LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 646 884 6 
 
TEXAS, AND HER RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. 
 
 F 390 
 .09 
 Copy 1 
 
 ->*. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 ROBERT DALE OWEN, 
 
 OF INDIANA, 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United Slates, Jon. 8, 1845.. 
 
 [The House being in Committee of tlie Whole 
 on the State of the Union, and having under consid- 
 eration Joint Resolution No. 46, for annexing Texas 
 to the United States,] 
 
 Mr. OWEN said: In the brief time which our 
 rule allots to debate in this House, one is compelled 
 to select from among the various topics of any im- 
 portant subject. Leaving, then, the details of the 
 several plans of annexation to be discussed by their 
 authors, I shall say but a word on the constitution- 
 al argument, already ably touched on; an argument, 
 however, which it is difficult fully and with precis- 
 ion to make, until we shall be able to distinguish 
 in what particular form annexation is likely to be 
 consummated. 
 
 We have talked of a "treaty of annexation," un- 
 1 til these have become familiar words. Is it certain, 
 ; that such an act can be properly consummated by a 
 I treaty at all? A treaty is a compact between two 
 I sovereign nations. Now, at what moment could 
 I what we have called a treaty of annexation have 
 . been such a compact' Not certainly before it was 
 latified. Until then, ^t was of no force whatever; 
 an escrow; inchoate, as lawyers say. But would it 
 have been a treaty after its ratification? Suppose the 
 Senate roll called, the ratifying vote given, and the 
 instrument passed to the President; at the instant 
 ■when his pen completed the approving signature, 
 would it, even at that first moment of final ac- 
 tion upon it, at that very first moment of its 
 ■ legal existence, then have been a treaty? A 
 j treaty between whom? A compact between what 
 two sovereign powers? Between us and Texas' 
 That approving signature would have stricken 
 Texas from the independent sovereignties of the 
 earth. And there would have remained nothing, 
 but what is familiar enough to us — what Congress 
 has often consummated, and will consummate 
 again and again, as a matter of course — a compact 
 between the federal government, and a portion of 
 ©ur own territory; a compact coming within the 
 province of Congress, not of the treaty-making 
 power. 
 
 There would be stipulations still to be fulfilled, 
 but not what could be properly called treaty stipula- 
 
 tions, for there would be no foreign sovereign power 
 ther. existing, with whom we could fulfil them. 
 
 My argument is not, that an act of annexation is 
 nothing more than a compact between the general 
 government and one of her Territories. I but say, 
 tliat it resembles that quite as much as it resembles 
 a treaty. But, in truth, it is neither the one nor the 
 other. It is an act sui generis. Talk of pre- 
 cedents to justify it! You might as well seek, 
 in his ancestors, the fame of Napoleon Buona- 
 parte. He was himself an ancestor! There never 
 was, in the history of the world before, so far as my 
 reading extends, an offer made by one of the inde- 
 pendent nations of the earth to merge her sovereign- 
 ty in that of another. It is a contingency wholly 
 new. The action upon it must be new. Our action 
 in this case will become a precedent. 
 
 That we have the right, in some form, to extend 
 our territory by accepting such a proposition, no 
 sensible man, I thhik, can very seriously doubu 
 A sovereign power without the power of receiving 
 an accession of domain would be an anomaly in ju- 
 risprudence, if not a contradiction in terms. To de- 
 ny to a nation such a power of increase, is a sort of 
 Shaker doctrine in politics, which we may expect to 
 see received in theory, and acted out in practice, 
 in this world, when the doctrines of Mother Ann 
 Lee are professed and practised by mankind — not 
 till then. 
 
 Our decision as to the most appropriate form, in 
 which to set so great a precedent, ought, is my 
 judgment, to be chiefly determined l)y the consid- 
 eration, that it is desirable it should receive the most 
 complete national assent that can be given to it, 
 under our institutions. And surely it is not the best 
 mode of effecting such an object, to exclude from all 
 participation in that assent, this, the popular and 
 most numerous branch of the government. 
 
 With these brief hints, I leave the constitutional 
 point to others, older and of more experience in le- 
 gislation than myself, and pass to a review of the sub- 
 ject, ia its foreign aspect. I purpose to speak of th» 
 justice and expediency of this great measure; in con- 
 nection with the public sentiment of this country,, 
 and with the laws of the civilized woild. 
 
 In all mattera of controverBy, however important,^ 
 
there are commonly certain main principles, which 
 once established, the whole subject in dispute is 
 settled. And if we desire to obtain clear views of 
 things, we do well to fix our eyes steadily on these, 
 nor sutler our attention to be withdrawn by inciden- 
 tal propositions, not relevant, or, at least, not es- 
 sential. 
 
 If this be true in the general, the remark applies 
 with especial force to the subject before us. It 
 would be difficult to find a matter, where the decisive 
 
 Eoints at issue are so few and simple; yet one that 
 as been so smothered'up by a load of extraneous 
 matter, as this of Texas annexation. The right or 
 wrong of the case is a question of public justice, of 
 international law; it hangs not on the tone of a de- 
 spatch or the wording of an accompanying docu- 
 ment. The expediency of the measure involves 
 considerations national in the widest sense of the 
 term, co-extensive with the Union, reaching to after 
 ■ ages; let it not be dwarfed down to a party wrangle, 
 or a Northern and Southern dispute; a quarrel, that 
 has no higher aim, than to give office to a man, or 
 sustaining aid to a temporary institution. 
 
 The public press is loaded down with comments 
 on the aiplomatic encounters of ihe past year, be- 
 tween us and IVTexico. These paper Aveapons may 
 decide our opinion of men; they ought not to influ- 
 ence our judgment of measures. Let those who find 
 cause of offence in their language and spirit sutler 
 me to remind them, that, when they have settled 
 that point, they are no nearer the true issue than be- 
 fore. We may not like the terms in which a claim 
 is urged; yet, if we are just, we shall still look to 
 the substance of the claim, not to the manner of pre- 
 ferring it. 
 
