
 son' to the ''relinquishment of any territory whatever 
 eastward of the Rio Bravo." In the letter of James 
 Monroe of the 8th November, 1803, he incloses 
 documents which he says "prove incontestabhf that 
 the boundary of Louisiana is "the Rio Bravo to 
 the west;" and Mr. Pinckney unites with him in a 
 similar declaration. In a subsequent letter— not to 
 a foreign government, but to Mr. Madison — of the 
 20th April, 1805, they assert our title as unquestiona- 
 ble. In Mr. Monroe's letters, as Secretary of State, 
 dated January 19, 1816, and June 10, 1816, he says 
 none could question "our title to Texas;" and he ex- 
 presses his concurrence in opinion with Jefferson 
 and Madison, "that our title to the Del Norte was 
 as clear as to the island of New Orleans." In his 
 letter, as Secretary of State, to JDon Onis, of the 
 12th March, 1818, John Uuincy Adams says: "The 
 claim of France always did extend westward to the 
 Rio Bravo;" "she always claimed the territory 
 which you call Texas as being within the limits, 
 and forming a part, of Louisiana." After demon- 
 strating our title to Texas in this letter, Mr. Adams 
 says: "Well might Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe 
 write to M. Cevallos, in 180.5, that the claim of the 
 United States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo 
 was as clear as their right to the' island of New Or- 
 leans." Again, in his letter^ of the 31.st October, 
 
1818, Mr. Adams says our title to Texas is "estab- 
 lished beyond the power of further controversy." 
 
 Here, then, by the discovery and occupation of 
 Texas, as a part of Louisiana, by Lasalle, for 
 France, in 1G85; by tlie delivery of possession to us, 
 in 1803, by Spain and France; by the action of our 
 government, from the date of the treaty of acquisi- 
 tion to the date of the treaty of surrender, (avowed- 
 ly so on its face;) by the opinion of all our Presi- 
 dents and ministers coimected in any way with the 
 acquisition, our title to Texas was undoubted. It 
 was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819; 
 but Mr. Clay maintained, in his speech of the 3d 
 April, 1820, that territory could not be alienated mere- 
 ly by a treaty; and consequently that, notwith- 
 standing the treaty, Texas was still o^ir ovm. In the 
 cession of a portion of Maine, it was asserted, in 
 legislative resolutions, by Massachusetts and Maine, 
 and conceded by this government, that no portion 
 of Maine could be ceded by treaty without the con- 
 sent of Maine. Did Texas assent to this treaty, 
 or can we cede part of a territory, but not of a State? 
 These are grave questions; they raise the point 
 whether Texas is not now a part of our territory, 
 and whether her people may not now rightfully claim 
 tlie protection of our government and laws. Rec- 
 ollect this was not a question of settlement, under 
 the powers of this government, of a disputed bound- 
 ary. The treaty declares, as respects Texas, that 
 we "c£(Ze to his Catholic majesty.'''' Commenting on 
 this in his speech before referred to, Mr. Clay says 
 it was not a question of the power in case of dispute 
 "of fixing a boundary previously existing." "It 
 was, on the contrary, the case of an avowed cession 
 of territory from the United States to Spain." Al- 
 though, then, the government may be competent to 
 fix a disputed boundary, by ascertaining as near as 
 practicable where it is ; "although, also, a State, with 
 the consent of this government, as in the case of 
 Maine, may cede a portion of her territory, — yet it 
 by no means follov.'s that this government, by treaty, 
 could cede a Territory of the ^Union. Could we by 
 treaty cede Florida to Spain, especially without con- 
 sulting the people of Florida? and, if not, the treaty 
 by which Texas was surrendered was, as Mr. Clay 
 contended, inoperative. 
 
 By the treaty of 1803, by which, we have seen, 
 Texas was acquired by us from France, we pledged 
 our faith to France, and to the people of Texas, 
 never to surrender that territory. The 3d article of 
 that treaty declares: "the inhabitants of the ceded 
 territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the 
 United States, and udmitled as soon as possible, ac- 
 cording to the principles of the federal constitution, 
 to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and 
 immunities of cifizens of the United States; and in the 
 mean time they shall be protected in the free enjoy- 
 ment of their liberty, property, and the religion 
 which they profess." Such was our pledge to 
 France and to the people of Texas, by the treaty of 
 purchase; and itour subsequent treaty of cession to 
 Spain was not unconstitutional and invalid, it was 
 a^gross infraction of a previous treaty, and of one 
 of the fundamental conditions under which Texas 
 was acquired. 
 
 Here, then, are many grave questions of constitu- 
 tional power. Could the solemn guaranty to 
 France, and to the people of Texas, be rescinded by 
 a treaty with Spain? Can this government, by its 
 own mere power, surrender any portion of its terri- 
 tory? Can it cut off a territory without the consent 
 of Us people, and surrender them and the territory to 
 
 a foreign power? Can it expatriate and expel from 
 the Union its o\vn citizens, who occupy that terri- 
 tory, and change an American citizen into a citizen 
 of Spain or Mexico? These are momentous ques- 
 tions, which it is not necessary now to determine, 
 and in regard to which I advance at this time no 
 opinion. Certain, however, it is, that, with the con- 
 sent of the people of Texas, Congress can carry out 
 the solemn pledges of the treaty of 1803, and admit 
 one or more States from Texas into the Union. 
 
 The question as to Texas is, in any aspect, a ques- 
 tion of the re-establishment of our ancient bounda- 
 ries, and the repossession of a territory most reluct- 
 antly surrended. The surrender of territory, even 
 if constitutional, is almost universally inexpedient and 
 unwise, and, in any event, when circumstances may 
 seem to demand such a surrender, the territory thus 
 abandoned should always be reacquired whenever it 
 may be done with justice and propriety. Inde- 
 pendent of these views, we have the recorded opin- 
 ion of John Q,uincy Adams as President, and Henry 
 Clay as Secretary of State, and also of Gen. Andrew 
 Jackson as President, and Martin Van Buren as 
 Secretary of State, that Texas ought to be reannex- 
 ed to the Union. On the 26th of March, 1825, Mr. 
 Clay, in conformity with his own views, and the 
 express d'lrections of Mr. Mams as President, directed 
 a letter to Mr. Poinsett, our Minister at Mexico, in- 
 structing him to endeavor to procure from Mexico 
 a transfer to us of Texas to the Del Norte. In this 
 letter Mr. Clay says, "the President wishes you to 
 effect that object." Mr. Clay adds: "The line of the 
 Sabine approaches our great western mart nearer 
 than could be v/ished. Perhaps the Mexican gov- 
 ernment may not be unwilling to establish that of 
 the Rio Brassos de Dios, or the Rio Colorado, or 
 the Snow Mountains, or the Rio del Norte, in lieu of 
 it." Mr. Clay urges, also, the importance of 
 having entirely within our limits "the Red riv^er and 
 Arkansas, antl their respective tributary streams." 
 
 On the 15th of March, 1827, Mr. Clay again re- 
 newed the effort to procure the cession of Texas. 
 Ill his letter of instruction, of that date, to our min- 
 ister at Mexico, he says: "The Presirfejii has thought 
 the present might be an auspicious period for urging 
 a negotiation at Mexico, to settle the boundary of 
 the two republics." "If we could obtain such a 
 boundary as we desire, the government of the United 
 States might be disposed to pay a reasonable pecu- 
 niary compensation. The boundary we prefer is 
 that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio del 
 Norte in the sea, shall ascend that river to the mouth 
 of the Rio Puereo, thence ascending this river to its 
 source, and from its source by a line due north to 
 strike the Arkansas; thence following the southern 
 bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42° 
 north; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the 
 South sea." And he adds, the treaty may provide 
 "for the incorporation of the inhabitants into tHe 
 Union." 
 
 Mr. Van Buren, in his letter, as Secretary of State, 
 to our minister at Mexico, dated August 95, 1829, 
 says: "It is the wish of the President that you 
 should, without delay, open a negotiation with the 
 Mexican government for the purchase of so much 
 of the province of Texas as is hereinafter described. "- 
 "He is induced, by a deep conviction of the ?Ta/ neces- 
 sity of the proposed acquisition, not only as a guard 
 for our western frontier, and the protection of J^ew 
 Orleans, but also to secure forever to the inhabitants 
 of the valley of the Mississippi the undisputed and 
 undisturbed possession of the navigation of that 
 
river." "The territory, of which a cession is de- 
 sired by the United States, is all that part of the 
 province of Texas which lies east of a line begin- 
 ning at the Gulf of Mexico, in the centre of the 
 desert, or grand prairie, which lies west of the Rio 
 Nueces." And Mr. Van Buren adds, the treaty 
 inay provide "for the incorporation of the inhabit- 
 ants into the Union." And he then enters into a 
 long and powerful argument of his own, in favor of 
 the reacquisition of Texas. 
 
 On the 20th of March, 1833, General Jackson, 
 through Mr. Livingston as Secretary of State, re- 
 news to our minister at Mexico the former "instruc- 
 tions on the subject of the proposed cession." On 
 the 2d of July, 1835, General Jackson, through Mr. 
 Forsyth as Secretary of State, renews the instruc- 
 tions to obtain the cession of Texas, and expresses 
 "an anxious desire to secure the very desirable alter- 
 ation in our boundary with Mexico." On the 6th 
 of August, 1835, General Jackson, through Mr. 
 Forsyth as Secretary of State, directs our minister 
 at Mexico to endeavor to procure for us, from that 
 government, the following boundary, "beginning at 
 the Gulf of Mexico, proceeding along the eastern 
 bank of the river Rio Bravo del Norte, to the 37th 
 parallel of latitude, and thence along that parallel to 
 the Pacific." This noble and glorious proposition 
 of General Jackson would have secured to us, not 
 only the whole of Texas, but also the largest and 
 most valuable portion of upper California, together 
 with the bay and liarbor of San Francisco, the best 
 on the western coast of America, and equal to any 
 in the world. If, then, it was deemed, as it is clear- 
 ly proved, most desirable to obtain the reannexation 
 of Texas, down to a period as late as August, 1835, 
 is it less important at this period? 
 
 We find the administration of Messrs. Adams and 
 Clay in 1825 and 1827, and that of Jackson and 
 Van Buren, in 1829, and subsequently in 1833 and 
 1835, making strenuous efforts to procure the rean- 
 nexation of Texas, by a purchase from Mexico, at 
 tl\c expense of millions of dollars. Let us observe 
 also the dates of these efforts: That of the first, by 
 Messrs. Adams and Clay, in March, 1825, was 
 •within three years only after the recognition of the 
 independence of Mexico by this country, and prior 
 to its full recognition by other powers; and it was 
 within less than five years subsequent to the final 
 ratification of the treaty by which we surrendered 
 Texas, not to Mexico, but to Spain. Now, as Spain 
 had not then recognised the independence of Mexico, 
 and the war was still waging between those nations, 
 the only title which Mexico had to Texas, -was by 
 a successful revolution, and is precisely the same 
 title, and depending on the same principles, as that 
 now possessed by Texas. The same remarks apply 
 to the subsequent eflorts of Messrs. Adams and 
 Clay in 1827, and of Jackson and Van Buren in 
 1829, to acquire Texas by purchase from Mexico. 
 And even at the latest period, no more time had 
 elapsed between the date of the recognition of the 
 independence of Mexico, and the proposed purchase 
 from her, than the time (now about seven years) 
 since our recognition of the independence of Texas. 
 Throughout the period of all the.se proposed treaties, 
 the war was waging between Mexico and Spain. 
 The brave Porter, our own gallant commodore, 
 commanded the Mexican navy, aided by many 
 Anierican officers and crews. In the eai-lierpart, also, 
 of the conflict on the land, the gallant Perry, and the 
 brave Magee, an American officer, with a combined 
 American and Mexican army, had defeated the 
 
 royal forces of Spain in many a glorious conflict. 
 Throughout this whole period, Mexico was solicit-' 
 tjig-and obtaining the aid of our countrymen, on the 
 ocean and on the land; and it is more than doubtful 
 whether, in the absence of that assistance, Mexico 
 would yet have achieved her independence. On the 
 27th July 1829, Barradas, with a Spanish army of 
 four thousand men, captured the Mexican city of 
 Tampico, which he held until the 10th September of 
 the same year. Yet, on the 25th August, 1829, 
 whilst the fate of this expedition was yet undeter- 
 mined, the administration of Jackson and Van 
 Buren, as we have seen, proposed the purchase of 
 Texas from Mexico, if, then, there be any force in 
 the objections, that Texas was aided in her conflict by 
 American citizens, that the war is still waging, (which 
 it is not,) or that the independence of Texas is still 
 unrecognised by Mexico, or thata treaty with Mexico 
 (as we had with Spain) had been ratified,~all these rea- 
 sons apply with far greater force against the proposed 
 purchase of Texas from Mexico in 1825, 1827, and 
 1829, when Mexico was yet unrecognised by Spain; 
 when our treaty, surrendering Texas to Spain, was 
 unrescinded, except by the revolution in Mexico; 
 and when our citizens were still aiding, as they al- 
 ways had done, the people of Mexico in their strug- 
 gle for independence. It is true, that, in 1837, with- 
 in a few weeks or months succeeding our recognition 
 of the independence of Texas, and before her recog- 
 niton by any foreign powers, it might have subject- 
 ed us to unjust imputations; and therefore might 
 have been deemed inexpedient, at such a time, and 
 under such circumstances, to reannex Texas by a 
 treaty to this Union. But now, when seven years 
 have elapsed since our recognition of the independ- 
 ence of Texas; and she has been recognized for many 
 years as an independent power by the great nations 
 of Europe; and her sovereignty fully established, and 
 fully acknowledged, there can be no objection to 
 such a treaty at this period. 
 
 The reasons assigned in 1825, 1827, 1829, 1833 
 and 1835, for the reannexation of Texas, apply now 
 with full force. These reasons were, that the Sabine, 
 as a boundary, was too near New Orleans; that the 
 defence of that city was rendered insecure; and that 
 the Arkansas and Red river, and all their tributaries, 
 ought to be in our own exchisive possession. The 
 present boundary is the worst which could be de- 
 vised. It is a succession of steps and curves, carv- 
 ing out the great valley of the West into a shape that 
 is absolutely hideous. It surrenders the Red river, 
 and Arkansas, and their numerous tributaries, for 
 thousands of miles, to a foreign power. It brings that 
 power u])on the Gulf, within a day's sail of the 
 mouth of the Mississippi, and in the interior, by the 
 curve of the Sabine, withm about one hundred miles 
 of the Mississippi. It places that power, for many 
 hundred miles, on the banks of the Red river, in im- 
 mediate contact with sixty thousand Indian warriors 
 of our own, and with very many thousand of the 
 fiercest savage tribes in Texas, there to be armed and 
 equipped for the work of death and desolation. It en- 
 ables a foreign power, with such aids, to descend the 
 Red river, to the junction of the Mississippi, there to 
 cut oft' all communication from above or below, to ar- 
 rest at that point all boats which were descending with 
 their troops and munitions of war for the defence of 
 New Orleans, and fall down suddenly on that city, 
 thus isolated from the rest of the Union, and sub- 
 jected to certain ruin. 
 
 From the mouth of the Mississippi to the Sabine 
 there is not a single harbor where an American ves- 
 
8 
 
 sel of war could find shelter; but westward of the 
 jmouth of the Sabine, in Texas, are several deep 
 bays and harbors; and Galveston, one of these, has 
 a depth of water equal to that at the mouth of the 
 Mississippi. Looking into the interior, along this 
 extraordinary boundary, we find a foreign power 
 stretching for many hundred miles along the Sabine 
 to the Red river; thence west several hundred miles 
 along that river to the western boundary of our In- 
 dian territories; thence north to the Arkansas, and 
 up that stream to the southern boundary of the ter- 
 ritory of Oregon, and at a point which, according to 
 the recent most able survey of Lieutenant Fremont, 
 is within twenty miles of the pass of the Rocky 
 mountains, which secures the entrance to Oregon. 
 We thus place a foreign power there, to move east- 
 ward or westward, upon the valley of the Columbia 
 or Mississippi. We place this power north of St. 
 Louis, north of a portion of Iowa, and south of New 
 Orleans, and along this line for severed thousand 
 miles in our rear. 
 
 Such is the boundary at present given to the val- 
 ley of the West; such the imminent dangers to 
 ■which it is subjected of Indian mas.sacre; such the 
 dismemberment of the great valley, and of many 
 of the noblest streams and tributaries of the Missis- 
 sippi; such the surrender of so many hundred miles 
 of our coast, with so many bays and harbors; such 
 the hazard to which New Orleans is subjected, and 
 the outlet of all our commerce to the gulf. Such is 
 our present boundary; and it can be exchanged for 
 one that will give us perfect security, that will place 
 our own people and our own settlements in rear of 
 the Indian tribes, and that will cut them off from 
 foreign influence; that will restore t ) us the uninter- 
 rupted navigation of the Red river and Arkansas, 
 and of all their tributaries; that will place us at the 
 north, upon a point to command the pass of Oregon, 
 and, on the south, to secure New Orleans, and ren- 
 der certain the command of the Gulf of Mexico. In 
 pursuing our ancient and rightful boundary, before 
 we surrendered Texas, along the Del Norte, we 
 are brought, by a western curve of that o;reat river, 
 to a point within four hundred miles of the Pacific 
 ocean, and where the waters of the Del Norte al- 
 most commingle with those that flow into the West- 
 ern ocean. Up to this point on the Del Norte it is 
 navigable for steamboats; and from that point to the 
 Pacific is a good route for caravans, and where, it 
 is believed, the Pacific may be united with the Del 
 Norte and the Gulf by a railroad, not longer than 
 that which now unites Buffalo and Boston; and 
 where, even now, without such a road, we could 
 command the trade of all the northern States of 
 Mexico, and of a very large portion of the western 
 coast of America. 
 
 The importance of Texas is thus described by 
 Mr. Clay, in his speech of the 3d of April, 1820: 
 
 "All the accounts concurred in representing Texas 
 to be extremely valuable. Its superficial extent 
 was three or four times greater than ihat of Florida. 
 The climate was delicious; the soil fertile; the mar- 
 gins of the rivers abounding in live-oak; and the 
 country admitting of easy settlement. It possessed, 
 moreover, if he were not misinformed, one of the 
 finest ports in the Gulf of Mexico. The produc- 
 tions of which it was capable, were suited to our 
 wants. The unfortunate captive of St. Helena 
 wished for ships, commerce, and colonies. We 
 have them all, if we do not wantonly throw them 
 away. The colonies of other countries are sepaj-a- 
 ted from them by vast seas, requiring great expense ! 
 
 to protect them, and are held subject to a constant 
 risk of their being torn from their grasp. Our colo- 
 nies, on the contrary, are united to, and form a part, 
 of our continent; and the same Mississippi, from 
 whose rich deposite the best of them (Louisicina) 
 has been formed, will transport on her bosom the 
 brave, the patriotic men from her tributary streams, 
 to defend and preserve the next most valuable — the 
 province of Texas." "He was not disposed to dis- 
 parage Florida; but its intrinsic value was incom- 
 parably less than that of Texas." 
 
 In the letter of instructions from Mr. Madison, aa 
 Secretary of State, of the 29th July, 1803, he says, 
 "the acquisition of the Floridas is still to be pursued." 
 He adds, the exchange of any part of western Lou- 
 isiana, which Spain may propose for "the cession ot 
 the Floridas," "is inadmissible." "In intrinsic value 
 there is no equality." "We are the less disposed also 
 to make sacrifices to obtain the Floridas; because their 
 position and the manifest course of events guaranty 
 an early and reasonable acquisition of them.'''' In Mr^ 
 Madison's letter, also, as Secretary of State, of the 
 8th July, 1804, he announces the opposition of Mr. 
 Jefferson "to a perpetual relinquishment of any ter- 
 ritory whatever eastward of the Rio Bravo." In the 
 message of President Houston of the 5th May, 
 1837, ihe says that Texas contains "four-fifths of aJi 
 the live oak now in the world." Cotton will be itg 
 great staple, and some sugar and molasses will be 
 produced. The grape, the olive, and indigo, arid 
 cocoa, and nearly all the fruits of the tropics will be 
 grown there also. In Texas are valuable mines of 
 gold and silver; the siver mine on the San Saba 
 having been examined and found to be among the 
 richest in the world. 
 
 In the recent debate in the British Parliament, 
 Lord Brougham said: "The importance of Texas 
 could not be overrated. It was a country of the 
 greatest capabilities, and was in extent full as large 
 as France. It possessed a sod of the finest and most 
 fertile character, and it was capable of producing aiJ. 
 tropical produce; and its climate was of a most 
 healthy character. It had access to the gulf, to the 
 river Mississippi, with which it communicated by 
 means of the Red river." The possession of Texas 
 would ensure to us the trade of Santa Fe and 
 all the northern States of Mexico. Above all, Texas* 
 is a large and indispensable portion of the valley of 
 the West. That valley once was all our own; but it- 
 has been dismembered by a treaty formed when the 
 West held neither of the high executive stations of 
 the government, and was wholly unrepresented in 
 the cabinet at Washington. The Red river and 
 Arkansas, divided and mutilated, now flow, with, 
 their numerous tributaries, for many thousand miles, 
 through the territory of a foreign power; and the 
 West has been forced back along the gulf, from the 
 Del Norte to the Sabine. If, then, it be true that 
 the sacrifice of Texas was made with painful reluc- 
 tance, all those who united in the surrender will re- 
 joice at .the reacquisition. 
 