 It is easy and invidious to find fault, especially 
 when a transaction is passed and its results have be- 
 come apparent. Yet I trust 1 shall not give ofTence, 
 nor be held failing in respect to the parties concern- 
 ed, if 1 express regret, that the question of the right 
 or the wrong of the Texian revolulion has been 
 suffered to mingle, even incidentally, with the true 
 issues, in our diplomatic correspondence with 
 Mexico. The Texians, indeed, have most am- 
 ple justification of their revolution. The war 
 which gloriously ended at New Orleans thirty 
 years ago this very day, was not more just 
 than that by which Texas became independent. One 
 half the provocation Texas has received would have 
 dissevered our Union long ago. There is not a 
 State of the twenty-six so poor of spirit, that her 
 citizens would not have risen, as a man, against 
 such usurpation. But however unquestionable the 
 right, it is not one, in my judgment, which we were 
 called upon, or which we should have permitted 
 ourselves, to argue with Mexico. With Texas, not 
 with us, was the question of past grievances against 
 Mexican authority open, if open at all. But in 
 truth it was closed; closed, long since, by that stern 
 arbiter, the sword. 
 
 Nor does it seem to me, that it was our place, as 
 negotiators, even to allude to former rights under 
 by-gone treaties. Do we claim Texas under the 
 treaty of 1S03.' Not at all. Signor Rejon so con- 
 strues it; but that is only one of tlie men of straw he 
 Bets up, for the convenient pleasure of comfortably 
 demolishing him again. 
 
 As between us and Texas, the argument from 
 that treaty, in its mora/ bearing, is a strong one; and 
 as such I have, on a pvcvious occasion, alluded to 
 it. Our solemn promise publicly made in 1803 we 
 TJolated in 1819; and though we may not take ad- 
 
 vantage of our own wrong still to claim Texas 
 against our formal cession, yet neither are we re- 
 leased irom our obligation to receive her, so soon as 
 circumstances lawfully and honorably permit, and 
 she herself desires, re-annexation. 
 
 If any thing can strengthen our moral obligation 
 to repan- a great wrong, committed for the sake of 
 acquiring the Floridas, it is the fact, not generally 
 known, that the Texians, numbering in 1819, 
 over ten thousand free white inhabitants, formally- 
 protested, jits< _/bur?«o»i;/is afltr the signature of the 
 Florida treaty, against this abandoning of their per- 
 sons and their territory to the tender mercies of 
 Spain. 
 
 In Niles's Register for 1819, at page 31, is to be 
 found this protest. It is contained in "a copy of a 
 declaration issued on the 23d of June ( 1819) by the 
 supreme council of the republic of Texas," in which, 
 after stating that the Texians had long indulged the 
 hope that they would be included in the limits of 
 our Union — a hope, they add, which the "claims of 
 the United States, long and strenuously urged, have 
 encouraged" — the Council proceeds to say: 
 
 "The recent treaty between Spain ami the United States 
 of America has dissipated an illusion too long fondly cher- 
 ished, and has roused the citizens of Texas froiti the torpor 
 into which a fancied security had lulled them. They have 
 seen themselves, by a (jonvkntion to viiick thkv wf.ee no 
 
 PARTY, LITF.KALLV ABANDONED TO THE DOMl.MON OF THC 
 
 cFovvN OF Spain; and left a prey, not only to impositions 
 already intolerable, but to all those exactions which Span- 
 ish rapacity is fertile in devising." 
 
 This remarkable protest is signed by the Pres^ 
 identand Secretary of the "Supreme Council." If I 
 am asked here to produce the credentials of these gen- 
 tlemen, and to show under what precise law this 
 Council was elected and qualified, my reply is, that 
 in the early efforts after independence put forth by 
 new and thinly settled countries, little of rigid for- 
 mality can be expected. The declaration is an 
 expression of public sentiment, as official, probably, 
 as the then condition of Texas permitted. And ai 
 all event.?, the authority of the Texian Council was 
 quite as regular as that of stout Ethan Allen and hia 
 handful of volunteers, when the old soldier, more 
 than a year in advance of the Teclaration of Inde- 
 pendence, thundered at the gates of Ticonderoga, 
 and bade her surrender "in the name of the great 
 Jehovah and the Continental Congress !" 
 
 But till thi.3, I repeat, touches but the bark of the 
 controversy. Let us penetrate that, and reach its 
 substance at once. 
 
 Texas is an independent Repuldic, occupying a 
 separate and equal station among tlie nations of the 
 earth, legally possessing her own .:^oil, lawfully ad- 
 ministering her own laws, — or, she is hiu a revolted 
 province, over which Mexico has preserved nil her 
 rights; her government but a jirovisional usurpation, 
 the title to her territory still m the mother country. 
 
 Settle that one point — and, as regards the ques- 
 tion in its foreign relations, every thing is settled. 
 
 It seems strange to me, that wc should yet be re- 
 quired to argue such a question. And yet we are. 
 Day after day pour forth from the leading journal* 
 of our opponents protests and denunciations. We 
 who favor annexation are, if their words are to b« 
 taken for it, but a band of land-robbers, on a magf- 
 nificent scale; leagued together for the avowed pur- 
 pose of filching from Mexico, without a color of 
 right, some two hundred million acres of her lawful 
 territory. History is ransacked for examples of 
 similar profligate ambition; and, in a recent number 
 of the National Intelligencer, (of December 24,) 
 
en } ; 
 
 i our government is likened, without scruple, to "that 
 
 -r> politic warrior and tyrant, Frederick the Great,;" 
 
 . who, hr.ving "cast an eye of longing- upon part of a 
 
 neighboring realm which suited him," bade liis Min- 
 
 ^ • ister prepare a manifesto, making clear the justice of 
 
 ^ his title. The Minister obeyed, setting forth "the 
 
 -intended act of rapine as an errand of grace, mercy 
 
 ■ and justice." 
 
 »J» "All tbis" (aJc's the Intelligencer) "the ^Minister dvesseil 
 
 i^' up in a very captivating form: nothing could be more right- 
 
 ful, nothing more necessary for liis own safety from cn- 
 
 > _ croachin^ ncighhors, nothing more charitable, nothing more 
 
 ij* for the glory of God and the advancement of religion. 
 
 . 'Stopl' cried Frederick, when his Minister came to that part 
 
 ^' , of the .Manifesto; 'leave out God and religion: I want a 
 
 province!' " 
 
 Similar accusations find a voice on this floor. A gen- 
 tleman from M^issachusetts, [Mr. Winthuop,] whose 
 characterand standing give weight to the charge and 
 demand for it a reply, scrupled not, but the otiier 
 day. to denounce the proposed act of annexation as 
 a scheme "monstrous beyond all power of expres- 
 sion;" as a project, "contrary to the law of nations 
 and in violation of the good faith of our own coun- 
 try." My colleague [Mr. C. B. Smith] who has just 
 spoken, takes the very same ground. He charac- 
 terized tlie plan of annexation as an attempt "to rob 
 Mexico of a part of her territory." 
 
 Now, sir, 1, for one, when I give my vote, — as I 
 hope yet this session to give it — for the annexation 
 «f Texas to these United States, am not willing to 
 give it silently, under such imputations. Let our op- 
 ponents here prove to us — not assert it merely — 
 tliat this projected annexation is but an "act of ra- 
 pine;" that it is a trampling under foot of justice, 
 morality, good faith, international law — that we 
 have no better excuse for it than this, "we want a 
 province!" — and, if all the dreams of Marco Polo 
 were realized in Texas; if there, at last, were to be 
 found Cipango's shores of gold, the treasures of 
 Antilla — not by my vote should even such a land, 
 wrongfully wrested from a weaker neighbor, becotne 
 part of this, yet undishonored. Union ^ 
 
 But in proof of charges so grave, there lacks 
 something beyond mere idle iteration. There lacks 
 proof, that Texas is not an independent State. I 
 maintain, that she is; and if the Committee will give 
 me brief attention, I purpose to show, somewhat 
 more at large than on a previous occasion, good 
 cause for t!ie opinion. 
 
 Not lightly should this question be approached; 
 rot heedlessly decided. Let us beware! The fate 
 of our otTspring, the destinies of our descendants, 
 may hang upon the decision. We, of the West es- 
 pecially, are as birds of passage. Our instinct at- 
 tracts us to regions distant and new. In Oregon, or 
 elsewhere, the question may arise, as now, what is 
 just revolution, and what, lawless revolt. In judg- 
 ing the Texians to-day, we may be deciding, of our 
 own children, in after years, whellier they sliall be 
 held to be frc.:men meriting honor, or traitors de- 
 serving death! 
 
 Leaving out of view the prime cause of the Tcx- 
 ian revolution — that "violation of the fundamental 
 laws," which, Vatiel declares, gives to a sovereign's 
 subjects "a legal right to resist him" — passing by 
 that, we come to the fact, that, nine years ago, 
 Mexico and Texas engaged in war. Texas 
 was successful. She conquered, and has since 
 peaceably possessed, her territory. Has she 
 now a good title to that territory? Has 
 she a right to convey it to whom she will? Let 
 Grotuis answer; Grotius writing two centuries ago; 
 
 writing under the eye of a king; dedicating his celc« 
 brated work to a king. Our whig friends cannot ac- 
 cuse me of dragging in the radicalism of some mod- 
 ern innovator, to sustain my position. I presume 
 to hope, that the counsellor of Q,ueen Christina, 
 when he happens to decide in favor of liberty, will 
 not be rejected by them as ultra-democratic au- 
 thority. Yet here is his doctrine: 
 
 "According to the law of nations, not only the person 
 who malv.es war upon just grounds; but any one u-Uafe-tr 
 ensa^fd in resiilar nndfurmid war,hecomes aliSoliUf pniprii- 
 tor o/ tvcrythiiis which he takes from the enemy, so tliat 
 all. nations fespect his title, and (!>>; title of all, who denve 
 Ihruuiih hiia their claim to such possessions: which, a.s to all 
 foreign relations, constitutes the true idea of dominion.''— 
 Rights of War and Prare, Book HI, Chap. VI. 
 
 As to the principle according to which the words 
 "takes from the enemy" are to be construed, Gro- 
 titis adds: 
 
 "In this question upon tlie rights of war, nations have de- 
 cided, that a person is undtrsloud to hare made n capture. 
 when lie detains a thing in .mch a manner, that the owner has 
 ahundoned oil jirohable hopes of recovering it." — Ibid. 
 
 In regard to ships, for example, they are held to 
 be captured, Grotius says, when they are "carried 
 into some of the captor's ports, or to some place 
 where their whole fleet is stationed." And as to 
 personal effects generally, he informs us, that Euro- 
 pean powers have made it an "establislied maxim 
 of the law of nations," that "captures shall be deem- 
 ed good and lawful which have continued in the 
 enemy's possession for the space of twenty-four 
 hours." 
 
 As to lands, the principle is the same, but the ap- 
 plication somewhat ditTerent. Grotius's words are: 
 
 "Lands are not understooil to become a lawful possession 
 and absolute conquest from the moment they are invaded, 
 tor, although it is true, that an army takes immediate and 
 violent possession of the country which it has invaded, yet 
 that can only be considered as a temporary possession, un- 
 accompanied by any of the rights and consequences alluded 
 to in this work, till it has Ijeen secured Ay some durable 
 means, by cession or by treaty." — Ibid. 
 
 And a little further on is an example of the "du- 
 rable means" here spoken of. He says: 
 
 "Now land will be considered as- completely conquered 
 when it is enclosed and secured by permanent fortifications, 
 so that no other state or sovereign can liave free access to 
 it without lirst making themselves masters of those fortifi- 
 cations. On this account Flaccus, the Sicilian, assigns no 
 improbable conjecture for the origin of the word territory, 
 becan.;c the enemy is deterred from entering it." — Piid. 
 
 Here, without cession, without treaty, fortifica- 
 tions arc held to be "durable means" to secure terri- 
 tory, and to give absolute title. 
 
 Prom all this the rule of law is clear. Temporary 
 possession of territory, by mere invasion, does not 
 confer legal title. Permanent possession does. 
 Possession to be permanent, must be secured by 
 cession, by treaty, or by other durable means; as, for 
 example, by f)rtifications. This latter condition 
 was strictly applicable in former ages, when, as 
 Zlenopb.on expressed it, "in time of war the po.=5- 
 session of a country is kept by walls, strongholds 
 and barriers." But such is not now the custom; 
 and the law does not require what is nugatory and 
 useless. Any oiher condition of things which de 
 stroysall probable hopes of recovery; which i>ro- 
 vidcs means as elfer-.tual as were the fortifications of 
 the olden time, to deter the enemy from entering a 
 conquered territory; docs, in fact, equally with that 
 antique specification, confer legal title. Such a con- 
 dition of things is a regular government, formally 
 i!st<iblished and duly administered, extending its 
 laws over the territory in question, peacefully ami 
 
with general acquiescence; an organized army and 
 navy, prepared to protect that government; but, 
 above all, stable, enduring possession; entire pos- 
 session, with not a city, town, or even petty fortress 
 remaining in the hands of the enemy; possession 
 undisturbed by any invasion that is respectable or 
 formidable enough seriously to threaten reconquest. 
 Such a state of things exists, and has for years 
 existed, in Texas. It eminently fulfils the condi- 
 tion, that possession shall be secured by durable 
 means, so as to take away all probable hopes of re- 
 covery. It fulfils it far more effectually than do 
 Zenophon's "walls, strongholds and barriers." 
 The plain truth is, that the government of Texas 
 shov/s, at this very moment, more signs of stability 
 than that of Mexico; and that the "province," to 
 say the least of it, has quite as good a chance to 
 conquer the mother country, as the mother country 
 to rcsubjugate the "province." 
 