 This is no question of the purchase of new terri- 
 tory, but of the re-annexation of that which once 
 was all our own. It is not a question of the exten- 
 sion of our limits, but of the restoration of former 
 boundaries. It proposes no new addition to the valley 
 of the Mississippi; but of its reunion, and all its wa- 
 ters, once more, under our dominion. If the Creator 
 had separated Texas from the Union by mountain 
 barriers, the Alps or the Andes, these might be plau- 
 sible objections; but he lias planed down the whole 
 valley, including Texas, and united every atom of 
 
the soil and every drop of the waters of the mighty 
 whole. He has linked their rivers with the great 
 Mississippi, and marked and united the whole for 
 the dommion of one government and the residence 
 of one people; and it is impious in man to attempt 
 to dissolve this great and glorious Union. Texas is 
 a part of Kentucky, a portion of the same great val- 
 ley. It is a part of New York and Pennsylvania, 
 a part of Maryland and Virginia, and Ohio, and of 
 all the western States, whilst the Tennessee unites 
 with it the waters of Georgia, Alabama, and Caro- 
 lina. The Alleghany, commencing its course in 
 New York, and with the Youghiogany, from Mary- 
 land, and Monongahela, from Virginia, merging with 
 the beautiful Ohio at the metropolis of western Penn- 
 sylvania, embrace the streams of Texas at the 
 mouths of the Arkansas and Red river, wlience theij 
 waters flow m kindred union to the gulf And here 
 let me say, that New York ought to reclaim for the 
 Alleghany its true original name, the Ohio, of which 
 it is a part, and so marked and called by that name 
 in the British maps, prior to 1776, one of which is 
 in the possession of the distinguished representative 
 from the Pittsburg district of Pennsylvania. The 
 words "Ohio" and "Alleghany," in two different In- 
 dian dialects, mean clear, as designating truly, in both 
 cases, the character of the water of both streams; and 
 hence it is that New York is upon the Ohio, and 
 truly stands at the head of the valley of the West. 
 The treaty which struck Texas from the Union, in- 
 flicted a blow upon this mighty valley. And who 
 will say that the West shall remain dismembered 
 and mutilated, and that the ancient boundaries of the 
 republic shall never be restored? Who will desire 
 to check the young eagle of America, now refixing 
 her gaze upon our former limits, and repluming her 
 pinions for her returning fligliL' What American 
 will say, that the flag of the Union shall never wave 
 again throughout that mighty territory; and that 
 what Jefferson acquired, and Madison refused to sur- 
 render, shall never be restored? Who will oppose 
 the re-establishmejit our glorious constitution, over 
 the whole of the mighty valley which once was 
 shielded by its benignant sway? Who will wish 
 again to curtail the limits of this great republican 
 empire, and again to dismember the glorious valley 
 of the West? Who will refuse to replant the banner 
 of the republic, upon our former boundary, or re- 
 surrender the Arkansas and Red river, and retrans- 
 fer the coast of the gulf? Who will refuse to heal 
 the bleeding wounds of the mutilated West, and re- 
 unite the veins and arteries, dissevered by the dis- 
 membering cession of Texas to Spain? To refuse 
 to accept the reannexation, is to resurrender the 
 Territory of Texas, and redismember the valley of 
 tlie West. Nay, more: under existing circum- 
 stances, it is to lower the flag of the Union before 
 the red cross of St. George, and to surrender the 
 Florida pass, the mouth of the Mississippi, the com- 
 mand of the Mexican gulf, and finally Texas itself, 
 into the hands of England. 
 
 As a question of money, no State is much more 
 deeply interested in the reannexation of Texas than 
 your own great Commonwealth of Kentucky. There, 
 if Texas becomes part of the Union, will be a great 
 and growing market for her beef and pork, her lard 
 and butter, her flour and corn; and there, within a 
 Very short period, would be found a ready sale for 
 more than a million dollars in value, of her bale- 
 rope and hemp and cotton-bagging. Nor can it be 
 that Kentucky would desire, by the refusal of re- 
 annexation, to mutilate and dismember the valley of 
 
 which she is a part; or that Kentucky would cur- 
 tail the limits of the repubhc, or diminish its pow- 
 er and strength and glory. It cannot be that Ken- 
 tucky will wish to see any flag except our own up- 
 on the banks of the Sabine and Arkansas and R-ed 
 river, and within a day's sail of the mouth of the 
 Mississippi, and the outlet of all her own commerce 
 in the Gulf Many of her own people are within 
 the limits of Texas, and its battle-fields are watered 
 with the blood of many of her sons. It was her 
 own intrepid Milam, who headed the brave three 
 hundred who, armed with rifles only, captured the 
 fortress of the Alamo, defended by heavy artillery, 
 and thirteen hundred of the picked troops of Mexico, 
 under one of their best commanders. And will 
 Kentucky refuse to re-embrace so many of her own 
 people? nor permit them, without leavmg Texas, to 
 return to the American Union? And if war should 
 ever again revisit our country, Kentucky knows that 
 the steady aim of the western riflemen, and the 
 brave hearts and stout hands, within the limits of 
 Texas, are, in the hour of danger, among the surest 
 defenders of the country, and especially of the valley 
 of the West. Tlie question of reannexation, and of 
 the restoration of ancient boundaries, is a much 
 stronger case than that of the purchase of^new terri- 
 tory. It is a stronger case also than the acquisition 
 of Louisiana or Florida; not only upon the ground 
 that these were both an acquisition of new territory, 
 but that they embraced a foreign people, dissimilar 
 to our own, in languttge, laws, and institutions; 
 and transferred without tlieir knowledge or consent, 
 by the act of a European king. More especially, 
 in a case like this, where the people of Texas occu- 
 py a region which was once exclusively our own; 
 and this people, in whom we acknowledge to reside 
 the only sovereignty over the whole and every por- 
 tion of Texas, desire the reannexation — that we can- 
 not re-establish our former boundaries, and restore 
 to us the whole or any part of the territory which 
 was once our own, is a proposition, the bare state- 
 ment of which is its best refutation. 
 
 Let us examine, now, some of the objections 
 urged against the reannexation of Texas. And 
 here, it is remarkable that the objections to the pur- 
 chase of Louisiana are the same now made in the 
 case of Texas; yet all now acknowledge the wisdom 
 of that great measure; and to have ever opposed it, 
 is now regarded as alike unpatriotic and unwise. 
 And so will it be in the case of Texas. The meas- 
 ure will justify itself by its results; and its oppo- 
 nents will stand in the same position now occupied 
 by those who oljjected to tlie purchase of Louisi- 
 ana. The objections, we have said, were the same, 
 and we will examine them separately. 1st. The 
 extension of territory; and 2d, the question of 
 slavery. 
 
 As to the extension of territory, it applied with 
 much greater force to the purchase of Louisiana. 
 That purchase annexed to the Union a territory dou- 
 ble the size of that already embraced within its lim- 
 its; whilst the reannexation of Texas, according to 
 the largest estimates, will add but one-seventh to the 
 extent of our territory. The highest estimate of the 
 area of Texas is but .318,000 square miles, whilst 
 that of the rest of the Union is 2,000,000 square 
 miles. Now, the British territory, on our own con- 
 tinent of Nortii America, exclusive of the West In- 
 dies, and north of our northern boundary, is 2,800,- 
 000 square miles, being .500,000 more than that of 
 our whole Union, with Texas united. Indeed, we 
 may add both the Californias to Texas, and unite- 
 
10 
 
 them all to the Union, and still the area of the whole 
 Avill be less than that of the British North Ameri- 
 can possessions. And is it an American doctrine, 
 that monarchies or despotisms are alone fitted for the 
 government of extensive territories, and that 
 a confederacy of States must be compressed 
 "within narrower limits? Of all the forms of govern- 
 ment, our confederacy is most specially adapted for 
 an extended territory, and might, without the least 
 ' danger, but with increased security, and vastly aug- 
 mented benefits, embrace a continent. Each State, 
 within its own limits, controls all its local concerns, 
 and the general government chiefly those which 
 appertain to commerce and our foreign relations. 
 Indeed, as you augment the number of States, the 
 bond of union is stronger; for the opposition of any 
 one State is much less dangerous and formidable, in 
 a confederacy of thirty State.5, than of three. On 
 this subject experience is tlie best test of truth. Has 
 the Union been endangered by the advance in tlie 
 number of States from thirteen'to twenty-six? Look 
 also at all the new States that have been added to 
 the Union since the adoption of the constitution, and 
 tell me what one of all of them, either in war or 
 peace, has ever failed most faithfully to perform its 
 duties; and what one of them has ever proposed or 
 threatened the existence of the government, or the 
 dissolution of the Union? No rebellion or insurrec- 
 tion has ever raised its banner within their lim- 
 its, nor have traitorous or union-dissolving conven- 
 tions, in war or in peace, ever been assembled with- 
 in the boundary of any of the new States of the 
 West; but in peace, they have nobly and«falthfully 
 performed all their duties to the Union; and in war, 
 the spirit of party has fled before an ardent patriot- 
 ism, and all have rushed to the standard of their 
 common country. From the shores of the Atlantic 
 and the lakes of the North; from the banks of the 
 Thames and the St. Lawrence, to those of the Ala- 
 bama and the Missi.ssippi; from the snows of Canada 
 to the sunny plains of the South— the soil of the 
 Union is watered with the blood of the brave and 
 patriotic chizcn soldiers of the West. And is it 
 England would persuade us our territory and popu- 
 lation will be too great to permit the reannexation of 
 Texas? Let us see how stands the case with her- 
 *self and other great powers of the world. The fol- 
 lowing facts are presented from the most recent 
 geographies: 
 
 British empire— area, 8,100,000 square miles; po- 
 pulation 200,000,000. 
 
 Russian empire— area, 7,500,000 square miles; po- 
 pulation 75,000,000. 
 
 Chinese empire— area, 5,500,000 square miles, po- 
 pulation 250,000,000. 
 
 Brazil— area, 3,000,000 square miles; population 
 6,000,000. ' 
 
 United States (including Texas)— area, 2,318,000 
 square miles; population 19,000,000. 
 
 Here is one monarchy, (the British empire,) nearly 
 four times as large as the United States, including 
 Texa.s; and one monarchy and three depotisms 
 combined, largely more than ten times, our area, 
 also including Texas; and to assert, under these 
 circumstances, that our government is to be over- 
 thrown or endanged by an addition of one-seventh 
 to its area, is to adopt the exploded argument 
 of kings and despots against our system of con- 
 federated States. 
 
 President Monroe, a citizen of one of the old 
 thirteen States, in his messa^'e of 1823, thus 
 -speaks of the effects of the purchase of Louisiana: 
 
 "This expansion of our population, and accession 
 of new States to our Union, have had the happiest 
 effect on all its highest interests. That it has emi- 
 nently augmented our resources, and added to our 
 strength and respectability as a power, is admitted 
 by all. It is manifest, that by enlarging the basis of 
 our system, and increasing the number of States, 
 the system itself has been greatly strengthened in 
 botli its branches. Consolidation and disunion 
 have thereby been rendered equally impracticable. 
 Each government, confiding in its own strength, has 
 less to apprehend from the other; and in conse- 
 quence, each, enjoying a greater freedom of action, 
 is rendered more efficient for all the purposes for 
 which it was mstituted." It is the system of con- 
 federate States, united, but not consolidated, and in- 
 corporating the great principle which led to the 
 adoption of the constitution — of reciprocal free trade 
 between all the States — that adapt such a government 
 to the extent of a continent. The greater the extent 
 of territory, the more enlarged is the power, and the 
 more augmented the blessings of such a govern- 
 ment. In war it will be more certain of success, and 
 tlierefore wars will be less frequent; and in peace, it 
 will be more respected abroad, and enjoy greater 
 advantages at home, and the less unfavorable will 
 be the influence on its pro.sperity, of the hostile 
 policy of foreign nations. It may then have a home 
 market, which, as the new and exchangeable pro- 
 ducts of various soils and climates are augmented, 
 will place its industry less within the controUing 
 infiaence of foreign powers. Especially is this im- 
 portant to the great manufacturing interest, that its 
 home market, which is almost its only market, 
 should be enlarged and extended by the accession of 
 new territory, and an augmented population, em- 
 braced within the boundaries of the Union, and 
 therefore constituting a part of the domestic market. 
 By the census of 1840, the total product of the 
 mining and the manufactures of the Union, was 
 ijS.282,194,985; and of this vast amount, by the trea- 
 sury report, but $9,469,962 was exported, and 
 found a market abroad. Almost its only market 
 was the home market, thus demonstrating the 
 vast importance to that "great interest of an acces- 
 sion of territory and population at home. 
 
 Nor is it only the mining and manufacturing in- 
 terests that would feel the influence of such a new 
 and 4'a])idly augmenting home market; but agricul- 
 ture, commerce, and navigation, the products of the 
 forest and fisheries, the freighting and .ship-building 
 interests, would all feel a new impulse; and the 
 great internal communications, by railroads and ca- 
 nals, engaged in transporting our own exchangeable 
 products, would find a great enlargement of their busi- 
 ness and profits, and lead onward to the completion 
 of the present and the construction of new improve- 
 ments — thus identifying more closely all our great 
 interests, bringing nearer and nearer to each other 
 the remotest portions of the mighty v/hole, multi- 
 )ilying their trade and intercourse, breaking down 
 the barriers of local and sectional prejudice, and 
 scouting the thought of disunion from the Ameri= 
 can heart, and leaving the very term obsolete. In- 
 deed, if we measure distance by the time in which 
 it is traversed, this Union, with Texas reannexed, 
 is much smaller in territory than the Union was at 
 the adoption of the constitution. Then, tlie jour- 
 ney from the capital to the then remotest corner of 
 the republic could not be traversed in less than a 
 month; while now, much less than one-half that 
 time will take us to the mouth of the Del Norte, 
 
11 
 
 the extreme southwestern limit of Texas. Such 
 are the conquests which steam has already effected, 
 upon the water and upon the land; and, when we 
 consider the wonderful advance which they are still 
 making, we must begin to calculate a journey upon 
 land, by steam, from the Atlantic to the Del Norte, 
 by hours, and not by weeks or months. And he 
 who, under such circumstances, would still say that 
 Texas was too large or distant for reannexation to 
 the Union, must have been sleeping since the appli- 
 cation of steam to locomotion. 
 
 But if Texas is too large for incoi-poration into the 
 Union, why is not Oregon also, which is nearly 
 double the size of Texas.' and if Texas is too remote, 
 why is not Oregon also, wlien ten days will take us 
 to the mouth of the Del Norte, whereas three months 
 by land, and five months by sea, must be required 
 for the journey to the mouth of the Columbia. 
 Texas, also, is a part of the valley of the Mississip- 
 pi, watered by the same streams, and united with it 
 by nature, as one and indivisible; whereas Oregon is 
 separated from us by mountain barriers, and po^n-s 
 its waters into another and distant ocean. And if 
 Oregoiv; although disputed, and occcupied by a for- 
 eign power, is, as I believe it to be, in truth and jus- 
 tice, all our own, Texas was once, and for many 
 years, within our limits, and may now again become 
 our own by the free and unanimous consent, already 
 given, of all by whom it is owned and occupied. I 
 have not thus contrasted Texas and Oregon with a 
 view to oppose to oppose the occupation of Oregon; 
 for I have always been the ardent friend of that 
 measure. I advocated it in a speech published long 
 before I became a member of the Senate, and now, 
 since the death of the patriotic and lamented Linn, 
 I am the oldest surviving member of the special 
 committee of the Senate which has pressed upon that 
 body, for so many years, the immediate occupation 
 of the whole Territory of Oregon. There, upon the 
 shores of the distant Pacific, if my vote can accom- 
 plifvh it, shall be planted the banner of the Union; 
 and, with my consent, never shall be surrendered a 
 single point of its coast, an atom of its soil, or a drop 
 of all its waters. But while I am against the sur- 
 render of any portion of Oregon, I am also against 
 the resurrender of the territory of Texas; for, diuguise 
 it as we may, it is a case of resun-enikr, when it once 
 was all oiu- own, and now again is ours, by the free 
 consent of those to whom it belongs, already given, 
 and waiting only the ceremony of a formal accept- 
 ance. Let not those, then, who advocate the occu- 
 pation of Oregon, tell us that Texas is too distant, 
 or too inaccessible, or too extensive for American 
 occupancy. Let the friends of Oregon reflect, also, 
 that Texas, at the head of the Arkansas, is contigu- 
 ous to Oregon, and within twenty miles of the pass 
 which commands the entrance through all that teni- 
 tory, and the occupation of which pass by a foreign 
 power, would separate the people and Territory of 
 Oregon from the rest of the Union, and leave them 
 an easy prey to the army of an invader. In truth, 
 Texas is nearly as indispensable for the safe and per- 
 manent occupation of Oregon, as it is for the security 
 of New Orleans and the Gulf. 
 
 The only remaining objection is the question of 
 slavery. And have we a question which is to cur- 
 tail the limits of the republic — to threaten its exist- 
 enct — to aim a deadly blow at all its great and vital 
 interests — to court alliances with foreign and with 
 hostile powers — to recall our commerce and expel 
 our manufactures from bays and rivers that once 
 were all our own — to strike down the flag of the 
 
 Union, as it advances towards our ancient bounda- 
 rv — to resurrender a migluy territory, and invite to 
 its occupancy the deadliest (in truth, the only) foes 
 this government has ever encountered.' Is anti- 
 slavery to do all this? And is it so to endanger New 
 Orleans, and the valley and commerce and outlet of 
 the West, that we would hold them, not by our own 
 strength, but by the slender tenure of the will and 
 of the mercy of Great Britain? If anti-slavery can 
 effect all this, may God, in his infinite mercy, save 
 and perpetuate this Union; for the efforts of man 
 would be feeble and impotent. The avowed object 
 of this party is the immediate abolition of slavery. 
 For this, they traverse sea and land; for this, they 
 hold conventions in the capital of England; and 
 there they brood over schemes of abolition, in asso- 
 ciation with British societies; there they join in de- 
 nunciations of their countrymen, until their hearts 
 are filled with treason; and they return home, 
 Americans in name, but Englishmen in feelings and 
 principles. Let us all, then, feel and know, whether 
 we live North or South, that this party, if not van- 
 quished, must overthrow the government, and dis- 
 solve the Union. This party propose the immedi- 
 ate abolition of slavery throughout the Union. If 
 this were practicable, let us look at the consequences. 
 By the returns of the last census, the products of the 
 slaveholding States, in 1840, amounted in value to 
 $404,429,638. These products, then, of the South, 
 must have alone enabled it to furnish a home mar- 
 ket for all the surplus maimfactures of the North, as 
 also a market for the products of its forests and fish- 
 eries; and giving a mighty impulse to all its com- 
 mercial and navigating interests. Now, nearly all 
 these agricultural products of the South which ac- 
 complish all these great purposes, is the result of 
 slave labor; and, strike down these products by the 
 immediate abolition of slavery, and the markets of 
 the South, for want of the means to purchase, will 
 be lost to the people of the North; and North and 
 South will be involved in one common ruin. Yes, 
 in the harbors of the North (at Philadelphia, New 
 York, and Boston) the vessels would rot at their 
 wharves for want of exchangeable products to carry; 
 the building of ships would cease, and the grass 
 would grow in many a street now enUvened by an 
 active and progressive industry. In the interior, 
 the railroads and canals would languish for want 
 of business; and the factories and manufactur- 
 ing towns and cities, decaying and deserted, 
 would stand as blasted monuments of the folly of 
 man. One universal bankruptcy would overspread 
 the country, together with all the demoralization 
 and crime which ever accompany such a catastro- 
 phe; and the notices at every corner would point 
 only to sales on execution, by the constable, the sher- 
 iff, the marshal, and the auctioneer; whilst the beg- 
 gars would ask us in the streets, not for money, but 
 for bread. Dark as the picture may be, it could not 
 exceed the gloomy reality. Such would be the ef- 
 fects in the North; whilst in the South, no human 
 heart can conceive, nor pen describe, the dreadful 
 consequences. Let us look at another result to the 
 North. The slaves being emtmcipated, not by the 
 South, but by the North, would fly there for safety 
 and protection; and three millions of free blacks 
 would be thrown at once, as if by a convulsion of 
 nature, upon the States of the North. They would 
 come there to their friends of the North, who had 
 given them freedom, to give them also habitation, 
 ibod, and clothing; and, not having it to give, many 
 of them would perish from want and exposufej 
 
12 
 
 ■whilst the wretched remainder would be left to live 
 as they could, by theft or charity. They would 
 still be a degraded caste, free only in name, without 
 the reality of freedom. A few might earn a 
 wretched and precarious subsistence, by competing 
 with the white laborers of the North, and reducing 
 their wages to the lowest point in the sliding scale 
 of starvation and misery; whilst the poor-house and 
 the jail, the asylums of the deaf and dumb, the 
 blind, the idiot and insane, would be filled to over- 
 flowing; if, indeed, any asylum could be afforded to 
 the millions of the negro race whom wretchedness 
 and crime would drive to despair and madness. 
 
 That these are sad realities, is proved by the 
 census of 1840. I annex in an appendix a table, 
 marked No. 1, compiled by me entirely from the 
 official returns of the census of 1840, except as to 
 prisons and paupers which m-e obtained from city 
 and State returns, and the results are as follows: 
 
 1st. The number of deaf and dumb, blind, idiots, 
 and insane, of the negroes in the non-slaveholding 
 States, is one out of every 96; in the slaveholding 
 States, it is one out of every 672, or seven to one in 
 favor of the slaves in this respect, as compared with 
 the free blacks. 
 
 2d. The number of whites, deaf and dumb, blind, 
 idiots, and insane, in the non-slaveholding States, is 
 one in every, 561, being nearly six to one against the 
 free blacks in the same States. 
 
 3d. The number of negroes who are deaf and 
 dumb, blind, idiots, and insane, paupers, and in 
 prison in the non-slaveholding States, is one out of 
 every 6, and in the slaveholding States, one out of 
 every 154; or twenty-two to one against the free 
 blacks, as compared with the slaves. 
 
 4th. Taking the two extremes of north and south, 
 in Maine, the number of negroes returned as deaf 
 and dumb, blind, insane, and idiots, by the census of 
 1840, is one out of every twelve, and in slave- 
 holding Florida, by the same returns, is one of 
 every eleven hundred and five; or ninety-two to one, 
 in favor of the slaves of Florida, as compared with 
 the free blacks of Maine. 
 