 This, I admit, has not, even since the battle of 
 (St. Jacinto, always been so. It is Time, the enac- 
 tor of, and voucher for, the Common Law under 
 ■which we live — it is Time, that has perfected the 
 Texian title. "What to-day is fact," as some one 
 has well expressed it, "to-morrow becomes doc- 
 trine." For a brief space after Houston's brilliant 
 victory, the world still remained in suspense as to 
 the ultimate issue of the contest. The "durable 
 means" had not yet been used, to secure permanent 
 possession. And while that condition of things 
 lasted, scrupulously did the United States conform 
 to its requirements. In the autumn of 1836, Texas 
 formally applied for admission into our confeder- 
 acy. What did our Chief Magistrate — he who 
 now, in his i-etirement, bids us not delay? Did he 
 evince (as the gentleman from Massachusetts 
 charges that we have evinced) indecent haste, to 
 obtain this rich territory.' On the contrary, he re- 
 jected the overture. "A too early movement," said 
 General Jackson, "might subject us, however un- 
 justly, to the charge of seeking to establish the 
 claims of our neighbors to territory, with a view to 
 its subsequent acquisition by ourselves." 
 
 A second time, in August, 1837, the Texians ap- 
 plied, through tlieir Minister General Hunt, desir- 
 iing to be annexed to our Union. And yet again — 
 this time by Mr. Van Buren — the proposal was 
 declined. 
 
 Thus, in the early stage of Texian self-govern- 
 ment, we but acknowledged her independence as 
 existing in fact. We suffered year after year to 
 set its seal of pern'uinence on the existence and the in- 
 stitutions of the young republic, before we permitted 
 ourselves to accept any offers, however advantage- 
 ous, that involved the question of the validity in law 
 of that independence, and the consequent compe- 
 tency of Texas to convey, under good title, her ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 But the years of suspense and probation have 
 passed. It is weakness, not prudence, in us longer 
 to delay her full recognition. In former years we 
 judged the fact of the independence of Texas for the 
 time being, and acknowledged her ilc facto. Now, 
 we judge of her permanent independence, and ac- 
 knowledge her also de jure. We are, for ourselves, 
 in both cases, the judge. That is, as a sovereign 
 people, our privilege. 
 
 What plea will Mexico or Mexico's friends set 
 up, in arrest of that judgment? I bethink me of 
 but one; Mexico has a thousand times urged it; it 
 js the burden of her justification. The plea is, 
 that the Texian struggle was a rebellion, not u revo- 
 
 lution; that the Texians are still but rebels and 
 traitors, and have none of the rights of enemies in 
 war. 
 
 It might be enough to reply, as Webster replied 
 to Bocanegra: 
 
 "The government of the United States does not maintain 
 and never has maintained, the doctrine of perpetuity of natu- 
 ral allegiance. And .surely Mexico maintains no such doc- 
 trine; because her actual existing government, like that of 
 the United States, is founded on the principle that men may 
 throw oft' the obligation of that allegiance to which they 
 were born." — Despatch of July S, 1S42. 
 
 But there lacks not authority higlier than Web- 
 ster's in the case. Vattel has treated it at large. 
 Here is the substance of his doctrine: 
 
 "Some writers confine this tei-m (civil war) tea just in- 
 surrection of the subjects against their sovereign, to distin- 
 guish that lawful resistance from rebellion, which is an open 
 and unjust resistance. But what appellation will they give 
 to a war which arises in a republic torn by two factions; 
 or in a monarchy between two competitors for the crown?"' 
 — Liuf of natio7is, Book III. Chap. XVI II. 
 
 A little farther on, he proceeds to give his own an- 
 swer to the question: 
 
 "The sovereign, indeed, never fails to bestow the appel- 
 lation of ?eip?.s on all such of his subjects as openly resist 
 him: but when the latter have acquired sufficient strength to 
 ^ii'e him effectual opjiosition, and to oblige him to curry on the 
 war according to the. established rules, he must necessarily 
 submit to the use of the term, 'civil war.' " — Ibid. 
 
 And, as to such a war, Vattel declares: 
 "It is evident, //la/ the common lows of war — those maxims 
 of humanity, moderation and honor, which we have already 
 detailed in the course of this work — ought to be observed by 
 both parties in every civil war.'^ — Ibid. 
 
 A word about humanity by-and-by. Meanwhile 
 suflfer me to ask, whether in the case of Santa An- 
 na, the Texians "acquired sufficient strength to 
 give him effectual resistance." The Mexican Dic- 
 tator will hardly deny that. And if he cannot, shall 
 it be tolerated, that Mexico, by a paltry fiction 
 which deceives no one, not even herself, should per- 
 sist in assuming that there is no such Republic as 
 Texas; that the lands lying between the Del Norte 
 and the Sabine form but a petty revolted province 
 of hers, which, when she can find a few weeks leis- 
 ure, she will deign to chastise and rcsubjugate? 
 All this, if the subject were less grave, might pass 
 as a piece of national pleasantry. As it is, it is lit- 
 tle short of an insult to the common sense of man , 
 kind. 
 
 And we but sanction that insult, if we longer hold 
 back in our judgment, sustained as it is by the com- 
 mon voice of the world, that Texas has been receiv- 
 ed as an equal into the family of nations; and now 
 enjoys, as fully as any other nation upon earth, the 
 powers and rights of an independent sovereign. 
 
 Enough on this branch of the subject. But now, 
 dismissing the question of right, we are met by 
 numerous objections against the expediency of an- 
 nexation, as a measure fraught with evil conse- 
 quences to human improvement, even with dan- 
 ger to the integrity of our Union. One of these — 
 esteemed the gravest by some good men — is made 
 in a sacred cause; in the name of human liberty. 
 It is, that, in receiving Texas, we increase and per- 
 petuate slavery among men. 
 
 We increase slavery? By what process? When, 
 by act of Congress or oUicrwise, we cause that 
 country now called the Republic of Texas to be 
 .'Styled henceforth the Territory, or the State of 
 Texas, does that reduce a single human being, not 
 now a slave, to the condition of forced vassalage^ 
 No one will pretend that it can. But it will increase 
 the number of slaves inlht United Stales? Undoubt- 
 
edly. And so aJso v/ill it sutely increase, witliin 
 the UnitedStates, the number of murders, and tliefts, 
 and breaclies of the peace; unless we imagine 
 Texas a Utopia, where crimes and offences are ut- 
 terly unknown. 
 
 Every human enterprise is of checkered conse- 
 quences. "The lives of tlie best of us," as it has been 
 somewhere well said, "are spent in choosing be- 
 tween evils." In this world of imperfections, the 
 practical question to be answered before we act, is, 
 not whether our action is to produce unmixed good 
 — to no human policy is it given thus to operate — 
 but whether the good it promises will preponderate 
 over the evils to which it may open the door. In 
 admitting Texas, we increase, to some extent, our 
 slave territory. But shall we count it for nothing, 
 on the other hand, that we increase also, by one- 
 sixtii, our Union; happy, prosperous, blessed, even 
 will ail her faults, as we feel her to be. Is it a priv- 
 ilege to be a citizen of tliese United States; to sit down 
 in peace and safety under the shelter of our rejiub- 
 lican institutions.' And shall we count for nothing 
 the extension of that privilege to tens of thousands 
 now living; its prospective extension to millions 
 more yet to live.' 
 
 We can find no Utopia to annex. It is right or 
 it is wrong, it is wise or it is unwise — apart from 
 all temporary and sectional considerations, — to ex- 
 tend the national territory. If right and wise, we 
 must be content, in carrying out such extension, to 
 take things as we find them. Who are we, that we 
 ehould be thus scrupulous in admitting into our con- 
 federacy a territory nov/ tolerating slavery, because, 
 in so doing, we are still to continue, over that terri- 
 tory, or over a portion of it, to tolerate, for a time, 
 tliat institution.' Who are we, and what has been 
 our course? Have we hitherto added one foot to the 
 national domain by treaty with the Red Man, I say 
 not without jiridijig- evils in the added territory, but 
 without creating tliem there? What think you of 
 the transition state of the Indian, brought upon liim 
 by us, in which we take from him the bold, rude 
 virtues of aboriginal life, and bestow, in return, on- 
 ly the lowest vices of civilization? What think you 
 of the slavery of intemperance, the mi.serics of 
 disease — our fatal gifts to the original lords of this 
 broad land; now melting them away, till their very 
 name will disappear from the living tribes of 
 eartli? Yet when did the consideration of such con- 
 sequences ever arrest tlie signature of an Indian 
 treaty? 
 
 But Texas annexation will perpetuale slavery? 
 To me its probable consequences seem the very re- 
 Terse of this. The impression is becoming general, 
 that it would speedily drain off a large portion of 
 the slave population of the northern slave States; 
 and aid in efi'ecting, what modern abolitionism has re- 
 tarded, the peaceful and gradual emancipation of 
 slaves in Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, 
 and then in other States. But there is yet another 
 view to be taken of it. Slavery, like monarchy, 
 is a temporary evO. It will disappear, as all tem- 
 porary evils must disappear, so soon as it becomes, 
 and is generally fell lo be, commercially unprofita- 
 ble. We are rapidly nearing that point. The grow- 
 ing density of population and consequent increasing 
 competition in manual labor, is driving us, year by 
 year, towards it. And as it is gradually reached, 
 in the several States; as the day arrives when a 
 slaTC becomes a negative quantity in the market; 
 ■when his master shall desire, by emancijiation, to 
 free himself from an incumbrance; iu that day, 
 
 whither shall the negro go? Are his friends wise, 
 in desiring to have the United States hemmed in on 
 the southwest? in wishing to see a foreign, it might 
 be a hostile Power, interposed between us and 
 Mexico? If there be for the liberated African a 
 path of deliverance and a place of refuge beyond; 
 that path lies through Texas; that place of refuge, 
 where the sun suits his blood and the institutions 
 recognize the equal rights of his color, is to be 
 found in Mexico, in Guatemala and the States 
 farther South. Shut him out from these — and are 
 you not, by that very act, virtually prolonging his 
 bondage? 
 
 Slavery is not the true difficulty. In replying to 
 the arguments of the abolitionists, we are not at the 
 bottom of the question. We have not penetrated 
 to the depths of the opposition against annexation. 
 We have not yet touched the argument, the strongest, 
 the deepest-seated in the minds of its opponents. 
 Late indications distinctly reveal it to us. In the 
 columns of the leading Metropolitan Whig jour- 
 nal — the most moderate and respected organ of the 
 party — in the leader of the National Intelligencer, 
 under date the 13th December last, I find the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 "Deprecating any extension of the territorj- of the Uni- 
 ted States beyond its present limits as an evil, in itself of 
 great magnitude; protesting against it, under any circum- 
 stances, for the sake of the interests of the States of the 
 Union, both old and new, which are, in our opinion, deeply 
 involved in it; yet if in any form, SiC." 
 
 I pray you to note that. I ask you to observe 
 distmctly how the matter stands. It avails not to 
 argue, with our opponents, the question of right to 
 annex. It is idle to substantiate to them, from the 
 pages of international law or the dictates of com- 
 mon sense, the legal independence of Texas. These 
 outworks carried, there is a barrier beyond; tower- 
 ing far above them; standing untouched, if they 
 were levelled to the ground. It is not an extension 
 of our national domain on its southwestern frontier, 
 it is ANY extension, which our opponents depre- 
 cate. It is not Texas, as such, they reject; they 
 would reject equally a country in any other latitude, 
 peopled by any other race, bearing any other name. 
 They protest not against annexation, for that it may 
 increase and perpetuate slavery; they protest against 
 it, as in 1803 they protested against the purchase of 
 Louisiana, "under ANY circumstances." 
 
 Is the whig party wrong in this, their great objec- 
 tion? Jls whigs, I am not prepared to assert that 
 they are. 
 