 By the report of the secretary of state of Massa- 
 chusetts (of the 1st November, 1843) to the legisla- 
 ture, there were then in the county jails, and houses 
 of correction in that State, 4,020 "whites, and 364 
 negroes; and adding the previous returns of the 
 State prison, 255 whites and 32 blacks ; ma- 
 king in all 4,275 whites, and 396 free blacks; 
 being one out of every one hundred and seventy of 
 the white, and one out of every twenty-one of the 
 free black population: and by the official returns of 
 the census of 1840, and their own official returns to 
 their own legislature, one out of every thirteen of 
 the free blacks of Massachusetts was either deaf 
 and dumb, blind, idiot, or insane, or in prison — thus 
 proving a degree of debasement and misery, on the 
 part of the colored race, in that truly great State, 
 which is appalling. In the last official report to the 
 legislature of the warden of the penetentiary of 
 eastern Pennsylvania, he says: "The whole num- 
 ber of prisoners received from the opening of the 
 institution, (October 25, 1829,) to January 1, 1843, 
 ie 1,622; of these, 1,004 were white males, 533 
 colored males; 27 wliite females, and 58 colored 
 femalesf" or one out of every 847 of the white, and 
 one out of every sixty-four of the negro population; 
 and of the white female convicts, one out of every 
 16,288; and of the colored female convicts, one out 
 of every 349 in one prison, showing a degree of 
 guilt and debasement on the pai't of the colored 
 
 females, revolting and unparalleled. When such 
 is the debasement of the colored females, far ex- 
 ceeding even that of the white females in the most 
 corrupt cities of Europe, extending, too, throughout 
 one-half the limits of a great State, we may begia 
 to form some idea of the dreadful condition of the 
 free blacks, and how much worse it is than that of 
 the slaves, whom we are asked to liberate and con- 
 sign to a similar condition of guilt and misery. 
 Where, too, are these examples? The first is in the 
 great State of Massachusetts, that, for 64 years, has 
 never had a slave, and whose free black population, 
 being 5,463 in 1790, and but 8,669 at present, is 
 nearly the same free negro population, and their de- 
 scendants, whom for more than half a century she has 
 strived,but strived in vain, to elevate in rank and com- 
 fort and morals. The other example is the eastern half 
 of the great State of Pennsylvania, including Phila- 
 delphia, and the Q.uakers of the State, who, with an 
 industry and humanity that never tired, and a charily 
 that spared not time or money, have exerted every ef- 
 fort to improve the morals and better the condition of 
 their free black population. But where are the great 
 results? Let the cen.sus and the reports of the pris- 
 ons answer. Worse — incomparably worse, than the 
 condition of the slaves, and demonstrating that the 
 free black, in the midst of his friends in the North, 
 is sinking lower every day in the scale of want and 
 crime and misery. The regular physicians' report 
 and review, published in 1840, says the "facts, then, 
 show an increasing disproportionate number of col- 
 ored prisoners in the eastern penitentiary." In con- 
 trasting the condition, for the same year, of the pen- 
 itentiaries of all the non-slaveholding States, as 
 compared with all the slaveholding States in which 
 returns are made, I find the number of free blacky 
 is fifty-four to one, as compared with the slaves, in 
 proportion to population, who are incarcerated in 
 these prisons. There are no paupers among the 
 slaves, whilst in the non-slaveholding States great is 
 the number of colored paupers. 
 
 From the Belgian statistics, compiled by Mr. 
 duetelet, the distinguished secretary of the Royal 
 Academy of Brussels, it appears that in Belgium 
 the number of deaf and dumb was one out of every 
 2,180 persons; in Great Britain, one out of every 
 1,539; in Italy, one out of every 1,539; and in Eu- 
 rope, one out of every 1,474. Of the blind, one out 
 of every 1,009 in Belgium; one out of every 800 in 
 Prussia; one out of every 1,600 in France; and one 
 out of every 1,666 in Saxony; and no further re- 
 turns, as to the bhnd,are given. — [Belgian Jnnuaire, 
 1836, pages 213, 215, 217.] But the table shows an 
 average in Europe of one of every 1,474 of deaf 
 and dumb, and of about one out of every 1,000 of 
 blind; whereas our census shows, of the deaf and 
 dumb whites of the Union, one out of every 2,193; 
 and of the blacks in the non-slaveholding States, one 
 out of every 656; also, of the blind, one out of every 
 2,821 of the whites of the Union, and one out of 
 every 516 of the blacks in the non-slaveholding 
 States. Thus we have not only shown the condi- 
 tion of the blacks of the non-slaveholding States to 
 be far worse than that of the slaves of the South, 
 but also for worse than the condition of the people 
 of Europe, deplorable as that may be. It has been 
 heretofore shown that the free blacks in the non- 
 slaveholding States were becoming, in an aitgmenled 
 proportion, more debased in morals as they increased 
 in numbers; and the same proposition is true in other 
 respects. Thus, by the census of 1830, the number 
 of deaf and dumb of the free blacks of the non- 
 
13 
 
 slaveholding States, was one out of every 996; and 
 of blind, one out of every 893; whereas we have 
 seen, by the census of 1840, the number of free 
 blacks, deaf and dumb, in the non-slaveholding 
 States, was one out of every 656; and of blind, one 
 out of every 516. In the last ten years, then, the 
 alarming fact is proved, that the proportionate num- 
 ber of free black deaf and dumb, and also of blind, 
 has increased about fifty per cent. No statement as to 
 the insane or idiots is given in the census of 1830. 
 
 Let us now examine the future increase of free 
 blacks in the States adjoining the slaveholding 
 States, if Texas is not reannexed to the Union. By 
 the census of 1790, the number of free blacks in the 
 States (adding New York) adjoining the slavehold- 
 ing States, was 13,953. In the States (adding New 
 York) adjacent to the slaveholding States, the num- 
 ber of free blacks, by the census of 1840, was 
 148,107; being an aggregate increase of nearly eleven 
 to one in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Now, by the census 
 and table above given, the aggregate number of free 
 blacks who were deaf and dumb, blind, idiot or in- 
 sane, paupers, or in prisons, in the non-slaveholding 
 States, was 26,342, or one in every six of the whole 
 number. Now if the free black population should 
 increase in the same ratio, in the aggregate, in New 
 York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, 
 and Illinois, from 1840 to 1890, as it did from 1790 
 to 1840, the aggregate free black population in these 
 six States would be, in 1890, 1,600,000; in 1865, 
 800,000; in 1853, 400,000; and the aggregate number 
 in these six States of free blacks, according to the 
 present proportion, who would, then be deaf and 
 dumb, blind, idiot or insane, paupers or in prison, 
 would be, in 1890, 266,666; in 1865, 133,333; and in 
 1853, 66,666; being, as we have seen, one-sixth of 
 the whole number. Now, if the annual cost of sup- 
 porting these free blacks in these asylums, and other 
 houses, including the interest on the sums expended 
 in their erection, and for annual repairs, and the 
 money disbursed for the arrest, trial, conviction, 
 and transportation of the criminals, amounted to 
 fifty dollars for each, the annual tax on the people of 
 these six States, on account of these free blacks, 
 would be, in 1890, $13,333,200; in 1865, $6,666,600; 
 and in 1853, |,3,333,300. 
 
 Does, then, humanity require that we should render 
 the blacks more debased and miserable, by this pro- 
 cess of abolition, with greater temptations to crime, 
 with more of real guilt, and less of actual coniforts.' 
 As the free blacks are thrown more and more upon 
 the cities of the North, and compete more there with 
 the white laborer, the condition of the blacks be- 
 comes worse and more perUous every day, until we 
 bave already seen, the masses of Cincinnati and 
 Philadelphia rise to expel the negro race beyond 
 their limUs. Immediate abolition, whilst it deprived 
 thp South of the means to purchase the products 
 Effid manufactures of the North and West, would fill 
 those States with an inundation of free black popula- 
 tion, that would be absolutey intolerable. Imme- 
 diate abolition, then, has but few advocates; but if 
 emancipation were not immediate, but only gradual, 
 wliilst slavery existed to any great extent in the 
 slaveholding States bordering upon the States of the 
 North and West, this exptvlsion, by gradual aboli- 
 tion, of the free blacks into the States immediately 
 north of them, would be very considerable, and 
 rapidly augmenting every year. If this process of 
 
 fradual abolition only dourjled the number of free 
 lacks, to be thrown upon the States of the North 
 
 and West, then, a reference to the tables before pre- 
 sented, proves that the number of free blacks in New 
 York, Pennsylvania, New .Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, and 
 Illinois would be, in 1890, 3,200,000; in 1865, 1,600,- 
 000; and in 1853, 800,000; and that the annual ex- 
 penses to the people of these six States, on account of 
 the free blacks would be, in 1890, $26,666,400; in 
 1865, $13,333,200; and in 1853, $6,666,600. 
 
 It was in view, no doubt, of these facts, that Mr. 
 Davis, of New York, declared, ujion the floor of 
 Congress, on the 29th December, 1843, that "the 
 abolition of slvaery in the southern States must be 
 followed by a dehtge of black population to the JVwtA, 
 filling our jai'/s and poor ho%ises, ai\d bringing destruc- 
 tion upon the labming pm'tion of our people." Dr. 
 Duncan also, of Cincmnati, Ohio, ui his speech in 
 Congress on the 6th January, 1844, declared the 
 result of abolition would be to inundate the North 
 with free blacks, described by him as "paupers, 
 beggars, thieves, assassins, and desperadoes; all, or 
 nearly all, penniless and destitute, without skill, 
 means, industry, or perseverance to obtain a liveli- 
 hood; each possessing and cherishing revenge for 
 supposed or real wrongs. No man's fireside, person, 
 family, or property, would be safe by day or night. 
 It note reqxdres the whole energies of the law and 
 the whole vigilance of the police of all our princi- 
 pal cities to restrain and keep in subordination the 
 few straggling/ree negroes which now infest them." 
 If such be the case now, what will be the result 
 when, by abolition, gradual or immediate, the num- 
 ber of these free negroes shall be doubled and quad- 
 rupled, and decupled, in the more northern of the 
 slaveholding States, before slavery had receded from 
 their limits, and nearly the whole of which free 
 black popvdation would be thrown on the adjacent 
 non-slaveholding States. Much, if not all of this 
 great evil, will be prevented by the reannexation of 
 Texas. Since the purchase of Louisiana and Flo- 
 rida, a:id the settlement of Alabama and Mississippi, 
 there have been carried into this region, as the 
 census demonstrates, from the States of Delaware, 
 Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky, half a million 
 of slaves, including their descendants, that other- 
 wise would now be within the limits of those four 
 States. Such has been the result as to have dimin- 
 ished, in two of these States nearest to the North, 
 the number of their slaves far below what they were 
 at the census of 1790, and to have reduced them at 
 the census of 1840, in Delaware, to the small num- 
 ber of 2,605. Now, if we double the rate of dimin- 
 ution, as we certainly will by the reannexation of 
 Texas, slavery will disappear from Delaware in 
 ten years, and from Maryland in twenty, and have 
 greatly diminished in Virginia and Kentucky. As, 
 then, by reannexation, slavery advances in Texas, 
 it must recede to the same extent from the more north- 
 ern of the slaveholding States; and consequently, 
 the evil to the northern States, from the expulsion into 
 them of free blacks, by abolition, gradual or immedi- 
 ate, would thereby be greatly mitigated, if not entirely 
 prevented. In the District of Columbia, by the 
 drain to the new States and Territories of the South 
 and Southwest, the slaves have been reduced from 
 6,119 in 1830, to 4,694 in 1840; and if, by the re- 
 annexation, slavery receded in a double ratio, then 
 it would disappear altogether from the District in 
 twelve years; and that question, which now occu- 
 pies so much of the time of Congress, juid threatens 
 so seriously the harmony, if not the existence of the 
 union, would be put at rest by the reannexation of 
 Texas. This reannexation, then, would only changs 
 
14 
 
 the locality of the slaves, and of the slaveholdlng 
 States, without augmenting their number. And is 
 Texas to be lost to the Union, not by the question 
 of the existence of slavery, but of its locality only? 
 If slavery be considered by the States of the North 
 as an evil, why should they prefer that its location 
 should be continued in States on their border, rather 
 than in the more distant )3ortions of the Union. It 
 is clear that, as slavery advanced in Texas, it would 
 recede from the States bordering on the free States 
 of the North and West; and thus they would be re- 
 leased from actual contact with what they consid- 
 er an evil, and also from all influx from those States 
 of a large and constantly augmenting free black pop- 
 ulation. As regards the slaves, the African being 
 from a tropical climate, and from the region of the 
 burning sands and sun, his comfort and condition 
 ■would be greatly improved, by a transfer from 
 northern latitudes to the genial and most salubri- 
 ous climate of Texas. There he would never suf- 
 fer from that exposure to cold and frost, which he 
 feels so much more severely than any other race; 
 and there, also, from the great fertility of the soil, 
 and exuberance of its products, his supply of food 
 "would be abundant. If a desire to improve the con- 
 dition and increase the comforts of the slave really 
 animated the anti-slavery party, they would be the 
 ■warmest advocates of the reannexation of Texas. 
 Nor can it be disguised that, by the reannexation, 
 as the number of free blacks augmented in the slave- 
 holding States, they would be diffused gradually 
 through Texas into Mexico, and Central and South- 
 ern America, where nine-tenths of their present pop- 
 ulation are already of the colored races, and where, 
 from their vast preponderance in number, they are 
 not a degraded caste, but upon a footing, not merely 
 of legal, but what is far more important, of actual 
 equality with the rest of the population. Here, 
 then, if Texas isreannexed throughout the vast re- 
 gion and salubrious and delicious climate of Mexi- 
 co, and of Centra] and Southern America, a 
 large and rapidly increasing portion of the 
 African race will disappear from the limits of 
 the Union. The process will be gradual and 
 progressive, without a shock, and without a con- 
 Yulsion; whereas, by the loss of Texas, and the 
 imprisonment of the slave population of the 
 Union within its present limits, slavery would hv- 
 crease in nearly all the slaveholdlng Slates, and a 
 change in their condition would become impossible; 
 or if it did take place by sudden or gradual aboli- 
 tion, the result would as certainly be the sudden or 
 gradual introduction of hundreds of thousands of 
 free blacks into the States of the North; and if their 
 condition there is already deplorable, how would it 
 be when their number there should be augmented 
 tenfold, and the burden become intolerable?" Then, 
 indeed, by the loss of the markets of Texas — by 
 the taxation imposed by an immense free black pop- 
 ulation, depressing the value of all property — then, 
 also, from the competition for employment of the 
 free black with the white laborer of the North, — 
 his wages would be reduced until they would fall 
 to ten or twenty cents a day, and starvation and 
 misery would be introduced among the white labor- 
 ing population. There is but one way in which 
 tlie North can escape these evils; and that is the re- 
 annexation of Texas, which is the only safety-valve 
 for the whole Union, and the only practicable outlet 
 for the African population, through Texas, into Mex- 
 ico and Central and Southern America. There is 
 a congenial climaie for the African race. There 
 
 cold and want and hunger will not drive the African, 
 as we see it does in the NorUi, into the poor-house 
 and the jail, and the asylums of the idiot and insane. 
 There the boundless and almost unpeopled territory 
 of Mexico, and of Central and Southern America, 
 with its delicious climate, and most prolific soil, 
 renders most easy the means of subsistence; and 
 there they would not be a degraded caste, but equals 
 among equals, not only by law, but by feeling and 
 association. 
 
 The medical writers all say, (and experience con- 
 firms the assertion,) that ill-treatment, ovei-work, 
 neglect in infancy and sickness, drunkenness, want, 
 and crime, are the chief causes of idiocy, blindness,, 
 and lunacy; whilst none will deny that want and 
 guilt fill the poor-house and the jail. Why is it, then,, 
 that the free black is (as the census proves) much 
 more wretched in condition, and debased in morals, 
 than the slave? These free blacks are among the 
 people of the North, and their condition is most de- 
 plorable in the two great States of Maine and Mas- 
 sachusetts, where, since 1780, slavery never existed. 
 Now, the people of the North are eminently hu- 
 mane, religious, and intelligent. What, then, is the 
 cause of the misery and debasement of their free 
 black population? It is chiefly in the fact that the 
 free blacks, among their real superiors — our own 
 white population — are, and ever will be, a degraded 
 caste, free only in name, without any of the bless- 
 ings of freedom. Here they can have no pride, and 
 no aspirations — no .spirit of industry or emulation; 
 and, in most cases, to live, to vegetate, is their only 
 desire. Hence, the efforts to improve their condi- 
 tion, so long made, in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 
 and many other States, have proved utterly unavail- 
 ing; and it grows worse every year, as that popula- 
 tion augments in numbers. In vain do many of the 
 States give the negro the right of sufli'rage, and all 
 the legal privileges of the whites: the color marks 
 the dreadful difference which, here, at least, ages 
 cannot obhterate. The negroes, however equal iri 
 law, ai'e not equal in fact. They are nowhere found 
 in the colleges or universities, upon the bench or at 
 the bar, in the muster, or the jury-box, in legisla- 
 tive or executive stations; nor does marriage, the 
 great bond of society, unite the white with the ne- 
 gro, except a rare occurrence of such unnatural al- 
 liance, to call forth the scorn or disgust of the whole 
 commvmity. Indeed, I could truly say, if passing 
 into the immediate presence of the Most High, that,, 
 in morals and comforts, the free black is far below 
 the slave; and that, while the condition of the slave 
 has been greatly ameliorated, and is improving ev- 
 ery year, that of the free blacks (as the oflicial ta- 
 bles demonstrate) is sinking in misery and debase- 
 ment at every census, ^aa, from time to time, by 
 emancipation and other causes, they are augmented 
 in number. Can it, then, be sinful to refuse to 
 change the condition of the slaves to a position of 
 far greater wretchedness and debasement, by re- 
 ducing them to the level of the free-negro race, to 
 occupy the asylums of the deaf and dumb, the 
 blind, the idiot and insane; to wander as mendicants;, 
 to live in pestilent alleys and hovels, by theft op 
 charity; or to prolong a miserable existence in the 
 poor-house or the jail? All history proves that no 
 people on earth are more deeply imbued ■with 
 the love of freedom, and of its diffusion 
 everywhere, among all who can appreciate 
 and enjoy its blessings, than the people of the South;, 
 and if the negro slave were improved in morals and 
 comforts, and rendered capable of self-government, 
 
15 
 
 by emancipation, it would not be gi-adufJ, but im-7 South America — area, 6,500,000 square miles; pop- 
 mediate, if the profits of slavery were tenfold greater ulation 14,000,000—1,000,000 white, 4,000,000 In- 
 than they are. Is" slavery, then, never to disappear dians; and the remainder, being 9,000,000, blacks and 
 from the Union? If confined within its present other colored races. 
 
 limits, I do not perceive when or how it is to termi 
 
 nate. It is tme, Mr. George Tucker, the distinguish- -region, can never be opened but by the reannexa- 
 
 rsity,' tion of Texas; but in that event, there, in that ex- 
 
 ed Virginian, and professor in their great university 
 has demonstrated that, in a period not exceeding 
 eighty years, and probably less, from the density 
 of population in all the slaveholding States, hired 
 labor would be as abundant and cheap as slave 
 labor, and that all pecunimij motive for the continu- 
 ance of slavery would then have ceased. But would 
 it, therefore, then disappear? No, it certainly would 
 not; for, at the lowest ratio, the slaves would then 
 number at least ten millions. Could such a mass 
 be emancipated? And if so, what would be the re- 
 sult' We have seen, by the census and other proof, 
 that one-sixth of .the free blacks must be supported 
 at the public expense; and that, at the low rate of 
 ^50 each, it would cost |,80,000,000 per annum to 
 be raised by taxation to support the free blacks then 
 in the South requiring support, namely: 1,666,666, if 
 manumission were permitted; but as such a tax could 
 not be collected, emancipation would be as it now is, 
 prohibiled by Imo, and slavery could not disappear in 
 this manner, even when it became unprofitable. 
 No, ten milhons of free blacks, permitted to roam at 
 large in the Omits of the South, could never be toler- 
 ated. Again, then, the question is asked, is slavery 
 never to disappear from the Union? This is a start- 
 ling and momentous question, but the answer is 
 easy, and the proof is clear; it%vill certainly disappear 
 if Texas is reannexed to the Union; not by abolition, 
 but against and in spite of all its frenzy, slowly, 
 and gradually, by diffusion, as it has already thus 
 nearly receded from several of the more northern 
 of the slaveholding States, and as it will continue 
 thus more rapidly to recede by the reannexation of 
 Texas, and finally, in the distant future, without a 
 shock, without abolition, without a convvdsion, 
 disappear into and through Texas, into Mexico and 
 Central and Southern America. Thus, that same 
 overruling Providence that watched over the land- 
 ing of the emigrants and pilgrims at Jamestown 
 and Plymouth; that gave us the victory in our strug- 
 gle for independence; that guided by His inspiration 
 the framers of our wonderful constitution; that has 
 thus far preserved this great Union from dangers 
 so many and imminent, and is now shielding 
 it from abolition, its most dangerous and in- 
 ternal foe — will open Texas as a safety-valve,, 
 into and through which slavery will slowly and 
 gradually recede, and finally disappear into the, 
 boundless regions of Mexico, and Central anu 
 Southern America. Beyond the Del Norte, slavery 
 will not pass; not only because it is forbidden by 
 law, but because the colored races there prepon- 
 derate in the ratio of tea to one over the whites; and 
 liolding, as they do, the government, and most of 
 the offices in their own possession, they will never 
 permit the enslavement of any portion of the colored 
 race which makes and executes the laws of the 
 country. In Bradford's Atlas, the facts are given 
 as follows: 
 
 Mexico — area, 1,690,000 square miles; population 
 8,000,000 — one-sixth white, and all the rest Indians, 
 Africans, mulattoes, zambos, and other colored 
 ffaces. 
 