 Rome, in the heyday of her power, added pro- 
 vince to province; and this extension of her terri- 
 tory but seemed to hasten her decline and fall. 
 The mad ambition of Alexander sufficed to conquer 
 half a world; yet, within a year after his death, 
 the overgrown empire purchased by the blood of 
 millions fell to pieces, it seemed, from its own 
 weight. Are these to be held as beacon lights for 
 us, in the present juncture? If ours be a govern- 
 ment like that of Rome under the empire, like that 
 of the Macedonian conqueror, undoul)tedly yes. If 
 it is fated gradually to approach such a character, 
 still, undoubtedly yes. Or if, like Mexico, we are 
 at last to settle down upon Centralism; if the right* 
 of the States arc to be stolen piecemeal, and the 
 central power here invested with their spoils; if 
 this city of Washington is lo dispense, as did the 
 mistress of the world from her seven hills, all laws 
 to govern our land; nay, without proceeding so far, 
 if all doubtful powers in the constitution are to be 
 assumed as lawful; if the sphere of federal legisla- 
 
tion is to be gradually increased; if we are to inter- 
 fere with commerce, favoring under the name of 
 protection, one section of our country, by taxing 
 the industry of another; if, closely connected with 
 our government, there is to be a central money 
 power, stronger in these days, and therefore more 
 dangerous to" liberty, than a standing army; if the 
 checks which the wisdom of revolutionary days in- 
 corporated in our constitution, to. arrest the 
 hot haste of party, in its flush of power, — if 
 these restricting checks are to be swept away; 
 in a word, if the progress of our federal policy is 
 to be from the less to the more of legislation; then 
 reject Texas, abandon Oregon, add not, by treaty, 
 one acre more of Indian lands. Naj'! if such is to 
 be our future course, this Union is far too large al- 
 ready; it ought never to have been permitted to 
 overpass the Alleghanies. 
 
 But will such be the progress of legislation 
 among us? Ought it to be? In following out, from 
 age to age, the story of the ceaseless struggle be- 
 tween the privileges of the few and the rights of the 
 manyt^forth from every page, blazoned on the ex- 
 perience of every nation, shines forth the great 
 truth, that overmuch legislation has been the curse 
 of mankind; and that law has become (alas ! how 
 few the exceptions!) a weapon of aggression rather 
 than an regis of defence. As we read, we feel, that 
 the protection of government has been overpaid for 
 by Its iritermeddlings; and that the people might 
 well, in the words of the Cynic philosopher, tell the 
 Alexanders of the world, that the only favor they 
 asked of them was — to stand out of their sunshine ! 
 
 Men are not wise and good enough to dispense 
 with law. Would that they were ! Government, 
 like medicine, is to us a necessary evil. There is 
 such a thing as the despotism of anarchy; and a 
 king is not indispensable to a reign of terror. The 
 practical question is, how many of the Sibylline 
 leaves of legislation wc may safely burn, yet leave 
 the remainder more valuable than was the entire 
 code. 
 
 From the fate of past delusions we may determine 
 the trendings of future reform. When a miner 
 sinks his shaft and strikes a productive vein of ore, 
 it is his practice first to follow it so far as to observe 
 its leading direction: then, emerging to the surface, 
 with that observation for his guide, he sinks, at re- 
 mote distances, other shafts, confident that he will 
 again arrive at the object of his search. So with 
 the rich and hidden \ud()^ that stretch away into the 
 
 treat mine of Progressive Improvement. Guided 
 y an observation of their past course, we may pre- 
 dict whore an after generation will find them. 
 
 But the principle of progress in legislation has 
 hitherto been from the more to the less. If we 
 compare the statutes and constitutions of Republi- 
 can America with the laws of Monarchical Europe, | 
 it may surprise u.<;,to discover, how much of the dif-i 
 ference between them consists — in omissions. And | 
 of the after-thougiit of revolutionary law-givers — of 
 the thirtecsi articles that form the amendments to the 
 federal constitution — nine, at least, are of a negative 
 or restrictive character; circumscribing, within nar- 
 rower limiis, the province of legislation. So in old- 
 er coimlries and in former ages. All the important 
 provisions of Magna Churta are prohibitory. A 
 freeman sl)all not lose property or life !)y the mon- 
 arch's decision; a traveller siiall not be prevented 
 from leaving the kingdom or returning!; to it at pleas- 
 ure; llie king's servants shall not arbiirarily seize 
 Ihe property of his subjects. Even the minor priv- 
 
 ileges secured at Runnemede are of a similar stamp; 
 as witness one, characteristic of those times, namely, 
 that a baron's widow shall not be compelled to 
 marry, if she prefer to remain single. So again of 
 the Habeas Corpus Act, called by Blackstone "that 
 second Magna Charta and stable bulwark of liber- 
 ty," of which the provision is, in substance, that a 
 man shall not be confined in prison on mere suspi- 
 cion. All of these were rude eflTorts to narrow down 
 the sphere of government. And still, even in later 
 years, the same princijjle prevails. Throughout 
 Europe, — but especially in England, that half-liberal 
 mother of republics — religion and the press have for 
 cev'.turies been struggling against the interference of 
 law; with partial, but positive success. And com- 
 merce, if at some distance, has been gradually fol- 
 lowing their footsteps. All proceed in one direc- 
 tion; all tend to one goal. 
 
 From such facts the inference is, that in our re- 
 public, as elsevvhere, we shall gradually govern less;, 
 that the province of our federal legislation v/ill con- 
 tract as our territory expands. If it does — and that 
 it will the past may vouch — safely, yes, most bene- 
 ficially may this Union and its blessings spread over 
 the entire continent of North America; each inde- 
 pendent State secure in its own separate sovereignty, 
 and but increasing by its accession, the wealth, the 
 power, and tiie safet}' of the Great Confederacy. 
 
 1 shall notice yet another objection. It is, that 
 annexation brings, in its train, the scourge of war; 
 while by refusing to annex, we obtain, surely and 
 permanently, the blessings of peace. Let us sift 
 this matter a little. 
 
 Two paths are open before us. The one, to de- 
 clare, as most righteously we may, the legal inde- 
 pendence of Texas; to act boldly on that declara- 
 tion; to accept, what not a government in Europe, if 
 similarly situated, would dream of refusing, the 
 proposition twice already made to us, that we 
 should receive again Texas within our borders; and 
 then — as all men and all nations must, be their con- 
 duct ever so scrupulous — to abide the consequences. 
 The other — ah, that, we shall be told, is the path of 
 safety and of peace ! At its entrance, it may be; 
 many a path of danger and of death has a fair and 
 pleasant entrance. Let us look to the end. Say 
 that we reject Texas, and leave her and Mexico to 
 settle their cjuarrel. Very well. By so doing, we 
 sooth the insolence of Mexico, and quist the jeal- 
 ousy of England. That is satisfactory. England 
 makes a free trade treaty with Texas; extending 
 over that republic (as the phrase now is) her "Pro- 
 tectorate." Let that pass! Mexico, relieved from 
 all apprehension of interlerence from us, proceeds to 
 carry into effect the inhuman threats she has lately 
 made against our Texian neighbors. Is that to 
 pass, too? . Before we enter this satne path of peace, 
 let us look a little in advance, and sef.le, which i.s 
 our way out. Mexico has formally, pui)ltcly, offi- 
 cially warned the Texians to evacuate their country; 
 and declares, that, if they refuse, every one who 
 shall be guilty of the crime of being found anywhere 
 in Texas three miles from her western frontier, shall 
 be put to death. Is that, in tliis nineteenth century 
 incredible? It is true. Witness the "Orders of 
 Genera! Woll," as officially communicated to this 
 House by our Secretary of State, carrying out the 
 provisions of Santa Anna's dcree of June 17; a 
 decree, which forbids all quarter to the Texians, un- 
 der penalty, to the officers non-complying, of the 
 loss of their commissions. Here is the black rec- 
 ord: 
 
"orders of general woll. 
 