 The outlet for our negro race, through this vast 
 
 tensive country, bordering upon our negro popula- 
 tion, and four times greater in area than the whole 
 Union, with a sparse population of but three to the 
 square mile, where nine-tenths of the population is 
 of the colored races, there, upon that fertile soil, and 
 in that delicious climate, so admirably adapted to 
 the negro race, as all experience has now clearly 
 proved, the free black would find a home. There, 
 also, as slaves, in the lapse of time, from the density 
 of population and other causes, are emancipated, 
 they will disappear from time to time west of the 
 Del Norte, and beyond the limits of the Union, 
 among a race of their own color; will be diff'used 
 throughout this vast region, where they will not be 
 a degraded caste, and where, as to climate, and social 
 and moral condition, and all the hopes and comforta 
 of life, they can occupy, among equals, a position 
 they can never attain in any part of this Union. 
 
 The reannexation of Texas would strengthen and 
 fortify the whole Union, and antedate the period 
 when our own country would be the first and great- 
 est of all the powers of the earth. To the South, 
 and Southwest it would give peace and security; to 
 agriculture and manufactures, to the products of the 
 mines, the forest, and fisheries, new and important 
 markets, that otherwise must soon be lost forever. 
 To the commercial and navigating interests, it would 
 give a new impulse; and not a canal or a railroad 
 throughout the Union, that would not derive in- 
 creased business, and augmented profits; whilst the 
 great city of New York, the centre of most of the 
 business of the Union, would take a mighty step in 
 advance towards that destiny which must place her 
 above London in wealth, in business and popu- 
 lation. Indeed, when, as Americans, we look at 
 the city of New York, its deep, accessible and ca- 
 pacious harbor, united by canals and the Hudson, 
 with the St. Lawrence and the lakes, the Ohio, and 
 the Mississippi, with two-thirds of the imports, and 
 one-third of the exports of the whole Union, with, 
 all its trade, internal, coastwise, and foreign, and 
 reflect how great and rapidly augmenting an acces- 
 sion to its business would be made by the reanex- 
 ation of Texas; and know that, by the failure of this 
 measure, what is lost to us is gained by England, 
 can we hesitate, or do we never wish to see the day 
 when New York shall take from London the tri- 
 dent of the ocean, and the command of the com- 
 merce of the world? Or do we prefer London to^ 
 New York, and England to America? And do tho 
 opponents of reannexation suppose that a British 
 Parliament, and not an American Congress, sits in 
 the capitol of the Union. Shall, then, Texas be our 
 own, with all its markets, commerce, and products, 
 or shall we drive it into the arms of England, now 
 outstretched to receive it, and striving to direct its 
 destiny? If we refuae the reannexation, then, by the 
 force of circumstances, soon passing beyond the 
 control as well of, this country as of Texas, she will 
 pass into the hands of England. The refusal of re- 
 annexation will, of course, produce no friendly feel- 
 ings in Texas tov/ards this country. United with 
 
 Central America — area, 186,000 square miles; po- ; this will be the direct appeal of England to the iil- 
 pulation nearly 2,000,000 — one-sixth white, and the terests of Texas. She will offer to Texas a mar- 
 jreat negroes, zambos, and other colored races. ) ket in England, free of duty, for all her cotton, upon 
 
16 
 
 tke assent of Texas to receive in exchange British 
 manufactures free of duty; and such a treaty would 
 no doubt soo» be concluded. The ships and mer- 
 chants atid capital of England will be transported 
 to the coast of Texas. Texas has neither ships, nor 
 capital, nor manufactures, but England will supply 
 all, and receive in return the cotton of Texas. Two 
 rations with reciprocal free trade are nearly iden- 
 tical in feeling and interest, except that the larger 
 power will preponderate, and Texas become a com- 
 mercial dependency of England, and isolated from 
 us in feelijig.s, in interest, in trade, and intercourse. 
 Texas would then be our great rival in the cotton 
 markets of the world, and she would have two vast 
 ndvantages over the cotton-growing interests of the 
 Union: Ist, in sending to England her cotton, free of 
 duty, which is an advantage of 7| per cent., aug- 
 mented five per cent, thereon by the act of 15th 
 May, 1840, 3 Victoria, chap. 17, which made the 
 duties paid in England on our cotton crop of 1840, 
 ^,247,800, ajid all which, to the extent of their 
 crop, would be saved to the planters of Texas, giv- 
 ing them this great advantage over our planters, 
 Ct<.rried out into all the goods manufactured in Eng- 
 land out of the free cotton of Texas, and also de- 
 priving our cotton manufacturers of the advantage 
 tliey now enjoy from this duty, over the cotton 
 manufacturers of England. 2d. In enabhng the 
 planters of Texas to receive, in exchange for their 
 cotton, the cheap manufactures of England free of 
 duty. These two causes combined, would give the 
 Texas cotton planters an advantage of at least 20 
 
 ger cent, over the cotton planters of the Union, 
 uch a rivalry we could not long maintain; and cot- 
 ton planting would gradually decline in the Union, 
 and with that dechne, would be lost the markets of 
 the South for the hemp, and beef, and pork, and 
 flour of the West, and' the manufactures of the 
 !North. Now, is it just, is it safe or expedient, to 
 place the South anci the Southwest in a position in 
 "which they will constantly behold an adjacent cot- 
 ton-growing country supplanting them in the cul- 
 ture and sale of their great staple, for the reason that 
 the one is, and the other is not, a part of the Union? 
 Must we behold Texas every day selling her cotton 
 to England free of all duty, whilst our cotton is 
 subjected to a heavy impost? and must we also per- 
 ceive Texas receiving in exchange the manufactures 
 of England free of duty, whilst here they are ex- 
 cluded by a prohibitory tariff? Can the tariff itself 
 Stand such an issue; or, if it does, can the Union 
 sustain the mighty shock? Daily and hourly, to the 
 South and Southwest, would be presented the strong 
 inducement to unite icitli Texas, and secure the 
 same markets free of duty for their cotton, and re- 
 ceive the same cheap manufactures, free of duty, in 
 exchange. Nor would tliese be the only dangers 
 Incurred, and temptations presented, by this fearful 
 experiment. We would see the exports of Texas 
 carried directly abroad from their own pmis, and the 
 imports brought into their own ports directly in 
 exchange; thus building up their own cities, 
 and their own commerce, whilst here, they 
 •would see that same business transacted for 
 them, chiefly in New York, Boston, and Philadel- 
 j)hia. They would see New York receiving annu- 
 ally one hundred millions of imports, nearly fifty 
 millions of which was for resale to them, and all 
 ■which they would receive directly in their own ports 
 if united with Texas, thus striking down nearly one 
 half the commerce of the great city of New York, 
 and, transferring it to the South and Southwest. 
 
 The South and Southwest, whilst they would per- 
 ceive the advancing prosperity of Texas, and theic 
 own decline, would also feel, that the region with 
 which they were united had placed them in this 
 position, and subjected them to these disasters by 
 the refusal of reannexation. Whatever tlie result 
 may be, no true friend of the Union can desire to 
 subject it to such hazards; and this alone ought to be 
 a conclusive argument in favor of the reannexation 
 of Texas. One of three results is certain to fol- 
 low from the refusal of reannexation: 1st. The 
 separation of the South and Southwest from the 
 North, and their reunion with Texas. Or, 2d. 
 The total overthrow of the tariff. Or, 3d. A system 
 of unbounded smuggling through Texas into the - i 
 West, and Southwest. Accompanying the last re- I 
 
 suit, would be a disregard of the laws, and an utter ' 
 
 demoralization of the whole country, a practical re- 
 peal of the tariff, and loss of the revenues which it 
 supplies, and a necessary resort to direct taxation to 
 support the government. 
 
 As a commercial dependency, Texas would be 
 almost as much under the control of England, as if 
 she were a colony of England; and in the event of 
 war between that nation and this, the interests of 
 Texas would all be on the side of England. It 
 would be the interest of Texas, in the event of such 
 a war, to aid England to seize New Orleans, or at 
 least in blockading the mouth of the Mississippi, 
 so as to exclude the cotton of the West from 
 a foreign market, and leave to Texas almost 
 the entire monopoly. Even if Texas were neu- 
 tral, certainly our power would not be as strong , 
 in the gulf for the defence of New Orleans, 
 and the mouth of the Mississippi, as if we owned 
 and commanded all the streams which emptied into 
 it — as if their people were our countrymen, and all 
 the rivers and harbors and coast of Texas were our 
 own. We should be weaker, then, without Texas, 
 even if she remained neutral; but I have shown it 
 would be her interest to exclude our cotton from 
 foreign markets, and to co-operate with England for 
 that purpose. But if she did remain neutral, could 
 she preserve, or would England respect, her neu- 
 trality? Without an army, ships, or forts, no one 
 will pretend that her neutral position could be main- 
 tained; and England could enter any of her streams 
 or harbors, and take possession of any of her soil at 
 pleasure. Would she do so in the event of a war 
 with America? Let the events of the last war an- 
 swer the question. Then, within sight of Valparaiso, 
 within the waters of neutral Spain, she captured the 
 Essex, after a sanguinary and glorious defence. 
 This was as complete a violation of the neutreJ i 
 
 rights of Spain, under the law of nations, as if she 
 had entered upon her soil to molest us. At Payal, 
 Porto Praya, and Tunis, she captured other Ameri- 
 can vessels, within the harbors and under the guns 
 of the forts of neutral powers; and, indeed, as to 
 neutral ships and goods, and all the maritime rights 
 of neutral nations, she acted the part of the outlaw 
 and buccaneer, rather than of a civilized kingdom; 
 and violated the neutral rights of all the world. Nor 
 were her lawless acts confined to the coasts and 
 harbors of neutral powers, but extended also to an 
 actual use and occupation of their soil. During the 
 last war, Spain was at peace with England and 
 America; but England, in open violation of the neu- ;| 
 
 tral rights of Sj)ain, seized upon a portion of Florida, , 
 
 (then a Spanish territory,) whence she fulminated 
 her incendiary appeals to the slaves for a servile in- 
 surrection and massacre; and commenced, at Pensa- , 
 
17 
 
 cola, her first preparations for the attack of New Or- 
 leans. And such, precisely, would be the conduct of 
 Great Britain, in the event of another war with 
 America. She would land suddenly at any point of 
 the coast of Texas, and move along the Sabine, in 
 the Territory of Texas, to the .'2;reat bend, where it 
 approaches within about one hundred miles of the 
 Mississippi; and the intermediate territory Ijeing but 
 tliinly settled, she could advance rapidly across, 
 seize the passage of the Mississippi, and cut off all 
 communication from above, and descend upon New 
 Orleans. Or she might proceed a little further, 
 through the territory of Texas to Red river, the 
 southern bank of which is within the limits of Tex- 
 as, and equip her expedition; then Ijy water descend 
 the Red river, exciting a sei-vile insurrection, and 
 seize the Mississippi at the mouth of Red river. All 
 these movements she might and would make through 
 Texas. In this way she would seize and fortify her 
 position on the Mi-ssissippi, and New Orleans must 
 fall, if cut off from all communication from above. 
 But, even if she only retained the single point on 
 the Mississippi, it would as effectually command its 
 outlet, and arrest its commerce ascending or descend- 
 ing, as if possessed of New Orleans. Whatever 
 point she seized on the Mississipjii, there she would 
 entrench and fortify, and tens of thousands of lives, 
 and hundreds of millions of dollars, would be re- 
 quired in drivmg her from this position. All this 
 would be prevented by the reannexation of Texas. 
 The Sabine and Red river would then be all our 
 own, and no such movement could be made for the 
 seizure of the Mississippi. Nor should it be for- 
 gotten, that, when she reached the Red river, and at 
 a navigable point upon its southern bank in Texas, 
 there she would meet sixty thousand Indian war- 
 riors of our own, and half as many of Texas, 
 whom her gold, and her intrigues and promises 
 would, as they always have done, incite to the work 
 of death and desolation. If we desire to know 
 what she would do under such circumstances, let us 
 look back to Hampton and the Raisin, and they 
 will answer the question. If for no other rea- 
 son, the fact that for many hundred miles you have 
 placed these Indians on the borders of Texas, sep- 
 arated only by the Red river, and on the frontiers of 
 Louisiana and Arkansas, demands that, as an act of 
 justice to these States, and as essential for their se- 
 curity and that of the Mississippi, you should have 
 pcssession of Texas. Our boundary and limits will 
 always be incomplete, without the possession of 
 Texas; and v.'ithout it the gi-eat valley and its 
 mightiest streams will remain forever dismembered 
 and mutilated. Now, if we can acquire it, we should 
 accomplish tlie object; for, in all jirobability, the op- 
 portunity, now neglected, will be lost forever. There 
 may have been good reasons, a few weeks or months 
 succeeding the recognition of the independence of Tex- 
 as, and belbre it was recognised by any other power, 
 why it might then have been premature to have re- 
 annexed the territory; but now, when eignt years 
 liave elapsed since the declaration and establishment 
 of the independence of Texas, and seven years since 
 it was recognised by us, and several years since the 
 recognition by France, Holland, and England, there 
 can be no possible objection to the measure. 
 
 I have shown that, in the event of a war with 
 England, Texas, if we repelled her from our em- 
 brace, v/oald become a complete dependency of 
 EngJiUid, ahenated from us in feeling, in trade and 
 j iiitercourse, and identified in all with England. But 
 would it rest here? No. Texas would first become 
 A dependency, and then, in fact, a colony of Eng- 
 
 land; and her arms, and ships, and power, would 
 be thus transported to the mouth of tlie Mississippi. 
 The oi-igin of the immense empire of England in In- 
 dia, was in two small trading establishments. Then 
 followed a permanent occupancy of part of the coast; 
 and India in time became a British colony. And so 
 will it be with Texas, which can furnish England — 
 what it is noio ascertained India never can — a sup- 
 ply of cotton. The largest vote ever given in Texas 
 was about 12,000. Of this the Bi'itish emigrants 
 and British party now number about 1,000; which, 
 by the unfriendly feelings created by a final refusal 
 of reannexation, and the necessity of seeking another 
 alliance, would be immediately increased to four 
 thousand, leaving a majority of 4,000 only against 
 a union with England. Immediately a rapid emi- 
 gration from England to Texas would be commenced 
 under their colonization laws, which give the emi- 
 grant a home, and make him a voter in six months, 
 and five thousand English emigrants would over- 
 come the majority of 4,000, and give England, 
 through the ballot-box, tlie command of Texas. 
 The preperation for this colonization of Texas from 
 England has already been made. One English 
 contract has already been signed with the govern- 
 ment of Texas, for the emigration there of one 
 thousand families; and three thousand one hun- 
 dred more would give the majority to England. It 
 maybe, to avoid the difficulty as to slavery at home, 
 the nominal government for local purposes would 
 be left with Texas, or rather with English voters 
 and merchants in Texas; but in all that concerns the 
 commerce and foreign relations of Texas, in all that 
 concerns the occupancy and use of Texas in the 
 event of war, the supremacy and authority of the 
 British Parliament would be acknowledged. Much 
 is concealed as regards the ultimate designs of Eng- 
 land in regard to Texas; for to acknowledge them 
 now would be to defeat them, by insuring reannex- 
 ation to the Union; but enough has transpired to 
 prove her object. Let us examine the facts. Three 
 treaties were made between Great Britain and Tex- 
 as, viz: on the 13th, 14th, and 16th of November, 
 1840. The preamble of one of these is as follows: 
 
 "Her Majesty, the dueeii of the United Kuigdom 
 of Great Britain and Ireland, being desirous of put- 
 ting an end to the hostilities Vw'hich still continue to 
 be carried on between Mexico and Texas, has of- 
 fered her mediation to the contending parties, to 
 bring about a pacification between them." 
 
 Article 1. "The republic of Texas agrees that if, by 
 means of the mediation of her Britannic Majesty, an 
 unlimited truce shall be established between Mexico 
 and Texas, within 30 days after this present conven- 
 tion shall have been communicated to the Mexiccin 
 government by her Britannic Majesty's mission at 
 Mexico; and if, within six months from the day that 
 that communication shall have been so made, Mex- 
 ico shall have concluded a treaty of peace with Tex- 
 as, then, and in such case, the republic of Texas will 
 take upon itself a portion amounting to cf 1,000,000 
 sterling of the capital of the foreign debt contracted 
 by the republic of Mexico, before the 1st of Janua- 
 ry, 1835?" 
 
 Tlie first article of the next treaty declares : 
 "There shall be reciprocal liberty of commerce 
 and navigation between and amongst the citizens of 
 the republic of Texas and the subjects of her Brit- 
 annic Majesty." The third article authorizes Brit- 
 ish merchants to carry on tlieir business in Texas, 
 ■ and British vessels of tear to enter freely all her ports. 
 I Next comes a treaty between Great Britain and 
 TexaSj which grants to England the right of search 
 
18 
 
 as fully and effectually, and in terms more obnox- 
 ious, than the celebrated quintuple treaty to which 
 it refers, and adopts. It grants to the vessels of war 
 of both parties, the right of searching merchant ves- 
 sels by either party, and expressly provides for the 
 exercise of this right, "in the gulf of Mexico." 
 It provides also forthe exercise of this right, when- 
 ever either of the parties shall have reason to suspect 
 that the vessel is or has been engaged in the slave- 
 trade, or has been fitted otU for the said trade; and all 
 this is to be done, whether the vessel carries the flag 
 of Texas or not. For saving us from the conse- 
 quence of the quintuple treaty, and the right of search 
 which it granted, by inducing France to refuse to rat- 
 ify that treaty, General Cass, our minister there, has 
 received and deserved the thanks of the whole Amer- 
 ican people. He demonstrated that such a right of 
 search would be fatal to the free navigation of the 
 ocean, and subject the commerce of the world to 
 the supervision of British cruisers. But here is a 
 treaty, containing all the obnoxious provisions of 
 the quintuple treaty, in regard to the right of search, 
 and others that are still more dangerous. That 
 treaty was made, too, with nations differing in lan- 
 guage, and in many other respects, from our own; 
 and therefore more easily distinguishable than the 
 people and vessels of Texas. As the flag is not 
 to designate the national character of the vessel, 
 how can these vessels of Texas, that are thus to be 
 searched on suspicion, be distinguishable; and what is 
 to prevent American vessels and American crews 
 from being carried for condemnation within the 
 ports of England? Recollect, also, that under this 
 treaty, the cruisers of England and, indeed, 
 the whole British navy, or any part of it, may be 
 brought into the Gulf of Mexico, and stationed in 
 the narrow pass, commanding the whole outlet of 
 the gulf, and all the commerce to and from the 
 Mississippi. To the right of search, under what- 
 ever name or form, especially within our own seas, 
 and upon our own coasts, we never have assented, 
 and nerer can assent; but here, under pretext of search- 
 ing the vessels of Texas, the navy of England,or any 
 part of it, may occupy the only outlet of the gulf 
 of Mexico, and all our vessels entering the gulf, or 
 returning from the mouth of the Mississippi, must 
 pass by and under the supervision of British 
 cruisers, subject to seizure and detention, on sus- 
 picion of being Texas vessels, concerned in the 
 slave-trade. The British navy may thus also be 
 quartered on the southern coast of Florida, and 
 along the coasts of Cuba and Mexico, to seize upon 
 Cuba whenever an opportunity presents. Such is 
 the influence which it is thus proved, by official doc- 
 uments. Great Britain has already obtained in 
 Texas. It is here proved, that Great Britain "of- 
 fered her mediation" to Texas to obtain peace with 
 Mexico, and that she has already induced Texas to 
 assume, conditionally, one million pounds sterling of 
 the debt which Mexico owes in England, with 
 all the accumulating interest from the 1st of 
 January, 1835. A nation so feeble as Texas, 
 which should owe so heavy a debt in Eng- 
 land, with the payments secured by treaty, 
 would be as completely within British influence as 
 though already a British colony, especially when 
 we consider the other most extraordinary privileges 
 which she has already granted to England, inclu- 
 ding the right of search. In the official proclamation 
 of June 15"^ 1843, Presidcit Houston says: "An ofti- 
 cal communication has been received at the depart- 
 nt of State, from her Brilannic Majesty's charge 
 
 patch he had received from her Majesty's charge 
 d'affaires in Mexico, announcing to this government 
 the fact that the President of Mexico would forth- 
 with order a cessation of hostilities on his part; 
 therefore, I, Sam. Houston, President of the Re- 
 public of Texas, do hereby declare and proclaim 
 that an armistice is established, to continue during 
 the pendency of negotiations between the two coun- 
 tries, and until due notice of an intention to resume 
 hostilities (should such an intention hereafter be en- 
 tertained by either party) shall have been formally 
 announced through her Britannic Majesty''s charge 
 d'affaires at the respective governments." Is not 
 Texas already dependent upon Eiiglaiid, when Eng- 
 land obtains for her an armistice, and the President 
 of Texas announces that this will continue until its 
 termination be announced by England? 
 
 In the message of the President of Texas of the 
 12th of December, 1843, he speaks of the "gen- 
 erous and friendly disposition, and active and 
 friendly offices of England." He speaks, also, of 
 "injuries and indignities inflicted" by this govern- 
 ment upon Texas, and declares "that reparation haa 
 been demanded." Such is the wonderful advance 
 in Texas of the influence of England, that she has 
 succeeded in having it announced in an executive 
 message to the people of Texas that England is their 
 friend, and that we are their enemies. If all this had been 
 predicted three years since, it would have been deem- 
 ed incredible; and if Texas is not reannexed, she ia 
 certain, within a few years more, to become first 
 a commercial dependency, and then a colony, ia 
 fact, if not in name, of England. When we regard 
 the consequences which have already followed the 
 mere apprehension of the refusal of reannexation, 
 what wdl be the result in Texas when reannexation 
 is positively and forever rejected? When this is 
 done, and Texas is repulsed with contempt or in- 
 difference, when her people are told, The flag of the 
 Union shall never wave over you, go! — go where 
 you may, to England, if you please, — who can doubt 
 the result' To doubt is wilful blindness; and whilst 
 we will have lost a most important territory, and an 
 indispensable portion of the valley of the West, 
 England will have gained a dependency first, and 
 then a colony; and we shall awake from our slum- 
 bers when, amid British rejoicings and the sound of 
 British cannon, the flag of England shall w /e 
 upon the coast and throughout the limits of^'* x;a3; 
 and a monarchy rises up on our own cont^^ it and 
 on our own borders, upon the grave of a rK^public. 
 Yes, this is not a question merely between us cuid 
 Texas, but a question between the advance of Brit- 
 ish or American power; and that, too, within the 
 very heart of the valley of the West. It is a ques- 
 tion also between the advance of monarchy £md re- 
 publicanism throtighout the fairest and most fertile 
 portion of the American continent, and is one of the 
 mighty movements in deciding the great que.stion 
 between monarchy and republicanism, which of the 
 two forms of government shall preponderate through- 
 out the world. In the North, the flag of England, 
 waves from the Atlantic to the Pacific over a 
 region much more extensive than our own; and 
 if it must float also for several thousand 
 miles upon the banks of the tributaries of the 
 great Mississippi, and along the gulf, from the 
 Sabine to the Del Norte, we will be surrounded 
 on all sides by England in America. In the gulf, 
 her supremacy would be clear and absolute; and in 
 the great interior, she would hang on the rear of 
 Louisiana and Arkansas, and within two days* 
 
 d'affaires near this government, founded upon a des- march of the Mississippi, while her forts vrould 
 
19 
 
 stand, and her flag; would wave, for more than a thou- 
 sand miles, on the banks of the Arkansas, the Sa- 
 bine, and Red river, and in immediate contact with 
 sixty thousand Indian warriors of our own, and 
 half as many more of what would tlien be British 
 Indians, within the present limits of Texas. If any 
 doubt her course as to the Indians, let them refer to 
 her policy in this respect during the reTolution and 
 the last war, and they will find that the savage has 
 always been her favorite ally, and that she has shed 
 more American blood, by the aid of the tomahawk 
 and scalping-knife, than she ever did in the field of 
 fair and open conflict. And has she become more 
 friendly to the American people? Look at her forts 
 and her traders, occupying our own undoubted ter- 
 ritory of Oregon; look at her press in England 
 and Canada, teeming with abuse of our people, gov- 
 ernment, and laws; look at her authors and tourists, 
 from the more powerful and insidious assaults 
 of Ahson, descending in the scale to the false- 
 hoods and arrogance of Hall and Hamilton, and 
 down yet lower to the kennel jests and vulgpr 
 abuse of Marryatt and Dickens, industriously cir- 
 • culated throughout all Eui'ope; and never was her 
 hostility so deep and bitter, and never have her 
 •efforts been so great to render us! odious to all the 
 ■world. The government of England is controlled 
 by her aristocracy, the avowed enemies of republican 
 
 fovernment, wherever it may exist. And never was 
 Ingland endeavoring to advance more rapidly to 
 ■almost universal empire, on the ocean and the land. 
 Her steamers, commanded by naval ofiicers, trav- 
 erse nearly every coast and sea, whilst her empire 
 ■extends upon the land. In the East, the great and 
 populous empires of Scinde and Aflghanistan have 
 been virtually subjected to her sway, whilst yet 
 another province now bleeds in the claws of the 
 British lion. Though saturated with blood, and 
 •gorged with power, she yet marches on her course 
 to universal dominion; and here, upon our own 
 borders, Texas is next to be her prey. By opium 
 and powder, she; has subdued China, and seized 
 many important positions on her coast. In Africa, 
 Australasia, and the Isles of the Pacific, she has won- 
 derfully increased her pov/er; and in Europe, she 
 still holds the key of the Mediterranean. In- the 
 Gulf of Mexico, she has already seized, in Hon- 
 duras, large and extensive possessions, and most 
 commanding positions, overlooking from the inte- 
 rior the outlet of the gulf; while British Guiana, in 
 ;South America, stretching between the great Oronoco 
 ,and the mighty Amazon, places her in a position 
 i(aided by her island of Trinidad, at the mouth of 
 the Oronoco) to seize upon the outlet of those gi- 
 gantic rivers. With her West India islands, from 
 .Jamaica, south of Cuba, in a continuous chain to 
 ithe most northern of the Bahamas, she is prepared 
 ito seize the Florida pass, and the mouth of the Mis- 
 isissippi; and let her add Texas, and the coast of 
 Texas, and her command of the gulf v/ill be as ef- 
 fectual as of the British channel. It v/ould be a 
 British sea; and soon, ujion the shores of the gulf, 
 her capital would open the great canal which mtist 
 unite (at the isthmus) the Atlantic and Pacific, and 
 give to her the key of both the coasts of America. 
 Her possessions in the world are now n-arly quad- 
 ruple the extent of our own; with more than ten- 
 fold the population, apd more tlian oiu- area on our 
 ■own continent; and, while she aims openly at the 
 possession of Oregon on the north, Texas on the 
 west is to become hers by a policy less daring, but 
 more certain in its resuls. We can yet rescue Tex- 
 as from her grasp, imd, by reannexation, iiiaure at 
 
 least the command of our own great sea, and the 
 the outlet of our own great river. And shall we 
 neglect the reacquisition, and throw Texas, and the 
 command of the gulf, into the arms of England? 
 Whoever would do so, is a monarchist, and prefers 
 the advance of monarchical institutions over our 
 own great valley: he is also an Englishman in feel- 
 ings and principle, and would recolonize the Ameri- 
 can States. 
 
 And when Texas, by the refusal of reannexation, 
 shall have fallen uito the arms of England, and the 
 American people shall behold the result, let all who 
 shall have aided in producing the dread catastrophe 
 flee from the wrath of an indignant nation, which 
 will burst forth like lava, and roll in fiery torrents 
 over the political gi-aves of all who shall thus hatre 
 contributed to the ruin of their country. And who 
 would place England at New Orleans or the mouth 
 of the Mississippi.' Who would place England on 
 the banks of the Sabine, the Arkansas, and Red 
 river? Who would place England along the coasts, 
 and bays, and harbors, and in the great interior of 
 Texas, and see her become a British colony, or — 
 what is the same to us — a British commercial de- 
 pendency? Could Texas be a power friendly to U3, 
 even if not a British colony? Would our refused of 
 reannexation secure her friendship? Would her ri- 
 valry in our great staple insure her good will? 
 Would the monopoly of her trade by England in- 
 crease her attachment to ourselves? No. Let reax- 
 nexation be now finally refused, and she becomes a 
 foreign and a hostile power, with all her interests an- 
 tagonistical to our own. Indeed, all history tells us 
 that there is no friendship between foreign and con- 
 tiguous nations, presenting so many points of col- 
 lision, so many jarring interests, and such a rivalry 
 in the sale and production of the same great sta- 
 ple. 
 
 Much is now urged in many of the States in favof 
 of securing a home marlcet for our manufactures. 
 Now here in Texas is a home market, that may be 
 secured forever, of incalculable and rapidly increas- 
 ir^ value — a market that is already lost to us for 
 the present, as the table of exports demonstrates, 
 and, all must admit, will be thrown, by the rejection 
 of reannexation, into the possession of England; 
 for, whether Texas does or does not become a 
 British colony, it is certain that a treaty of recip- 
 rocal free trade would secure to England the 
 monopoly of her markets and commerce. The cot- 
 ton of Texas would find a market free of duty in 
 England, and her manufactures a market free of 
 duty in Texas, whilst discriminating imposts on 
 our vessels and cargoes would effectually exclude 
 them from her ports. Although England might 
 not, so long as her treaty with us remained uncan- 
 celled, receive gratuitously the cotton of Texas free 
 of duty; yet we concede the principle, and act upon 
 it, that she may do it, not gratuitously, but for a 
 consideration, viz: that Texas receives in return 
 British manufactures free of duty; — and such we 
 know is to be the n;st result of the final rejection of 
 reannexation. Thus England would effectually mo- 
 nopolize the commc'-ce and business of Texas, and 
 in her harbors would float the flag of the English 
 mercantile marine, soon to be the precursor of the 
 next step in the drama of our disgrace and ruin; 
 when the flag of England would float over a British 
 province, carved out of the dismembered valley of 
 the West. But if this last result were not certain; if 
 it were only probable and contingent, — is it not wise 
 and patriotic to arrest the danger, and remove all 
 doubt by the sure preventive remedy of reanneX"; 
 
20 
 
 iiuun? But if Texas should only become a British 
 commercial dependency, and not a colony, the dan- 
 ger to us, we have seen, would be nearly as great 
 in the event of war, in the one case, as in the other. 
 But even if not a dependency, we have seen she 
 ■would be too feeble to guard her rights as a neutral 
 power; and that England, as she always heretofore 
 has done in the case of neutrals, would seize upon 
 . her soil, her coast, her harbors, her rivers, and our 
 and her Indians, in her invasion of the valley of the 
 West; and the only certain measure of defence and 
 protection is the reaimexation of Texas. 
 
 The defence of the coutitry and of all its parts 
 against the probable occurrence of war, is one of the 
 first and highest duties of this government. For 
 this we build foris and arsenals, dry docks and 
 jiavy-yards, supply arms and ordnance, and maiji- 
 tain armies and navies at an annual expense 
 of many millions of dollars; and for this we 
 guard great cities and important bays and har- 
 bors. From the organization of the govern- 
 ment under the constitution, up to the latest period 
 in 1843, for which detailed statements are given, 
 -we have expended for the War Department, $374,- 
 888,899, and for the Naval Department, |173,236,- 
 569— being for both $548,125,408; for the civil list, 
 |61,385, 373, for foreign intercourse, $35,051,772. 
 miscellaneous, $61,578,168; — making for these three 
 last items, $157,915,310; and for thepubUc debt, 
 $451,749,003;— makingthe total expenditures $1,157,- 
 789,781. Now if, to the expenditures for the de- 
 fence of the country, as above given — $548,125,468 — 
 we add that portion of the public debt which may 
 be fairly estimated as having been incurred for the 
 defence of the country, it would make $948,125,- 
 468 expended for the defence of the country; and 
 leave $209,664,313 expended for all other purposes. 
 The defence of the country was the great object for 
 which the govenjment was founded, and for this 
 purpo.se, nearly all the moneys collected from the 
 people have been expended; and yet, of this vast 
 . amount, but $2,208,000 have been expended for for- 
 tifications in Louisiana; and New Orleans and the 
 mouth of the Mississippi are still to a great extent 
 undefended. When we consider that nearly the 
 ■whole commerce of the West floats through this out- 
 let, amounting now to $220,000,000 per annum, and 
 rapidly augmenting every year, has not the West a 
 right to demand a defence, complete and effectual, of 
 this great river.' Now, Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, 
 in 1825 and 1827, in attempting to secure the 
 reannexation of Texas, say: "the line of the 
 Sabine approaches our gi-eat Western mart nearer 
 than could be wished;" and in 1829, General Jack- 
 son and Mr. Van Buren announce "the real neces- 
 sity of the proposed acquisition," "as a guard for the 
 western irontier, and the protection of JsTeio Orleans.'''' 
 If, then, tlie defence of the country be one of the 
 main objects and highest duties of this government, 
 . and to accomplish which it has expended nearly all 
 the moneys collected from the people, can it be un- 
 constitutional or improper to acquire Texas, as a 
 mere question of defence and protection, when we 
 are assured, that the acquisition is a matter of ^Weal 
 necessity,'''' ";>s a guard for the frontier and the protec- 
 tion of New Orleans?" And surely this protection is as 
 necessary n.iw as it was in 1825, 1827, 1829, 1833, 
 and 18.J5; and New Orleans and Texas, and the 
 frontier and t,he Sabine, stand preci-sely where they 
 did at those periods. Indeed, I have now before 
 me a letter of General Jackson, almost fresh from 
 his penj in which he announces his opinion that 
 the reannexation of Texas *'is essctUiid to tlie United 
 
 States.'''' Although some of my countrymen may 
 differ from me as to the exalted opinion which I 
 entertain of the high civil qualifications of General 
 Jackson, none will dispute his extraordinary milita- 
 ry talents, and that no man living can know so well 
 what is necessary to the protection of New Orleans, 
 as its great and successful defender. If, then, the 
 reannexation of Texas be more essential to the safe- 
 ty and defence of New Orleans and the mouth of the 
 Mississippi, than all the fortifications which could 
 be, but have not been, and will not be, erected in 
 that quarter, has not the West a right to demand, on 
 this ground alone, the reacquisition of Texas? The 
 money of the West, as the treasury reports above 
 quoted demonstrate, is now freely disbursed, and 
 has been expended by hundreds of millions, for tho 
 defence of the Atlantic States; and will not those 
 States feel it a duty and a pleasure to defend the 
 West, and their own products, which float upon its 
 mighty rivers, by the repossession of a territory 
 which is essential for our security and welfare? To 
 refuse the reannexation, is to refuse the defence of 
 the West in the only way in v/hich that defence 
 will be complete and effectual; for you may extend 
 your fortifications along the whole coast of the 
 gulf, and New Orleans, and the mouth of the Mis- 
 sissippi, and the Florida pass will remain unde- 
 fended, so long as Texas is in the possession of a 
 foreign power, and we are open to attacks from the 
 rear through that region. Fortifications, also, may 
 sometimes be captured by a great superiority of guns 
 and force, by squadrons upon the sea; and with a 
 sufficient time and adequate force, if not by storm, 
 by mine and siege, they may be always taken by 
 assaults upon the land — even Gibraltar and theMoro 
 castle not having always proved impregnable. But 
 Texas, our own, and in the possession of the brave 
 and practised marksmen of the West, would be a 
 position where, against all attacks from the rear, 
 every inch of gi-ound would be fiercely contested, 
 and every advance would be marked by the blood 
 of the invader; and if New Orleans should be inva- 
 ded in other directions, our countrymen in Texas, 
 over whom would then float the fliig of the Union, 
 would rush to the rescue of their own great city, 
 and, uniting with their bretliren in arms from other 
 States of the same great Union, would re-enact, upon 
 the banks of the Mississippi, the victories of San Ja- 
 cinto and New Orleans. If, then, we are true to the 
 West and Southwest, we will, if there were no other 
 reasons, as a question of defence, reacquire the pos- 
 session of Texas: or do patriotism, and love of the 
 whole country, and of a.11 its parts, exist only in 
 name? Does the American heart yet beat with all 
 their glorious impulses? or are they mere idle words, 
 fitted only to round oft' a period, or fill up an ad- 
 dress? And have we reached that point in the scale 
 of descending deg;eneracy, when the inquiry is, not 
 what will best strengthen and defend the whole, but 
 what will most effectually impair the strength, re- 
 tard the growth, and weaken the security of the val- 
 ley of the West? 
 
 Let us now examine the effect of the reannexation 
 of Texas on the whole country. The great interests 
 of the Union, as exhibited in the census of 1840, are 
 shown in the products of agriculture, of the mines and 
 manufactures, of the forests and fisheries, of com- 
 merce and navigation. I hereto append tables marked 
 Nos. 2 and 3, compiled from the census of 1840, the 
 first exhibiting the products that year of agriculture, 
 mamifactures, commerce, mining, the forest and fish- 
 eries; and the second showing the number of persons 
 (hen employed in agriculture, majiufactures, com- 
 
21 
 
 tnerce, mining, navigating the ocean, and internal nav- 
 igation. I have also compiled from the official report 
 of the Secretary of the Treasury in 1840, a table 
 marked No. 4, representing for the year preceding, 
 for each State, the imports and exports of each, 
 distinguishing the domestic from the foreign exports; 
 also the number of American vessels v/liich entered 
 or cleared from each State; the American crews em- 
 ployed; the foreign vessels which entered and cleared 
 from each State; the vessels built in each State, and 
 tonnage owned by each. Table No. 5, compiled 
 from the same report, exhibits, for the same year, our 
 exports to each of the countries of the world, distin- 
 guishing the foreign and domestic exports, with the 
 number of American vessels and foreign vessels em- 
 ployed in our trade with each country, together with 
 the imports from each, and the excess in our trade 
 ■with any of them, of exports to over imports from 
 them. Table No. 6, compiled from the same re- 
 port, presents all the exports of our own products 
 that year to Texas, ranged under the heads of the 
 products of agriculture, manufactures, forest and 
 iisheries, distinguishing the articles thus exported, 
 and their value. With these facts before us, which 
 are all official, let us proceed to the examination of 
 this great question. Our chief agricultural exports 
 to Texas, as the table shows, were pork, ham, bacon, 
 lard, beef, butter, cheese, flour, bread, and bread 
 stuff, amounting to 1^163,641. In looking at the cen- 
 sus of 1840, the population of each Stale and sec- 
 tion, and the amount of these products in each State, 
 we will find that the chief surplus of these products 
 raised for sale beyond their limits, were in the mid- 
 dle States, composed of New York, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, including 
 he District of Columbia; and in the northwestern 
 tStates, composed of Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, In- 
 diana, Illinois, and Michigan, including also Wis- 
 consin and Iowa. The middle and northwestern 
 Stiites derived, then, the principal profit in the sale of 
 agricultural products to Texas. In the sale of do- 
 mestic manufactures to Texas, the New England 
 States came first; and next in their order, the middle, 
 and the northwestern States; and in looking at the 
 principal items of which these exported manufactures 
 to Texas were composed, 1 find that of the surplus 
 produced and sold to Texas, Massachusetts stood 
 first, and Pennsylvania second. Next as to commerce, 
 as connected with Texas, the middle States stood first, 
 and then the New England and northwestern States; 
 and here New York stood first, Massachusetts second, 
 and next Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio. But 
 here we must remark the* special interest which 
 Louisiana, through her great port of New Orleans, 
 has in commerce as connected with Texas. The total 
 products from commerce in Louisiana in 1840 were 7,- 
 868,898, being one-tenth of that of the whole Union, 
 and consequently the interest of New Orleans, as con- 
 nected with the reannexation of Texas, must soon be 
 measured by millions every year. The great city 
 of New York, into which was received, in round 
 numbers, one hundred millions of the one hundred 
 and forty-three millions of all our imports in the 
 year referred to, and one-third of the exports, has a 
 vast and transcendent interest in this question; for it 
 is, in truth, a question to be settled in our favor by 
 the reannexation of Texas, whether New York or 
 Liverpool shall command her commerce. Next as 
 to the product.-? of mining, the middle States stand 
 first; and next the Northwestern and New England 
 States. And here Pennsylvania stands at the head 
 of the list, having $17,666,146, or nearly one-half 
 of the whole mining interest of the Union. Texas, 
 
 having no mines of coal or iron, must become a vast 
 consumer of the products of the mines of Pennsyl- 
 vania. In cables, bar-iron, and nails, and other 
 manufactures of our iron, Texas imported from us, 
 in the year referred to, the value of $120,184. Now, 
 of cast-iron, Pennsylvania produced, in 1840, 
 98,395 tons, being largely more than one-third of 
 the amount produced in the whole Union; and next 
 came Ohio, Kentucky, New York, Virginia, Ten- 
 nessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. 
 Of bar-iron, the amount produced in Pennsylvania 
 was 87,244 tons, being verj'- nearly one-half of the 
 whole produced in the Union; and next came New 
 York, with 53,693 tons, or more than one-fourth of 
 the whole; and then Tennessee, Maryland, Ohio, 
 Nev/ Jersey, Massachu.setls, Virginia, Kentucky, 
 and Connecticut. As connected v.'ith her'vast inter- 
 ests in iron, must be considered also the coal itt 
 Pennsylvania, not only as an article of sale abroad, 
 but as consumed at home, in producing her iron; 
 the number of tons thus consumed in 1840, of her 
 own mines, being 355,903 tons, or very nearly one- 
 fourth of that of the whole Union. Coal and iron 
 are scattered in juxtaposition, throughout nearly the 
 whole of Pennsylvania; and, as the markets for her 
 iron are augmented, in the s.ame projiortion will in- 
 crease the consumption of the coal used in pro- 
 ducing that iron. Now, in 1840, the amount 
 of anthracite coal produced in the whole Union 
 was 863,489 tons; of which Pennsylvania pro- 
 duced 859,686, or nearly the whole. Of bitu- 
 minous coal, the total product of the Union 
 was 27,603,191 bushels; of which Pennsylvania 
 produced 11,620,654, or nepj-ly one-half the whole. 
 Let us observe here, also, the remarkable fact, that 
 the three adjacent States of Delaware, New Jersey, 
 and New York, produced no coal, either anthracite 
 or bituminous; and the future interest of Pennsyl- 
 vania, as connected with that great article, becom.es 
 of transcendent importance; and this, together with 
 iron, and the manufactures connected with them, is 
 to determine the value of her public works, and fix 
 her future destiny. Up to a certain point of density, 
 an agricultural State, with a rich soil, advances most 
 rapidly; but when all the lands are cleared and cultiva- 
 ted, tliis augmentation ceases. It is otherwise, how- 
 ever, with a State possessing, throughout nearly every 
 portion, inexhaustible mines of coal and iron, and 
 wonderful adaptation to manufactures. There, when 
 the soil has been fully cultivated, the development 
 of the mines and manufactures, and the commerce 
 and business connected with tliem, only fairly be- 
 gins. Agriculture is limited by the number of acres; 
 but for the pro4uct3 of mines and manufactures, 
 such as Pennsylvania has within her boundaries, 
 tliere is no other limit than the markets she can 
 command; and this, is not merely theory, but is de- 
 monstrated by the comparative progress of the va- 
 rious nations of the world. Look, then, at the great 
 amount — certainly not less than three hundred thou- 
 sand dollars — of the products of the industry of 
 Pennsylvania, consumed by Texas in her infancy, 
 with a population of less than two hundred thou- 
 sand in 18.39, and when those products were, to a 
 considerable extent, excluded by the then existing 
 tariff of Texas, and without which she certainly 
 would then have consumed at least half a million of 
 the products of the industry of Pennsylvania, had 
 she been a sUte of the Union. But in ten years 
 succeeding the reannexation, at the lowest rate of 
 progress of population to the square mile of the 
 other new States, she would contahi a population of 
 two millions; and consequently consume five mil-^ 
 
22 
 
 lions of the products of the industry of Pennsylva- 
 nia, or one-fifth of all the surplus products of the 
 mines and nianufcictures of that great State, sold 
 beyond her limits in 1840. The principal products 
 of Texas will be cotton and sugar, and besides the 
 iron used in all agricultural implements, as well as 
 in the manufactures consumed by an agricultural 
 people, the use of iron in the cotton and sugar mills 
 is very great. There all the great iron apparatus 
 and machinory connected with the cotton gin and 
 press, and the iron boilers and kettles and grates and 
 furnaces used in the making of sugar, is greater than 
 in any other employment. Together with this, is 
 the steam engine, now universally employed in ma- 
 3ring sugar, and being employed also in the ginning 
 of cotton; and the iron that must be used by Texas, 
 as she developes her resources, must be great indeed; 
 and the question depending on the reannexation, is, 
 whether Texas shall become a part of our home 
 market, and whether England, or Pennsylvania and 
 other States, shall supply her v/ants. There is 
 another fact which must lead to a vast consumption 
 of coal in Texas, and that is this: that from the 
 hanks of the Red river to the coast of the gulf, ex- 
 cepting only the cross timbers, and some other 
 points, chiefly along her streams, Texas is almost 
 exclusively a prairie country; and yet, (what is not 
 very usual, except in northern Illinois, and some 
 other portions of the West,) the soil of these prairies 
 is inexhaustibly fertile. From these causes, wood 
 and fuel must be scarce in Texas, and the coal 
 of Petmsylvania and other States must find a niar^ 
 ket there of almost incalculable value. 
 