 "Headquarters of the Army of the North, 
 
 MiER, June -JO, 1844. 
 
 "i, Adrian Woll, General of Brigade, Sec, make known:— 
 
 "1. The armistice ngieed on with the department of Texas 
 having expired, and the war bein^, in consequence, recom- 
 menced against the inliabitauts of the department, all com- 
 municotion with it ceases. 
 
 "•2. Jlvery individual of whatever condition, who may 
 contravene the provisions of the preceding article, shall be 
 regarded as a traitor, and shall receive the punishment pre- 
 scribed in article 45, title . 10, treatise 8, of the articles of 
 war. 
 
 "3. Efeivj indiriiiital who maybe found at a distance of 
 ■one league from the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will hf 
 regarded as a favorer aiut accomjilice of the usurpers of that 
 ])art of the national territory, dud ns a traitor of his country ; 
 and, after a summary military trial, ^ludl receive the above 
 •puniihment. 
 
 '■4. Every individual who maj' be comprehended within 
 the provisions of the preceding article, and may be rasli 
 enough to fly at the sight of any force belonging to the 
 Supreme Government, shall be pursued, until taken or put 
 to leath." 
 
 The orders are plain as language can make them. 
 The crime is being found in Texas. Every individual 
 from the fact of his being so found, is to be held and 
 deemed to be a "traitor of his country;" and, as such, 
 monstrous as it may seem ! all — for there is no dis- 
 tinction, no exception made or hinted at — EVERY 
 human being there found, is, after summary mil- 
 itary trial, to suffer a traitor's death ! 
 
 In comfortably pursuing our path of peace and of 
 safety, these "Orders" meet our eye. Are we topa.i;s 
 them by.' To notice them might breed a quarrel. 
 Have we a right to notice them.' I suppose the next 
 question will be, whether we have a right to fire on 
 the pirate's flag, or to thwart his good pleasure, 
 when he bids his victims walk the plank, and con- 
 signs them to a watery grave. But, if needs be, we 
 may find proof, that the law of nations does, in some 
 cases — and this is one — permit us to follow the dic- 
 tates of mercy and justice. 
 
 In every civil war, as has been already shown 
 from Vattel, international law requires both parties 
 to '-observe the common laws of war, the maxims 
 of humanity, moderation and honor." What are 
 these laws.' Let Vattel inform us. 
 
 "On an enemy's submitting and laying down his arms, 
 we cannot with justice tyke away his life. Thus, in a bat- 
 tle, quarter is given to those who lay down their arms; and, 
 in a>-Jege, a garrison offering to capitulate are never to be 
 refused their lives." — Vattel, Unok Hi., chap. H. 
 , "Women, children, feeble old m^n, and sick persons, 
 come under the description of enemies; and we have certain 
 rights over them, inasmuch as they belong to the nation 
 ■with which we are at war. But they are enemies, who 
 make no resistance; and consequently we have no right to 
 maltreat their persons, much less to take away their lives. 
 This is so plain a niaxini of justice and humanity, that, at 
 present, every nation in the least degree civilized acquiesces 
 in it." — Iliid. 
 
 "It was a dreadful error of antiquity, a most unjust alW 
 savage claim, to assume a right of putting prisoners of war 
 to desith, even by the hand of the executioner. More just 
 and humane principles have, long since, been adopted.'' — 
 Ibid. 
 
 But Mexico, we may be told, only threatens this 
 flagrant violation of the law of nations. The threat 
 is itself illegal. What we may not do, neither are 
 we permitted to threaten. Says Vattel: 
 
 "Whatever advantage you may promise yourself from an 
 nnlawful proceedini;, that will not warrant you in the use 
 of it. The menace of an unjust piininhnient is ujijust in 
 ili'lf; it is an insult and an injury." —i'nofc Hi., chap. 8. 
 
 But the threat is idle, it has been said; merely 
 meant to intimidate; too horrible to be fulfilled. If 
 the bloodshed on the plains of Goliad had a voice; 
 if the walls of the Alamo could epeakj would tliey 
 
 vouch for it, that Mexico is too tenderhearted to 
 keep lier word? The treaty of capitulation with 
 poor Fannin was formally drawn up and signed by 
 both Mexican and Texian officers; yet the morning 
 of Palm Sunday saw four hundred disarmed men 
 marched out and shot down, like beeves in a 
 slaughter-house. From what has been we are jus* 
 tified in deciding what will be. 
 
 But still, if these threatened crimes are committed 
 by Mexico, where do we find warrant to interposs 
 and arrest them.' That, too, shall be forthcoming. 
 It would be strange if it could not be found- Of 
 what use is a law without a penalty.' Of what 
 avail the law of nation.s, if nations are not authoriz- 
 ed to see it obeyed! So decides Vattel: 
 
 "The laws of )uitural soeie,ty are of such imiiortance to 
 the safety of all the States, that, if tlie custom once prevailed 
 of trampling them underfoot, no nation could flatter her- 
 self with the hope of preserving her national independence, 
 and enjoying domestic tranquillity. ♦ ♦ * AH nations 
 have therefore a right to resort loforcihle vtearts for the pur- 
 pose ofrenres.vins any one particular nation ti-ho openly vio- 
 lates the laws of the society which nature has established be« 
 tween them, or who directly attacks the welfare and safety 
 of that society.-' — Vattel, Prelim, p. Ixiv. 
 