 We come next to the products of the forest: and 
 here the middle States stand first, and then the New 
 England and northwestern States. JVew York here 
 stands first, and then, in their order, Maine, North 
 Carolina, Pennsylvixnia, and Ohio. From Olean 
 point on the AUegliany river, in New York, and 
 down that stream through Pennsylvania, the lum- 
 ber that now descends the Mississippi is very con- 
 siderable, and of which, including the products 
 from the forest from other quaiters of the Union, 
 Texas already took from us, as the tal.'le shows, in 
 1831), to the value of $157,474. Tlie product of tiie 
 fisheries of the whole Union, in 1840, was i{ill,996,- 
 008, of which New England produced 1^9,424,5.55, 
 and the middle Stales $1,970,0.30. Of the products 
 ofthc.se fisheries, Texas already took, in 1839, to 
 the value of $43,426, which, as Texas has no fishe- 
 ries, must be vastly augmented hereafter. By the 
 treasury report of 1840, as exhibited in table No. 
 4, the number of vessels built that year in the whole 
 Union was 858; and here the New England States 
 stood first, and then the middle and northwestern 
 States; and Massai;husetts was first, and then, in 
 their order, Maine, Maryland, New York, New 
 Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Connecticut. Now, 
 by table No. 5, it is shown tliat the clearances of 
 American vessels to Texas, from the United States, 
 and of entries into the United States of Americim 
 vessels from Texas, was, in the whole, in 1839, 
 608, being two-thirds of the whole number of ves- 
 sels built in that year in the United States; and our 
 crews employed in navigating these American ves- 
 .sels thus emjiloyed that year in our trai>Ie with 
 Texas, were 4,727. The number of American ves- 
 sels which cleared for Texas in 1839, was greater 
 than to any one of fifty-seven out of -sixty-three of 
 all the enumerated countries of the world. It was 
 greater, also, than the whole ag-gregate number of 
 our vessels which cleared that year for France, 
 •Spain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, 
 
 Belgium, and Scotland combined. The same dis- 
 proportion also exists as regards the crews, and al- 
 so in the American vessels which entered the Uni- 
 ted States from Texas, and the crews employed. 
 The same tables demonstrate that, of the foreign 
 vessels which entered the United States from Texas, 
 in 1839, eighteen only, out of 4,105, entered our po/ta 
 from Texas; and sixteen foreign vessels only clear- 
 ed from the United States in that year for Texas, out 
 of 4,036; showing that our trade with Texas, in 
 1839, stood nearly upon the footing of our great 
 coastwise trade, and was conducted almost exclusive- 
 ly in American vessels. Having shown the large num- 
 1 or of American crews concerned in the trade with 
 Texas, and the great amount of wages they must 
 have earned, let us now look at the States which- 
 made these profits. By the census of 1840, the 
 whole number of persons employed in navigating 
 the ocean was 56,021, of w liich number 42,154 
 were from New England, and 9,713 from the mid- 
 dle States. And here Massachusetts stood first, 
 and tiien Maine, and next, in their order, New 
 York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Lou- 
 isiana, and New.Tersey. In looking, also, to the States 
 which owned the tonnage employed in this navigation , 
 we find, by table No. 4, from the treasury report, 
 lliat the New England States stood first, and then the 
 middle States; and that the largest amount was own- 
 ed by Massachusetts, and next, in their order, by 
 Nev/ York, Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Lou- 
 isiana, Connecticut, and New Jersey. When we 
 consider l^ie products of the fisheries consumed, and 
 that will be consumed, by Texas, and the tonnage 
 aiid crews employed in that trade, the reannexation 
 nuist greatly augment our mercantile marine, and 
 thus enable it to supply our navy, whenever ne- 
 cessary, with an adequate number of skilful, brave, 
 and hardy seamen, to defend, in war, our flag upon 
 the sea. The number of persons employed in in- 
 ternal navigati(.>n, (including our lakes, rivers, 
 and canals,) by the census of 1840, was 33,076; more 
 than one half being from the middle States, and next 
 the States of the Northwest. The largest number 
 was from New York, and next, in their order, 
 Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland and 
 Missouri. Here, the States which have constructed 
 great canals, on which are transported the exchange- 
 able products of the Union, have a vast interest in 
 the reannexation of Texas. Of these canals, the 
 great works in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, 
 are already completed; and those of Indiana, and 
 Illinois approach a completion, whilst Maryland 
 and Virginia are pausing in the construction of their 
 great works, the value of all of which would be 
 greatly augmented, and business increased, by the re- 
 annexation of Texas. And here let me say one 
 word of the Old Dominion. She borders upon the 
 Ohio and Atlantic, and when her great works shall 
 unite their waters by one direct and continuous ca- 
 nal, her connection with the West, and with Texas, 
 as a ]iart of it, will be most intimate and important; 
 and through the very heart of the State would float 
 a vast amount of the commerce connected with the 
 Ohio and the Mississippi. And she also has other 
 great and peculiar interests connected with the re- 
 nimexation of Texas. The amount of cast and bar 
 iron furnished by her in 1840, was 24,696 tons; of 
 bituminous coal, 10,622,345 bushels; and of domes- 
 tic .salt, 1,745,618 bushels; of wheat, $3,345,783 in 
 value; of the product of animals, $8,952,278; and of 
 cotton manufactures $1,692,040; of all of which ar- 
 ticles Texas, as the tiible of exports shows, is a very 
 large consumer. 
 
23 
 
 From the official treasury report of 1840, 1 give I tion, in many respectejas regards her trade, asater- 
 
 the table No. 6, for the year commencing the 1st of 
 October, 1838, and closing on the 30th of September, 
 1839, showing our commerce that year with Texas, 
 ajid all the other nations of the world. This shows 
 that the total of our exports of domestic produce to 
 Texas that year, was p, 379,065, and the total of 
 all our exports to Texas that year, $1,687,082; that 
 the imports the same year from Texas were §318,- 
 116, leaving an excess in our favor, of exports 
 over imports, of $1,368,966. Thus the extraordi- 
 nary fact is exhiljitcd, that in the very infancy of 
 her existence, the balance of trade in our favor with 
 Texas, exceeded that of each of all the foreign coun- 
 tries of the world — two only excejyted; and these two 
 were colonies of an empire, our trade to the whole 
 of which presented a balance of several millions 
 against us. Texas then, that year, furnished a lar- 
 o-er balance of exports over imports in our favor, 
 than any other one of the empires of the icorld. The 
 totality of our exports that year to Texas was great- 
 er than to either Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Nor- 
 way, Denmark, Belgium, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, 
 Portugal, Italy, Sicily, or China. It was greater 
 also tlian to each of fifty-six of the sixty-six enume- 
 rated countries of tlie world. It was greater also 
 than the aggregate of all our exports to Spain, Prus- 
 sia, Denmark, Italy, Sweden and Norway, Portu- 
 gal, New Grenada, Australasia, French Guiana, 
 Sardinia, Morocco and Barbary States, and Peru 
 ombined. 
 
 By table No. 6, it appears that the exports of our 
 domestic products in 1839 to Texas was — of the 
 fisheries ^43,426; of the products of the forest 
 P57,474; of the products of agriculture $205,860; 
 uidofour manufactures $929,071. Now, by taljle 
 No. 6 of the treasury report, the total exports, the 
 ame year, of the products of the fisheries to all the 
 ivorld, except Texas, was $1,864,543; and conse- 
 quently the exports of the products of the fisheries 
 o Texas, that year, amouted to about 2g per cent, of 
 hose exports to all the rest of the world. The ex- 
 ports of the products of the forest, that year, to all 
 5ther countries, except Texas, by the same tal)le, 
 *-as $5,607,085; consequently the export of those 
 products, that year, to Texas, amounted to 3 per cent. 
 )f those exports to all the rest of the world. Tlie 
 ;xports of our agricultural products, (excluding cot- 
 on, rice, and tobacco,) that year, to all other coun- 
 ries, except Texas, (and including molasses, inac- 
 airately placed in the table of manufactures,) was 
 Jll, 156,057; and consequently the exports of these 
 products that year to Texas, amounted to more 
 han 2 percent, of the agricultural exports that year 
 o all the rest of the world. By the same taljle, the 
 ;xport of all our manufactures in 1839 (exclusive of 
 ^old and silver coin) to all other countries, except 
 Texas, was $3,217,562. Now, the exports of our 
 lomestic manufactures, that year, to Texas being 
 ^929,071, consequently Texas contsumed of our 
 
 )OMESTIC MANUFACTURES, IN 1839, AN AMOUNT 
 .ARGELY EXCEEDING ONE-FOURTH, AND NEARLY 
 !;QUAL to one-third of OUR DOMESTIC MANUFAC- 
 TURES EXPORTED ABROAD, AND CONSUMED THAT 
 TEAR, BY AM. THE REST OF THE WORLD. Such are 
 
 he astOKodhig results established by the official re- 
 )ort \A' the Secretary of the Treasury, under date of 
 Tune 25th, 1840, and to be found in vol. 8 Senate 
 locuments for that year. No. 577. Such was our 
 rade with Texas the year ending 30lh September, 
 1839, before her independence was recognised by 
 iny other power except by this republic, and before 
 he had entered into commercial treaty with uny 
 
 itory of the Union. Now, the treaty of amity and 
 commerce between France and Texas was signed at 
 Paris on the 25th of September, 1839; the treaty of 
 amity and commerce between Holland and Texas 
 was signed at the Hague on the 18th of September, 
 1840; the treaty of commerce between Great Britain 
 and Texas was signed at London on the 13th of 
 November, 1840: all which have been long since 
 ratified. Now, let us observe the effect upon our 
 trade with Texas, of her introduction into the fami- 
 ly of nations, by the recognition of her independence 
 by other nations, and treaties of commerce with 
 them; thus placing her towards us in the attitude of 
 a forcio-n state. The resolution offered by me in the 
 Senate of the United States for the recognition of 
 the independence of Texas, was adopted on the 2d 
 of March, 1837; and with that year commence the 
 tables of our exports to Texas as a new empire, in- 
 scribed on the books of the treasury. These tables, 
 in the treasury reports of our exports to Texas, ex- 
 hibit the following result: 
 
 Our exports to^Texas in 1837 - $1,007,928 
 1838 - 1,247,880 
 « " 1839 - 1,687,082 
 
 .. " 1840 - 1,218,271 
 
 1841 - 808,296 
 " 1842 - 406,929 
 
 1843 - 190,604 
 If our exports to Texas had augiTiented from 1839 
 to 1843, as they had done from 1837 to 1839, and 
 as they'must have done with her great increase of 
 business and population, buf'for her being placed 
 towards us, in the mean time, in the attitude 
 of a foreifii state, they would have amounted, 
 in 1843 to^ $3,047,000, instead of $190,000. Such 
 has been the immense reduction in our exports to 
 Texas created by her recognition by other nations, 
 and commercial treaties with them, since 1839. But 
 o-reat as were our exports to Texas m 1839, they 
 were by no means so large as if she had then' been 
 a State of the Union; for she then had, and still has, 
 in force a tariff on imports, varying on most articles 
 from 10 to 50 per cent., which must have prohibited 
 somf^ of our exports there, and diminished others. 
 Our tariff, also, did not embrace Texas, and .secure 
 to our manufactures almost a monopoly in her sup- 
 ply Had all these causes combined, as they would 
 have done, had Texas been a State of the Union, our 
 exports there of domestic articles must have reached, 
 in 1843, $7,164,139, as I shall proceed to demon- 
 
 '" The products of Louisiana, by tlie census of 1840, 
 were $35,044,959, of which there was, in sugar and 
 cotton', $15,476,783; and of this, there was of sugar, 
 «i4 797 908; of which sugar, if we deduct $4«b,(83, 
 as'consumed in the State, being more than double 
 lier proportionate consumption, it would leave $15, 
 000,000 of products raised and exported by Louisi- 
 ana in 1840, when her population was 352,411; and 
 Texas, producine; now in the same proportion to 
 her present population of 200,000, would produce 
 $19,886,360, and of exports for sale l^eyond Iict lim- 
 its, $8,522,724; and deducting from this $l,258,58o, 
 the proportion of her products employed m the pur- 
 chase of foreign products for her use, would leave 
 $7,164,139 of the products of Texas used in the pur- 
 chase of articles from other States of the Union. 
 But if reannexed to the Union, in ten years thereaf- 
 ter, how much would she purchase of the products 
 of other States of the Union.' If we allow Texas to 
 increase in the same ratio to the square mile as the 
 State of Louisiana after the first census succeeduifi 
 
 )tli6r power; and therefore stood to us in the rela- the purchase from 1810 to 1820, the population, m 
 
24 
 
 ten years, occupying the 318,000 square miles of | 
 Texas, would exceed two millions; and the increase 
 in many States has been much more rapid. But es- 
 timated at two millions, Texas M'ould then, accord- 
 ing to the above proportion, consume j^71,641,390 per 
 annum of the products of other States, which con- 
 sumption would be rapidly increasing every year; 
 and her annual products then would be ^98,663,600; 
 which, also, would be greatly and constantly aug- 
 menting. Such is the wealth we are about cast from 
 us, and the home market we are asked to abandon; 
 for when we see that, by the failuree of reannex- 
 atioii, our domestic exports hi 1843, to Texas, had 
 fallen to ^140,320; and this, multiplied by ten, would 
 give the consumption, at the end often years, of our 
 products by Texas, $1,403,200, it makes an annual 
 loss of a market for our products to the amount of 
 170,238,190; and the loss would be greater, if Texas 
 then, as a foreign State, consumed of our exports in pi o- 
 porlion to then- consumjition by the rest of the world, 
 which would reduce her purchase of our products to 
 |230,000,and make our loss $71,411,390 per annum; 
 and if we add to this the loss of revenue from the 
 duties on imports, and the loss of the proceeds of the 
 sales of her public lands, estimated at4170,139,153, 
 which would all be ours by reannexation, the no- 
 tional loss, by the rejection of Texas, must be esti- 
 mated by hundreds of millions. Nor is it the trade 
 of Texas only that would be lost, but that of Santa 
 Fe, and all the northern States of Mexico, which, 
 with the possession by us of Texas and the Del 
 Norte, would become consumers of immense 
 amounts of our manufactures and other pro- 
 ducts, and would pay us to a great extent in 
 silver, which is their great staple. Texas, also, 
 has valuable mines of gold and silver, and 
 this also would be one of her great exports, with 
 which she would purchase our products; and thus, 
 by her specie infused into our circulation, render our 
 currency more secure, and subject us to less danger 
 of bemg drained to too great an extent of gold and 
 silver. Our exports of domestic products, by the 
 treasury report of 1840, amounted to $103,533,896, 
 deducting which from our whole products by the 
 census of 1840,' would leave $959,600,845 of our 
 own products, consumed that year by our own pop- 
 ulation of 17,062,453; and the consumption of our 
 domestic products, ($103,533,896,) by the population 
 of the world, (900,000,000,) would make an average 
 consumption of $56 in value of our products con- 
 sumed by each one of our own people, and eleven 
 cents in value of our products consumed on the aver- 
 age by each person beyond our limits: and thus, it 
 appears that one person within our limits consumes 
 as much of our own products as 509 persons beyond 
 our limits; thus proving the wonderful difference, as 
 regards the consumption of tile products of the 
 Union, between Texas now and in all time to come, 
 as a foreign country, or as a pari of the Union. 
 When we reflect, also, that the products of Texas 
 are chiefly of those articles among the few which 
 find a market abroad, it furnishes her with the means 
 to purchase, with the proceeds of those exports, the 
 surplus products of other States, which do not jiro- 
 duce these exports; and therefore, the accession of 
 such a country to the Union is vastly more import- 
 ant to the great manufacturing interest than if Texas 
 did not raise such exports, but became a rival pro- 
 ducer of our own domestic manufactures. Hence 
 it must be obvious, independent of the proof here 
 exhibited, that the New England States, the middle 
 and northwestern States, would derive the principal 
 profit from the reannexation of Texas. Pennsylva- 
 nia standing first, and then Massachusetts and New 
 
 York; and of the cities, Pittsburg, Cincinnati, aad 
 New Orleans, Boiston, New York, Baltimore, and 
 Philadelphia. The city which will derive the great- 
 est advantage, in proportion to her population, un- 
 doubtedly will be Pittsburg, not only from the won- 
 derful extent and variety of her manufactures, but 
 also from her position. The same steamboat, con- 
 structed by her skilful workmen, which starts from 
 Pittsburg, at the head of the Ohio, freighted with 
 her manufactures, can ascend the Red river for ma- 
 ny hundred miles, into one of the most fer- 
 tile regions of Texas, and retui'n to the 
 iron city with a cargo of cotton, there to be 
 manufactured for sale in Texas, and other sections 
 of the Union. The steamboats of Pittsburg, also, 
 can descend the Mississippi to the gulf, and, coast- 
 ing along its shores to Galveston, Matagorda, and 
 the other ports of Texns, there dispose of their car- 
 goes of manufactures, and bring back the cotton 
 and sugar of Texas, and also the gold and silver, 
 which will be furnished by her mines in great abun- 
 dance, whenever they are worked v/ith sufficient 
 skill and capitah Pittsburg is a great loestern city; 
 and whether she shall soon be the greatest manufac- 
 turing city of the world, depends upon the markets 
 of the west, and especially on the market of Texas 
 — which, we have seen, can alone be secured by re- 
 annexation, and, without it, must be lost forever. 
 And shall Pittsburg complain that new States are to 
 be added in the West' Why, the new States of 
 the West have made Pittsburg all that she is, and 
 all that she ever will be; and each addition to their 
 number will only still more rapidly augment her 
 markets, her business, her wealth, and population. 
 Nor can Pittsburg advance withoat the correspond- 
 ent improvement of Philadelphia, and of all the 
 great interior of Pennsylvania, throughout the 
 whole line of internal communication that binds to- 
 gether the two great cities of the Keystone State. 
 While it is true that New England, and the middle and 
 northwestern States, will derive the greatest profit 
 directly from the reannexation of Texas, the South 
 and Southwest, from the augmentation of the wealth 
 and business of the North — produced, not by re- 
 strictions on the South and Southwest, but in recip- 
 rocal free trade with Texas and all the Slates — will 
 then also find in New England, and in the middle 
 and northwestern States, a larger and more able 
 ynirchaser, and more extensive and better markets 
 for all their exports. Indeed, so great will be the 
 mutual benefits, from this measure, that I do not 
 hesitate to record the opinion that, in ten years suc- 
 ceeding the reannexation, with just and fair legisla- 
 tion, there will be more American cotton then man- 
 ufactured in this Union than now is, or then will be, 
 in England; and we shall begin to look to the prices 
 current of our own cities to regulate the market, and . 
 not to England, to raise or depress, at her pleasure, 
 the value of the great American staple. The North ' 
 wants more markets at home for the products of her' 
 industry, and attempts to secure those of the South 
 and Southwest by the tariff; while they complain 
 that this most certainly depresses the price of their 
 great staple, and as surely deprives them of the 
 means of purchasing the products and manufactures 
 of the North. But, upon grounds undisputed by 
 the friends or opponents of a tariff, Texas must fur- ' 
 nish, as a part of the Union, in any event, a vast' 
 market for many of its products, upon the princijjle 
 of reciprocal free trade among the States — that great 
 principle which led to the adoption of the constitu-' 
 tion, and which has done more than all other causes 
 combined to advance our interest. 
 Upon the rejection of reannexation, it will be uJ- 
 
25 
 
 terly impossible to prevent the smuggling of British 
 and foreign goods, to an almost incalculable extent, 
 tlirough Texas into the Union, thus not only de- 
 
 E riving our manufacturers of the markets of Texas, 
 ut also of the markets of the whole valley of the 
 West. This difficulty is already experienced to a 
 small extent in Canada, although we have mostly a 
 dense population upon our side, and located in a 
 region of the north, generally highly favorable to 
 the tariff, and deeply interested, as they suppose, in 
 detecting and preventing smuggling. But the diffi- 
 culty in Texas will be far greater. There, the line 
 of division is, first the Sabine — a very narrow stream, 
 far different form the lakes of the North, and the great 
 St. Lawrence — as a boundary; and from the Sabine, 
 for a long distance, a mere geographical line to the 
 Red river, along that stream for many hundred 
 miles, and then another long geographical line to 
 the Arkansas, and thence many hundred miles along 
 that stream to its source, and thence to latitude 42. 
 Here is a boundary of fifteen hundred miles, and a 
 very large portion of it mere geographical lines, run- 
 ning through the very centre of the great valley of 
 the Mississippi. Could an army of revenue officers, 
 even if all were honest and above temptatioi!, guard 
 such a distance, and such a frontier, against the 
 smuggler, and that, too, in the midst of a popula- 
 tion on both sides deeply hostile to the tariff; many 
 of them regarding it as unconstitutional, and there- 
 fore that it is right, in their judgment, to evade its 
 operation? These difficulties were foreseen by Mr. 
 Van Buren, and constitute a strong argument, urged 
 by him in his despatch of 1829, in favor of the re- 
 annexation of Texas. He there urges the difficulty 
 of establishing a proper custom-house at the mouth 
 of the Sabine, without which, he says, even in that 
 direction, "it is impossible to prevent that frontier 
 from becoming the seat of an extensive system of 
 SMUGGLING." It is true, that a custom-house on our 
 side of the Sabine, and with numerous and faithful 
 officers, might duninish smuggling in that direction; 
 but as by the treaty, noiv in force with Texas, all ves- 
 sels entering Texas through the Sabine, must pass 
 unmolested, and land their cargoes at any point on 
 the Sabine, could smuggling be prevented in that di- 
 rection.' 
 
 But if smuggling could be prevented through the 
 Sabine, there is the harbor of Galveston, entirely in 
 Texas, and with a depth equal to that at the mouth 
 of the Mississippi; and there is the river Trinity 
 (emptying into that harbor) also entirely in Texas, 
 and navigable to a point not far from Red river, 
 within the boundaries of Texas; and up and through 
 these streams into Arkansas and Louisiana, and 
 the valley of the West, it would be utterly impos- 
 sible to prevent smuggling< The duties upon many 
 articles under our present tai'iff, range from 50 to 250 
 per cent. Upon India cotton bagging they amount 
 to 250 per cent, on the foreign price current; on 
 many articles of iron to 100 per cent.; and upon 
 glass, and nearly all low-priced goods affected by 
 the minimum principle, there are very high duties. 
 With these articles introduced into Texas free of 
 duty, can they be kept but of the adjacent States, 
 when the lacilities and temptation to smuggling will 
 be so very great.' This smuggling will be encouraged 
 by the manufacturers of England, and their agents 
 and merchants in Texas, whose cities would be 
 built up as the entrepots of such a traffic. What 
 English manufacturers will do, by an organized sys- 
 tem of fraudulent invoices and perjury, to evadq our 
 duties, was proved in the late investigation in New 
 York. British courts, also, have refused to notice 
 effences against oui- revenue laws; and the high au- 
 
 thority of Sir William Blackstone haa been invoked, 
 where he says, in reference to this subject, "These 
 prohibitory laws do not make the transgression a 
 moral offence, or sin: the only obligation in coti- 
 science is to submit to the penalty if levied.''^ And 
 such is the opinion of thousands of our country- 
 men; and many thousand more believe that the pres- 
 ent tariff is unconstitutional, and hence that it is of 
 no force or validity, and tliat it is not criminal to 
 disregard its provisions. However strong, then, 
 might be my opposition to smuggling, there are 
 hundreds of thousands, both in England and Amer- 
 ica, v/ho believe it is not criminal; and their number 
 will be greatly augmented, when goods, free of 
 duty, may be introduced into Texas, and pre- 
 miums, under our tariff, from 50 to 250 per cent, 
 are offered, to induce the illicit traffic. Most cer- 
 tainly then, the refusal of reannexation will repeal 
 THE TARIFF, by the substitution of smuggled goods 
 in place of American manufactures; the fair trader 
 will be undersold and driven out of the market by 
 the illicit traffic and smuggling become almost uni- 
 versal, and the commerce of the country transferred 
 from New York and the ports of the North, to 
 the free ports of Texas. This disregard of the laws 
 would bring the government into contempt, and 
 finally endanger the Union, if, indeed, it did not in- 
 duce a degeneracy and demoralization, always fatal to 
 the pei'manence of free institutions. Nor is it ne- 
 cessary, to effect these results, that Texas should 
 become a colony, or even a commercial dependency 
 of England; nor yet that there should be between 
 these powers a treaty of reciprocal free trade. 
 Texas (there' being no separate States, and but one 
 government to support, and having no expense of 
 any revenue system) may maintain her single gov- 
 ernment at an annual expense of ^300, OOO, which 
 sum she can, as is now clearly ascertained, derive 
 from the sales of her magnificent pui)lic domain, em- 
 bracing, as we have seen, 130,000,000 of acre_s. 
 Let it be known, then, and proclaimed as a certain 
 truth, and as a result which can never hereafter he 
 changed or recalled, that, upon the refusal of reannex- 
 ation, now and in all time to come, the tariff, as 
 A practical" measure, falls wholly and forever; 
 and we shall thereafter be compelled to resort to 
 direct taxes to support the government. Desira- 
 ble as such a result (the overthrow not only of a pro- 
 tective, but even of a revenue tariff, and the substi- 
 tution of direct taxation) might be to many in the 
 South and Southwest, yet the dreadful consequences 
 which would flow from this illicit traffic to the 
 cause of morals, of the Union, and of free govern- 
 ment, cannot be contemplated without horror and 
 dismay. 
 
 Having now, gentlemen, fully replied to your 
 communication, let me assure you that I shall per- 
 severe in the use of all honorable means to accom- 
 plish this great measure, so well calculated to ad- 
 vance the interests and secure the perpetuity of the 
 American Union. That Union, and all its parts, 
 (for they are all a portion of our common country,) 
 I love with the intensity of filial aflection; and 
 never could my heart conceive, or my hand be 
 raised to execute, any project which could effect its 
 overthrow. I have ever regarded the dissolution of 
 this Union as a calamity equal to a second fall of 
 mankind — not, it is true, introducing, like the first, 
 sin and death into the world, but greatly augmenting 
 all their direful influences. Such an event it would 
 not be my wish to survive, to behold or participate 
 in the scenes which would follow; and, among the 
 reasons wliich induce me to advocate so warmly the 
 reannexation of Texas, is the deep convistion, long 
 
26 
 
 entertained, that this great measure is essential to 
 the security of the South, the defence of tlie West, 
 and highly conducive to the welfare and perpetuity 
 of the whole Union. As regards the division of 
 Texas into States, to which you refer, it seems to 
 me most wise first to get the territory; and, when 
 ■we have rescued it from England, and secured it to 
 ourselves, its future disposition must then be deter- 
 mined by the joint action of both Houses of Con- 
 gress; which, from their organization, will decide 
 all these questions in that spirit of justice and equity 
 in which the constitution was framed, and all its 
 powers should be administered. I perceive that 
 your meeting and your committee was composed of 
 both the great parties which divide the country, and 
 that you propose that the reannexation of Texas 
 
 should not be made a sectional or a party questionv 
 Most fortunate would be such a result; for this is, 
 indeed, a great question of national interests, too 
 large and cornprcliensive to embrace any party or 
 section less than the whole American people. 
 
 Accept, gentlemen of the committee, for your- 
 selves, and that portion of the people of the great 
 and patriotic Commonwealth of Kentucky whom 
 you represent on this occasion, and in reply to whose 
 call upon me this answer has been given, the assu- 
 rances of the respect and consideration of 
 Your fellow-citizen, 
 
 R. J. WALKER. 
 To Messrs. Geo. N. Sanders, Henry RAMEY,jr.^ 
 - F. Bledsoe, W. B. Lindsay, James P. Cox, &c.,. 
 
 Committee. 
 
 TABLES APPENDED TO MR. WALKER'S LETTER. 
 
 Table No. 1, compiled from census of 1840, of deaf and dumb, blind, idiots, and insane. 
 
 iStates and Terri- 
 tories. 
 
 Maine 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Connecticut - 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New York - 
 
 New Jersey - 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Wisconsin - 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Maryland - 
 
 Virginia 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Mississippi - 
 
 Louisiana - 
 
 Tennessee - 
 
 Kentucky - 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Florida 
 
 Distiicl of Columbia 
 
 500,438 
 
 284,036 
 
 729,030 
 
 105,587 
 
 301,856 
 
 291,218 
 
 2,378,890 
 
 35l,5«8 
 
 1,670,115 
 
 1,502,12-2 
 
 678,69,s 
 
 472,254 
 
 211,560 
 
 30,749 
 
 42,924 
 
 9,557,055 
 
 58,561 
 317,717 
 
 740, %S 
 
 484,870 
 
 259,084 
 
 407,695 
 
 335,lH.i 
 
 179,071 
 
 158,457 
 
 640,627 
 
 590,25:3 
 
 323,888 
 
 77,174 
 
 27,91 
 
 30,657 
 
 4,632,053 
 
 14,189,108 
 
 O 
 
 1,355 
 538 
 
 8,669 
 3,243 
 
 8,15;) 
 
 730 
 
 50,031 
 
 21,718 
 
 47,918 
 
 17,345 
 
 7,168 
 
 3,929 
 
 707 
 
 • 196 
 
 188 
 
 171,892 
 
 19,524 
 151,515 
 
 498,829 
 
 268,549 
 
 335,314 
 
 283,697 
 
 255,57! 
 
 196,577 
 
 193,954 
 
 188,583 
 
 189,. 575 
 
 59, 8M 
 
 20,400 
 
 26,534 
 
 13,155 
 
 2,701,56( 
 
 2,873,4.581 6,68; 
 
 White. 
 
 222 
 181 
 283 
 
 74 
 309 
 135 
 1 ,039 
 164 
 781 
 559 
 297 
 155 
 
 31 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 4,233 
 
 45 
 
 178 
 
 443 
 
 280 
 
 140 
 
 193 
 
 173 
 
 64 
 
 42 
 
 291 
 
 400 
 
 126 
 
 40 
 
 14 
 
 8 
 
 2,449 
 
 180 
 
 153 
 
 308 
 
 63 
 
 143 
 
 101 
 
 875 
 
 126 
 
 540 
 
 372 
 
 135 
 
 66 
 
 25 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 3,219 
 
 15 
 
 165 
 
 421 
 
 223 
 
 133 
 
 136 
 
 113 
 
 43 
 
 37 
 
 255 
 
 236 
 
 82 
 
 26 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 1,805 
 
 5,024 
 
 «^ 
 
 537 
 486 
 
 1,071 
 203 
 498 
 39H 
 
 2,146 
 3f;9 
 
 1,946 
 
 1 , 195 
 
 487 
 
 213 
 
 39 
 
 9,599 
 
 52 
 
 387 
 
 1 ,052 
 
 580 
 
 376 
 
 294 
 
 232 
 
 116 
 
 5' 
 
 699 
 
 795 
 
 202 
 
 45 
 
 10 
 
 14 
 
 4,909 
 
 14,508 
 
 Colored. 
 
 262 
 
 68 
 
 150 
 
 74 
 
 78 
 
 64 
 
 53 
 
 28 
 
 17 
 
 67 
 
 77 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 715 
 
 333 
 
 18 
 
 101 
 
 466 
 
 167 
 
 *1.56 
 
 151 
 
 96 
 
 69 
 
 36 
 
 99 
 
 141 
 
 42 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 1,559 
 
 94 
 19 
 
 200 
 13 
 44 
 13 
 
 194 
 73 
 
 187 
 
 165 
 
 75 
 
 79 
 
 26 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1,191 
 
 28 
 
 149 
 
 381 
 
 231 
 
 137 
 
 134 
 
 125 
 
 82 
 
 45 
 
 162 
 
 180 
 
 6S 
 
 21 
 
 12 
 
 1,734 
 
 977 1,892 2,926 5,806 
 
 
 117 
 
 31 
 
 239 
 
 17 
 
 65 
 
 17 
 
 353 
 
 114 
 
 334 
 
 231 
 
 109 
 
 113 
 
 32 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 1,786 
 
 54 
 
 318 
 
 997 
 
 462 
 
 371 
 
 349 
 
 274 
 
 179 
 
 98 
 
 328 
 
 398 
 
 137 
 
 31 
 
 24 
 
 20 
 
 4,020 
 
 a 
 
 « s 
 
 o =» 
 
 to 3 
 
 24,556 
 
 13,507 
 
27 
 
 Taile No. 2, showing the annual products of each State, according to census of 1840. 
 
 
 
 
 Value of annual products from 
 
 
 
 Slates an'd Terri- 
 
 
 
 tories. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Agricul- 
 
 Manufac- 
 
 Com- 
 
 Mining. 
 
 Forest. 
 
 Fisheries. 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 ture. 
 
 tures, 
 
 merce. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Maine 
 
 15,856,270 
 
 5,615,303 
 
 1,505,380 
 
 327,376 
 
 1,877,663 
 
 1,280,713 
 
 26,462,705 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 11,377,752 
 
 6,545,811 
 
 1,001,533 
 
 88,373 
 
 449,861 
 
 92,811 
 
 19,556,141 
 
 Vermont - 
 
 17,879,155 
 
 5,685,425 
 
 758,899 
 
 389,488 
 
 430,224 
 
 _ 
 
 25,143,191 
 
 Massachusetts - 
 
 16,005,6-27 
 
 43,518,057 
 
 7,004,691 
 
 2,020,572 
 
 377,354 
 
 6,483,996 
 
 75,470,297 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 2,199,309 
 
 8,640,626 
 
 1,294,950 
 
 162,410 
 
 44,610 
 
 659,312 
 
 13,001,223 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 11,371,776 
 
 12,778,963 
 
 1,963,281 
 
 820,419 
 
 181,575 
 
 907,723 
 
 28,023,737 
 
 New England S. 
 
 74,749,889 
 
 82,784,185 
 
 13,528,740 
 
 3,808,638 
 
 3,361,287 
 
 9,424,555 
 
 187,657,294 
 
 New York 
 
 108,275,281 
 
 47,454,514 
 
 24,311,715 
 
 7,408,070 
 
 5,040,781 
 
 1,316,072 
 
 193,806,433 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 16,209,853 
 
 10,696,257 
 
 1,206,929 
 
 1,073,921 
 
 361,326 
 
 124,140 
 
 29,672,426 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 68,180,924 
 
 33,354,279 
 
 10,593,368 
 
 17,666,146 
 
 1,203,578 
 
 35,360 
 
 131,033,655 
 
 Delaware 
 
 3,198,440 
 
 1,538,879 
 
 266,257 
 
 54,555 
 
 13,119 
 
 181,285 
 
 5,252,535 
 
 Maryland 
 
 17,586,720 
 
 6,212,677 
 
 3,499,087 
 
 1,056,210 
 
 241,194 
 
 225,773 
 
 28,821,661 
 
 Dist, of Columbia 
 
 176,942 
 
 904,526 
 
 802,725 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 87,400 
 
 1,971,593 
 
 Middle States - 
 
 213,628,160 
 
 100,161,132 
 
 40,680,081 
 
 27,258,902 
 
 6,859,998 
 
 1,970,030 
 
 390,558,303 
 
 Virginia - 
 
 59,085,821 
 
 8,349,218 
 
 5,299,451 
 
 3,321,629 
 
 617,760 
 
 95,173 
 
 76,769,053 
 
 North Carolina - 
 
 26,975,831 
 
 2,053,697 
 
 1,322,284 
 
 372,486 
 
 1,446,108 
 
 251,792 
 
 32,422,198 
 
 outh Carolina - 
 
 21,553,691 
 
 2,248,915 
 
 2,632,421 
 
 187,608 
 
 549,626 
 
 1,275 
 
 27,173,536 
 
 Georgia - 
 
 31,468,271 
 
 1,953,950 
 
 2,248,488 
 
 191,631 
 
 117,439 
 
 584 
 
 35,980,363 
 
 Florida - 
 
 1,834,237 
 
 434,544 
 
 464,637 
 
 2,700 
 
 27,350 
 
 213,219 
 
 2,976,687 
 
 Southern States 
 
 140,917,851 
 
 15,040,324 
 
 11,967,281 
 
 4,076,054 
 
 2,758,283 
 
 562,043 
 
 175,321,836 
 
 Alabama 
 
 24,696,513 
 
 1,732,770 
 
 2,273,267 
 
 ♦ 81,310 
 
 177,465 
 
 
 28,961,325 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 26,494,565 
 
 1,585,790 
 
 1,453,686 
 
 _ 
 
 205,297 
 
 _ 
 
 29,739,338 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 22,851,375 
 
 4,087,655 
 
 7,868,898 
 
 163,280 
 
 71,751 
 
 _ 
 
 35,044,959 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 5,086,757 
 
 1,145,309 
 
 420,635 
 
 18,225 
 
 217,469 
 
 
 6,888,395 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 31,660,180 
 
 2,477,193 
 
 2,239,478 
 
 1,371,331 
 
 225,179 
 
 - 
 
 37,973,360 
 
 Southwestern S. 
 
 110,789,390 
 
 11,028,717 
 
 14,255,964 
 
 1,636,146 
 
 897,161 
 
 - 
 
 138,607,378 
 
 Missouri - 
 
 10,484,263 
 
 2,360,708 
 
 2,349,245 
 
 187,669 
 
 448,559 
 
 
 15,830,444 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 29,226,545 
 
 5,092,353 
 
 2,580,575 
 
 1,539,919 
 
 184,799 
 
 _ 
 
 38,624,191 
 
 Ohio 
 
 37,802,001 
 
 14,588,091 
 
 8,050,316 
 
 2,442,682 
 
 1,013.063 
 
 10,525 
 
 63,906,678 
 
 Indiana - 
 
 17,247,743 
 
 3,676,705 
 
 1,866,155 
 
 661), 836 
 
 80,000 
 
 1,192 
 
 23,532,631 
 
 Illinois - 
 
 13,701,466 
 
 3,243,981 
 
 1,493,425 
 
 293,272 
 
 249,841 
 
 ^ 
 
 18,981,985 
 
 Michigan 
 
 4,502,889 
 
 1,376,249 
 
 622,822 
 
 56,790 
 
 467,540 
 
 
 7,020,390 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 568,105 
 
 304,695 
 
 189,957 
 
 384,603 
 
 430,580 
 
 27,663 
 
 1,905,600 
 
 Iowa 
 
 769,295 
 
 179,087 
 
 136,525 
 
 13,250 
 
 83,949 
 
 - 
 
 1,132,106 
 
 Northwestern S. 
 
 114,302,307 
 
 30,821,866 
 
 17,289,020 
 
 5,579,011 
 
 2,958,331 
 
 39,380 
 
 170,989,925 
 
 Total 
 
 654,387,507 239,836,224 
 
 79,721,086 
 
 42,358,761 
 
 16,835,060 
 
 11,996,008 
 
 1,063,134,736 
 
28 
 
 'Tiible No. 3, showing the number oj persons engaged in mining, agriculture, comnsrce, manufactures 
 navigating the ocean, and internal navigation. 
 
 States and Territories, 
 
 Mining. 
 
 Agriculture. 
 
 Commerce. 
 
 Manufac- 
 tures 
 
 Navigating 
 the ocean. 
 
 Internal 
 navigation. 
 
 Maine - 
 
 36 
 
 101,630 
 
 2,921 
 
 21,879 
 
 10,091 
 
 539 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 13 
 
 77,949 
 
 1,379 
 
 17,826 
 
 452 
 
 198 
 
 Yermont 
 
 77 
 
 73,150 
 
 1,303 
 
 13,174 
 
 41 
 
 146 
 
 Massachusetts - 
 
 499 
 
 87,837 
 
 8,063 
 
 85,176 
 
 27,153 
 
 372 
 
 Rhode Island - 
 
 35 
 
 16,617 
 
 1,348 
 
 21,271 
 
 1,717 
 
 228 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 151 
 
 56,955 
 
 2,743 
 
 27,932 
 
 2,700 
 
 431 
 
 New England States 
 
 811 
 
 414,138 
 
 17,757 
 
 187,258 
 
 42,151 
 
 1,914 
 
 New Yurk 
 
 1,898 
 
 455,954 
 
 28,468 
 
 173,193 
 
 5,511 
 
 10,167 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 26S 
 
 56,701 
 
 2,283 
 
 27,004 
 
 1,143 
 
 1,625 
 
 Pennsylvania - 
 
 4,603 
 
 207,533 
 
 15,338 
 
 105,883 
 
 1,815 
 
 3,951 
 
 Delaware 
 
 5 
 
 16,015 
 
 467 
 
 4,060 
 
 401 
 
 235 
 
 Maiyland 
 
 320 
 
 72,046 
 
 3,281 
 
 21, 529 
 
 717 
 
 1,528 
 
 District of Columbia - 
 
 - 
 
 384 
 
 240 
 
 2,278 
 
 126 
 
 80 
 
 Middle States 
 
 7,092 
 
 808,633 
 
 50,077 
 
 333,947 
 
 9,713 
 
 17,586 
 
 Virginia 
 
 1,995 
 
 318,771 
 
 6,361 
 
 54,147 
 
 682 
 
 3,952 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 589 
 
 217,095 
 
 1,734 
 
 14,322 
 
 327 
 
 379 
 
 Sou:h Carolina 
 
 51 
 
 198,363 
 
 1,958 
 
 10,325 
 
 381 
 
 348 
 
 Georgia 
 
 574 
 
 209,383 
 
 2,428 
 
 7,984 
 
 262 
 
 35^ 
 
 'Florida 
 
 1 
 
 12,117 
 
 481 
 
 1,177 
 
 435 
 
 lis 
 
 Southern States 
 
 3,210 
 
 955,729 
 
 12,962 
 
 87,955 
 
 1,987 
 
 4,149 
 
 Alabama 
 
 96 
 
 177,439 
 
 2,212 
 
 7,195 
 
 256 
 
 758 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 14 
 
 139,724 
 
 1,303 
 
 4,151 
 
 33 
 
 100 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 1 
 
 79,289. 
 
 8,549 
 
 7,565 
 
 1,322 
 
 663 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 41 
 
 26,355 
 
 215 
 
 1,173 
 
 3 
 
 39 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 103 
 
 227,739 
 
 2,217 
 
 17,815 
 
 55 
 
 303 
 
 Southwestern States 
 
 • 255 
 
 650,546 
 
 14,496 
 
 37,899 
 
 1,669 
 
 1,861 
 
 Missouri 
 
 742 
 
 92,408 
 
 2,522 
 
 11,100 
 
 39 
 
 1,885 
 
 Kentucky- 
 
 331 
 
 197,738 
 
 3,448 
 
 23,217 
 
 44 
 
 968 
 
 Ohio - . - 
 
 704 
 
 272,579 
 
 9,201 
 
 66,265 
 
 212 
 
 3,333 
 
 Indiana 
 
 233 
 
 148,806 
 
 3,076 
 
 20,. 590 
 
 89 
 
 627 
 
 Illinjuis - - . 
 
 782 
 
 105,337 
 
 2,5fl6 
 
 13,185 
 
 63 
 
 310 
 
 Michigan 
 
 40 
 
 56,521 
 
 728 
 
 6,890 
 
 24 
 
 166 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 794 
 
 7,017 
 
 479 
 
 1,814 
 
 14 
 
 209 
 
 Iowa - - . 
 
 217 
 
 10,469 
 
 355 
 
 1,629 
 
 13 
 
 78 
 
 Northwestern States 
 
 3,843 
 
 890,905 
 
 22,315 
 
 144,690 
 
 498 
 
 7,566 
 
 Total - 
 
 15,211 
 
 3,719,951 
 
 117,607 
 
 791,749 
 
 56,021 
 
 33,076 
 
29 
 
 paiiodra aonp 
 -oad uSpjoj puB 
 DTjsauiop JO lEJOJ, 
 
 lO "* to in Tjt ?D CTl 05 ift O -< t^ ^ to to M Oi l--Tj<M ift «0 
 
 T3< 05 00 o i3* (M o o ■* to in i> — oj ■<* Tt< -H I— 00 !> e*5 ao 
 
 o"--"fo"--s"vn fo"ac"oo en oo to c<^ <^j> o o co~ — "vfTso «ri ^ 
 
 cnQCOit-^ccootDa-. oj t^oooc^oolro ceo foeo 
 
 tnojj pajjodxa 
 
 1— c O O to Tti US •>* 
 
 in CO CO oj o •* o 
 o o to -^ 1— no (N 
 
 O) W C» f>» ■* 
 t^ O t- CI o 
 
 M t- t- oo 
 
 r^ l> 10 05 I — O — ^ IMOCO 
 
 _i -^ t^ .-> in to 
 
 «& l^ O i-H (M 
 
 to I I in 1 1 
 
 raojj psjjodxa 
 aonpojd oijiatuoQ 
 
 ■»*<Tf<tOvf>QCtOin-^— 'OOiO'*Tt<(MfOO 
 
 CO — • 00 >n O 0-1 O CO — QO QC tC C? CO CJ -* in 
 ■«*<OQOTfiuOC^O-^OJtO^OTtiOOO-^— " 
 
 to r*<CO 
 CO in (?» 
 
 OQO t^ 
 
 vn^jt 
 o o 
 
 CO o 
 
 QO"*coovncotoaoQOcocot-cotoaDoaD 
 
 in o in o 
 
 CO -H 
 
 CO o 
 
 i-l 1-1 CO 
 
 •ajBig IJDB3 P3J91II3 
 
 ^OQOOCOOCQDQO 
 
 oocotoQooo— iin-^ 
 vntMCNi^coinoo in 
 
 (m" 1-1 (y( -h i-H o» ■^ 
 
 1 to C* to O CO Tt< o 
 
 CO o 
 
 —1 o 
 00 Ol 
 
 !— I rH in 
 
 •aiBjg 
 
 ipsa UIOJJ P9J133P 
 
 00 o in r^ o to CT -^ o -^ -- co in co co t- 
 inini-'*oo-'*— <QOto cn'«*< — ctorf<t^ 
 
 CO '- 0« OJ -- t^ to -H f-t I rf CO 00 C* CN (M O 
 
 in 00- 
 to o 
 »n o< 
 
 to in 
 in in 
 rt o 
 
 •91Blg qOB3 
 
 UT pauAvo aSBuuojL. 
 
 ln:o•«i<r^>••9<co■^oooco'*<c^^to — ■^fNco 
 
 OO'NC0r-l--^^Tr'inCO-3>QDO — o^ 
 
 c*'MSJcoinc5-*t-coc;o>— "Ooothoc^ 
 
 to in lO o o o> in 
 
 l^ fN O* ■* 03 r- CO 
 
 o o — " c* o to t^ 
 
 •aiBlg IJDG9 
 
 o t^ to o in to o* o to O'* o in -"^r- ^h-^-. 
 ■* I 'a* CO o r» Tt< -H Q) .— I r-i cj I ,-( Tji 1-1 
 
 -H T*) -. CO i> CO in 
 
 •aiBjg 
 qDB9 raojj paJEap 
 spssaA Uoiajo^ 
 
 oooinointorMooo --torM-<e<c<»--o rt<to ooo 
 
 in -H 00 00 C* CO O -^ CO «^ rji o rf — < ^ O 00 1^ t^o 
 
 Tti i-cOi-lrt!0 CO ICO 1-1 CO C* >-i 0* to I I .-I I 
 
 •a}B5g 
 qoBa raojj p3jB3[a 
 siassaA TiBouarav 
 
 •aiBiS ^^^9 pajaj 
 -ua s[ass3A uSiaioj 
 
 o o to to in ' 
 
 •aiEig qoBa pajajna 
 sjassaA UBOuauiv 
 
 ■-i----3C3t^OtCOeO 
 
 in c« 00 c* CO c* o in 
 
 CO 1-1 CJ ^ -^ O^ -Ti 
 
 ocot^cototoQO eoTjt coo 
 
 icosqooinTj<inc<> oto i |tj<oo 
 
 CO 1-1 1—1 M ^ r-t 
 
 'ajBig 
 qoBa 0)at sijodmi 
 
 ■^i^cocot^— 'ODCOin 
 0)0— lOJinocooo— I 
 
 in -H rN CO J> t- --I ei o o to 1-1 CO ■^ 
 
 00 — tOCOI^OOO TjiOOOOTfi.'MOtO 
 
 oj in Tt (?» o o o» at oi m rt (^» 00 o 
 
 c*--coin'>>tof;j'^o 
 00 in — 00 — "* 00 in 
 
 Oi Tl* CO to 'S* 00 o 
 
 I in o? CO o toco in ■^ o o tooto 
 
 (OCO-Hr>jQO — O tOi— 11-1 l^J^'^ 
 O"O0*OrJ<00 O .-iCT 
 
 g a 
 
 .53 2 
 
 (O G -^ >,"2 
 
 52 
 
 O •^: 
 
 t3 ^ 4) 
 
 H «-■ S2 > "■''^ ° 
 
 w o 
 
 
 .2 0! 
 
 J2S «-J (fl 
 
 
 _, CO V} a> 
 
 5 i:S _ &*« 
 
 •'O.™ S w S O « bflRj 3 " K " c 
 
30 
 
 ^ >■ i2 
 
 O O i-i 
 
 
 00 Oi 
 <X> CN 
 
 in oto fo to o 
 o CO lO urs iD Tj* 
 050 -^ o oico 
 
 yTo — in — o 
 1-- 00 »n t^ CO in 
 
 --•OJ 
 
 to 3:m 00 
 t- o t^o 
 
 i^a> — 00 
 
 >— 1 O I>ffl0 
 
 to Tj< 
 
 C0 9> 
 
 rj< (u ■<*< 00 J> -H o (M to -g; 00 -H to M CTs 00 CO C5 c* 03 in i^ to ■«*< o-HQo ecQo»ni>co 
 
 Ol — 00 >0 03 to OeO 03 00 O O -^QOQD l^ -^ lO ift 35 — < G<J Tji ■r*< in t^ 0» OlP-iftr-T* 
 
 00_-* tO-q<_05_r-_— t--_-H^(N_0_l--^t--<_tD_^— _05_ O — cO(MO— co rjSooP- i-Osl^^S 
 
 lOincrsojT^CMOiinooooos'* icoini— iTj<rj<inQo looc^ci" i e«^i>"to"to"or 
 
 lOOtoooTfoiap-^otpiniQovcM -^ro-^iSJ-^iOin — ii-o tocr. oaSS 
 
 •-< oj i-i p-i ovtor- (Niri-^ooio 
 
 r^ Tfl — to O ■«* 00 05 1-^ 
 
 ^^ m CO 
 O u ti 
 
 ^s s 
 
 toeoc«5« 
 
 Tjl -^ O -< 
 
 c* 00 in ■^i 
 
 -H in r- 
 
 — « ro to 
 00 in o 
 
 MC01>tOOinQOa3rt<tOt005(Min'!j<0'<*OOC*StO'-<c«5QDTj< 
 
 oin— 1-^ — coQO— <coo300i->*J>OJOinc5tooTr<o»Ti<infN 
 0'notoo3'^ot:^toc5a3co-<*i-*--oj'<i<t^coin-<3<oo<0'^t~ 
 
 •-H 00 -H 
 
 in 00 00 
 
 csOJcoi^Qot^— <focofo--t--aoi:^ooos — roTjffoin — fotoc*QOC*-^i-iooQO) 
 coc^ooQO — ot^QO^ntoo'-c(^>fOlna5toc300toeo-H-x) oc»Oi ^sioic 
 
 c* CO rH cooooi'^co toinocoo inin o» in oc*to ccc< 
 
 •^ i-i(?j-^ 00 i-t r-i c* co" l> i-T 
 
 dj 
 
 « 
 
 boo 
 
 O 4> 
 
 osO'r«oi^-^e5--T*<incoc500to 
 inoocot^inininco<^otoo>n 
 tornini— '■— "'—•^tooioiooo*'— ic* 
 
 t^ to o o r^ (M 00 OS rft o in to in Tf 
 
 00 fM O O) Ol ■<3< 1— I CO oo toinooo ■— ' 
 
 CO — in o in to CM CO to cotoi— oi o 
 
 o oj in >2 
 oco in o 
 ooio»« 
 
 ■^cotOTj<QOfocointooc>jtofOi-i 
 ot}<(m coocoojct>j> to in 
 
 GO CO t-O<C0 CI 
 
 oi ■»*< |iy»ootoin tott 
 oi ■* aoi> o ooi 
 
 i^ O 'H I— I 
 
 £3 
 
 aj ^ i> 
 
 S ^ a 
 
 »C»'*tOi^inoiTtic»i>int^ooinT}<oiini-<'^inini^c»— <(M totoin— coinoi<N»> 
 
 < eo in CO in rM to CO -^ t^ -^ o<ab cm to oo ij? in (M c< oo i-i cm ■«*< 
 
 F^ in c< CO 1 1-1 rH ot 
 
 
 I~coo'^)■* — Qoc^os'Mco — t-CQoit^otooaincoto-Hoo 
 
 QO-^OOOCOOOO»n — ■^tO'd«C»CO-Hrjit-tOC— TfCOOtOt^Oa 
 
 incoocNtocotocotooootocoooi^(Noo-<j«coQOQOOoot^r^ 
 
 I otoco "* 
 
 I to -< Tjl T}< 
 
 1 o» oi to •-< 
 
 ^5 
 
 •^05r-co0'*t^i>too«oo — in>noo3ino< 
 eoo(cooin'^to«^ooooin-<*'--(?»oootoco( 
 ■»i< cor-i ooto c< intoocooi 
 
 ) to ff} ■* 1— 00 to 
 
 ) ■<*l l^ CO 00 r-* 
 
 1 to in I— I to < 
 lOin eo( 
 
 > in 03 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 .^ .5 'w 0) 
 
 
 C3 ' 
 
 
 m 3 J) <u c C 
 
 S £ ^ fe a< eo 
 
 ffia 
 
 >= ^ a 
 *-. w ^5 
 
 tJ tj o 
 
 o oS.Si 
 
 ffi:^ 
 
 '^^ 
 
 a^ 
 
 ° a ^ 
 
 
 ;;; t« .2 C 
 
 si 
 
 O « -C.«J 
 
 f- D D _. 
 
 O O .ti 
 
 
 S5 '*^ C 03 ^ 
 
 w^;^; 
 
 j=j= rt 
 
 i^o 
 
 ««1 
 
 S T^ 
 
 e« C8 W 
 •^ 4) t, P< 
 
 CO t3 ^ ;3 
 
 o o*2^ 
 
 <U H -J 
 
 PQMcO 
 
 <u.'£.'^.'£ .'£.'^ 
 
 a^ c C c c 
 
 
 S_ac3(3ja>a)edc«ws-2 
 
 -^ — t. i, u. ^ Pj Q-^"^ i^ 3 
 
 c n ^Li- 
 
 g20PQPQMCQoq<;o&HCnfct*[»CQr'^0 
 
 ^ 
 
31 
 
 vn i> kft 00 
 
 O 0» rM 0< 
 
 •— rN (M o 
 
 »f5t~QD(?Jvn(Ma5:ovft— <r)>ai — •— ooini^oa-^— 'WOO 
 
 ftj t~- CTi in c^ "' oi • 
 ■T^ 00 CO -< CO X CTi 
 t^ o o 1-1 vn 
 
 ( r- C5 O l^ 00 J^ C-J O OJ f^) vO — ' 'J3 '?J I 00 
 
 i^CMOst^— <'r»a5cn>acmGi<N0D-s< t- 
 
 TP O M M I— 1— 1 ai CM "Xi kfS ■-" 01 <£> 
 
 1-1 CO 1-1 ift 1-1 CO 
 
 vft 'i* CO 
 
 in o ■-< 
 
 r- ■»*< 00 05 CO •■> oi 
 
 05 O 0» to ifl O 5£> 
 
 CO 00 ^ 00 »n -H o 
 
 0» CO 
 
 Chcjca(y»rt<— iinococo 
 
 CjaDCO-^OQC'ODO'-Din 
 
 inococNQooi-^coOin 
 
 vft -H in 01 oi 00 no 
 »^ o o in t-c* 00 
 00 !£) — < c- G» o 1^ 
 
 "* c-i in CO 
 
 i-Tp-Tcf 
 
 O « CO t^ 
 
 in -^ m "* 1^ 1-^ 
 
 00 CO in ift oi CO r- 
 
 ^l" 05 rl< ^- cv; in O 
 CO O O -^ I- t^O 
 
 i-Hr*< 
 
 I- in 
 
 ID O 
 
 M<r-c<(OincooooJoo 
 
 CS — CClOOCOQOOl---^ 
 
 OJOi^'^ini^-^co-*'*! 
 
 iC CO CO •-0 to in 
 CI — « '3' o o r~ 
 
 i-'-ninocrttc*-^ i«o 1— 'OOO'^OifMrooccQc- 
 
 on ,-< (MOO totn COOt^OOlJ^OCO^OO 
 
 1-1 !-!(?» 1-^coci-H c* in — I •* 
 
 (MO o-*ecso 
 
 1-1 TT* 
 
 — CD -< (S C« » ©» QOt^CM-^CftCOOTfOOOOCOCO t^QD i>o>c<a> 
 
 ^H'^rH 1-IIX! -Hl-l t-O'* —i-ll-OCO 1-1 1-1 CO I- 
 
 •^ I r-^O*!-^ 1—1 1-1 I I ^H 
 
 eo t^ •<*" »n to Oi oi i-t(M as o^ "m ■"* oo to oj t^ eo im rj« m iy» eo — •>* t^ »^ ^ 
 inF^fN 1-1 i-< ^ rfi CO ^ tot-eo (M '-» ^eocos* 
 
 ^^ I I ^. CO 1-^ l-< I M F^ 
 
 Oi— •(^»oocfriC« (KO ininocoosint-Qococo QOrt<in — ooccoo 
 
 ■«a< — « en CO CO en to r-tM to o co in — < -^ Oi o^ en -^ — too(N— 'toco 
 
 o J> o -- '-"__co -^ inco (MOtoi-~c<3Ci<jiaiin'-' torr— cotMoiai 
 
 04aiTj<aii>inc* (Xico --"os co"-^ mcocoocor- coooo oo co't-^'tT 
 
 i>into t^— <05 icMoo I05t^ — -^co—icoinojo i(Moo(>Jin-^inao i I 
 
 C CO "^ -^ ClCOODi-i ■>* — (M CO -^i-H^TjiTlt 
 
 o 
 
 O P 5^ 
 
 o o3 
 
 O "O 
 N C 
 
 t_ to 
 
 O oi 
 
 rot*- 
 0) 
 
 rt 
 
 ■ ^ 
 
 2 
 
 <3 
 
 Pi " 
 
 •£■2 
 
 u 
 
 >>c 
 
 « >>' 
 
 aj 
 
 CO ^ -S 1) ^ tj o --; ;c .■-- TJ — 
 
 >>£■- o ^-S ^ c S^^ S S ^ ■= ^' S-s^: 
 
 « a! CO y (a "-I 3 '-^ "^ "' "" -■' "' ■•!•'•''•>!- 
 
 rt bo 
 
 OJ 1, "' --^ a 
 
 cj cS 
 
 3 .'- ^== ,5- ii2 .<" ii 'iJ ^ v:^ - -Zi -; j=: <u o -« s '^ "- ti o 
 
 5 == 
 
 S2Er22^2r252?2'*''^'*t^<jcaiO — c?cornintDi>ooaio-^(McO'*iny> 
 ffOWCOro'^T»<Ti<'*^^T}<ic<'<i<^»n»nin»niriovninknintotototototo!0 
 
32 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 IFYom the Treaniry Report of 1840.] 
 -EXPORTS OF OUR DOMESTIC PRO- 
 DUCTS TO TEXAS IN 1839. 
 1. Products of tiK fisheries. 
 Dried or smoked and pickled fish - - $3, 137 
 
 Spermaceti oil and candles, whale and other 
 
 fish oil - - - • - - 7' 057 
 
 Non-enumerated - - " 33, 232 
 
 Total exports products of the fisheries - 43, 426 
 
 2. Products of the forest. 
 Staves, heading, shingles, boards, plank, and 
 
 scantling _ _ - - 
 
 Other lumber . _ - - 
 
 Oak bark, and other dye - - - 
 AH manufactures of wood 
 Tar, pitch, rosin and turpentine 
 
 Ashes — pot and pearl - - - 
 
 Skins and furs _ _ - - 
 
 Non-enumerated - - - - 
 
 48, 504 
 
 22, 267 
 
 599 
 
 51,112 
 
 1,471 
 
 64 
 
 225 
 
 33, 232 
 
 Total exports products of the forest - 157. 474 
 
 3. Products of (^culture. 
 Beef - - . - 
 
 Pork, ham, bacon and lard 
 
 Butter and cheese - - - - 
 
 Horses . - - - - 
 Flour - - - 
 Indian corn - - 
 
 Indieui meal _ . - - 
 Rye, oats, and other small grain, and pulse 
 
 Biscuit, or ship bread _ - - 
 
 Potatoes - - - - - 
 Apples 
 
 Rice . _ - - - 
 
 Tobacco . - - - - 
 
 Brown sugar - _ - - 
 
 Molasses - - - - - 
 
 Non-enumerated - - - - 
 
 3,587 
 
 62, 132 
 
 13, 028 
 
 700 
 
 55, 091 
 
 15,981 
 
 1,151 
 
 6, 902 
 
 12, 701 
 
 5,145 
 
 1,040 
 
 5,743 
 
 1,509 
 
 27, 900 
 
 3,250 
 
 33, 234 
 
 Total exports products of agriculture - 239, 092 
 4. Exports of domestic manufactures 
 
 Household furniture 
 Coaches and other carriages 
 
 58,571 
 11,410 
 
 Hats 19,055 
 
 Saddlery 14,063 
 
 Beer, porter, cider and spirits, from grain - 50, 508 
 
 Leather boots and shoes - - - 64, 308 
 
 Tallow candles and soap - - - 6, 676 
 
 Snuff and manufactured tobacco - - 17, 895 
 
 Linseed oil and spirits of turpentine - 1, 530 
 
 Cables and cordage - - - 4, 262 
 Lead - - - - -1,104 
 
 Bar iron and nails - - - - 14, 441 
 
 Castings - - - - - 11,540 
 
 All manvifactures of iron, or of iron and steel 89, 261 
 
 Spirits from molasses - - - 9, 848 
 
 Refined sugar - - - - 8, 844 
 
 Chocolate] ----- 13 
 
 Gunpowder - - - - 4, 659 
 
 Copper, brass, and copper manufactured - 395 
 
 Medical drugs - - - - 7, 990 
 
 Printed and colored piece goods of cotton 95, 856 
 
 White piece goods of cotton - - 138, 603 
 
 Yarn and other threads - - - 28 
 
 All other manufactures of cotton - - 11, 16G 
 
 Bags, and other manufactures of flax - 20 
 
 Wearing apparel - - i. - 118, 303 
 
 Combs and buttons - - - 1, 470 
 
 Brushes - - - - - 1,025 
 
 Billiard tables and apparatus - - 413 
 
 Umbrellas and parasols - - - 485 
 
 Printing presses ajid type - - - 1, 756 
 
 Musical instruments - - - 959 
 
 Books and maps - - - _ 3, 061 
 
 Paper and other stationery - - 25, 032 
 
 Paints and varnish - - - 8, 663 
 
 Vinegar - - - - - 1, 051 
 
 Earthern and stone ware - - - 6, 541 
 
 Glass 6,875 
 
 Tin - - . - - - 4, 775 
 
 Pewter and lead - - - - 407 
 
 Marble and stone - - - - 966 
 
 Gold, silver, and gold leaf - - - 150 
 
 Artificial flowers and jeweb'y - - 1, 577 
 
 Bricks and lime - - » - 2, 796 
 
 Domestic salt - - - - 664 
 
 Manufactured articles not enumerated - 100, 056 
 
 Total exports of domestic manufactures 929, 071 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 0DDli42Dfi0a2^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 1