 Here, then, we have the law and its application. 
 Mexico lias openly violated, and declareil her pur- 
 pose, in aggravated form, again openly to violate, 
 the holiest laws of civilized society. By so doing 
 she justifies us in resorting to force for tiie purpose 
 of repressing her. Shall we do so.' It is not 
 always expedient to avail ourselves of a right. 
 We are not bound to become the Don (Quix- 
 otes of the age, and sally forth to redress 
 all the grievances of the civilized world. That haa 
 never, so far, been the policy of our country. 
 Greece and Poland had more or less of our sympa- 
 thy, and that was all. We assumed not to decide 
 on the British doings in Affghanistan, or to judge 
 the conduct of the opium war against China. But 
 Texas is our next neiglibor, and was once under our 
 special guardianship. We are, to employ the law 
 phrase in its strictest sense, her nearest friend. To 
 us, if to any nation upon earth, she has a right to 
 look for succor and protection. Shall we forsakft 
 her now.' 
 
 If such be our decision, it behooves us, as pru- 
 dent men, fully to digest our plan; and trace it to it« 
 final consequfiiices. 
 
 Say that we remain inactive and neutral, and suf- 
 fer things to take their course. What happensif 
 Conquer Texas Mexico cannot; but invade her she 
 may; present appearances indicate she will. Justat 
 this moment, indeed, Mexico is embroiled at home. 
 But her civil wars are ever of short duration. And 
 to Texas it matters little which of the barbariuna 
 triumph. They have bo'h, like H;»iinibal at th« 
 altar, sworn eternal enmity to her. They vie witk 
 each other in protestations of zeal. Death and de- 
 struction to the TexiansI — that, even now, is the 
 theme of every despatch, the burden of every proo- 
 lamation. The victor, be he Paredes or Santa An- 
 na, is pledged to carry out, without delay, in all it« 
 barbarity, tJie menaced invasion. To sustain and 
 give brilliancy to newly-gotten power, he must re- 
 deem his pledge. Imagine the sequel! The Ri» 
 Bravo is crossed. Another league, and a ruf3a« 
 soldiery — their swords yet wet wiih the blood of 
 their countrymen — enter the doomed land. Must I 
 call up before you the scenes that are to ensurf 
 Cruel, at best, and terrible, is the trade of war! But 
 a war of extermination! A war, where the ey« 
 pities not! where the sword spiu-ts not! whwfc. 
 
the coirmand is, to save alive none that breathe! 
 Conqiterors, even in the flush of victory, have vrept 
 over a field of battle, where the strong man died, 
 his weapon in liis hand, the frown of defiance yet 
 unfadeu from his brow. But a field of slaughter, 
 indiscriminate slaughter, slaughter of the defence- 
 less, the unresisting! — a field, where mingle, defiled 
 in dust and gore, the white loclis of venerable age 
 and the fair soft hair of vxnoffending childhood! 
 Think — think what it is — this carnage of a nation, 
 without distinction of age, of condition — there is 
 yet more — of SEX ! — Do you remember the words 
 the Dramatist? 
 
 ^ ''The man who lays his hand upon a woman, 
 
 Save in the way of Icindness, is a wretcli, 
 Whom 'twere base Hattery to call a coward'." 
 
 And it is woman — it is that gentle being whom 
 the desert lion himself is said to pity and to spare — 
 it is the young mother — her infant charge sheltered 
 in her arms — it is the wife and mother, fleeing to 
 rescue her person from the pollution of a brutal 
 banditry — to save the child of her bosom from their 
 murderous steel — it is even she, to adopt, in all 
 their cold ofiicial atrocity, the words of the decree 
 «f blood, who, if she be "rash enough to fly" — at 
 the sight of this approaching horde of assassins — 
 is to be "pursued until taken or put to death!" — 
 
 — And what then? The report of these deeds of 
 crime and shame is to come to us across the Sabine. 
 The story of each succeeding brutality is to sink 
 down, in all its damning details, into the hearts of 
 our people. The South, with her fiery pulse and her 
 hot chivalrj', is to hear it. The West, with her 
 fearless spirit and her quick sympathies, is to hear 
 it. The North — yes, the North, less quickly roused, 
 yet bearing, under her snow, a warm heart of pity — 
 is to hear it. And, when the shadow of these 
 deeds of darkness has settled down, like a pall over 
 the entire land, I ask it yet again, what then? — "It 
 is no concern of ours. Let them perish !" — Will 
 that be the language — that the spirit — of young 
 America? I — but her adopted child — even I dare, 
 in this, to answer for her. No, no, a thousand 
 times, no ! We may turn over here the leaves of 
 musty volumes; we may quote black-letter within 
 these walls, in proof, that it is ourbounden duty to 
 stand passively by, without an efibrt to save, with- 
 out a protest to avert, and see our brethren of Tex- 
 as, their wives and their little ones, butchered before 
 our eyes. See if the People will not make the case 
 their own ! We have not yet, in this hemisphere, 
 reached the age of placid indifference. A nation's 
 early youth, like man's, is full of warm and gener- 
 ous impulse. You will see it ! Mark what the de- 
 cision of this nation will be ! That we have a right 
 to interfere? I tell you, no ! — other than that 
 ■will be her language — that we have no right 
 to hold back ! There is a law more holy, far 
 more imperative, than the law of the statute 
 book — the unwritten law of the human heart 
 — that law, which taught the Samaritan that he 
 wae the neighbor of him who fell among thieves. 
 
 And that law, speaking from the hearts of a your.- 
 and noble people, will declare to us, that if we pare 
 by on the other side and abandon our neighbors of 
 Texas to their fate, ours is the crime, ours the scan- 
 dal, ours, before the world, the shame! And so it 
 is! When we sit tamely down under threats like 
 these — when mercy and courage are so quenched 
 within us, that we suffer, unprotested, outrage thus 
 infamous on the law of nature and of nations — out- 
 rage, we are expressly told, that is to spread it". 
 crimson stain even to our very borders — then let our 
 fair national escutcheon trail, shame-stained, in the 
 dust; we are not worthy to give its broad folds to 
 the free and gentle breeze of Heaven! 
 
 I speak warmly, sir. I feel warmly. Who may- 
 touch on subjects like that with a quiet pulse? Yet 
 do I place my confidence in an appeal to sober judg- 
 ment, not to hasty passion. I but ask you, to look 
 into the future, before you act. That is the part of 
 wisdom. 1 but ask you, to examine, step by step, 
 the issue of the policy which the friends of peace at 
 any price would have us pursue. I ask you to re- 
 flect, whether, in taking those steps, we shall be 
 sustained by those who sent us here. I put to you 
 the question: will our constituents be satisfied, in he 
 pre|fnt attitude of Mexico, with apathetic inaction, 
 tame indifference, stoical neutrality? Each cne 
 must answer that question for himself. I can but 
 say, that it is not my judgment of our people. I 
 have found them neither cold nor passionless. And 
 they must be both, if they demanded not, that now, 
 even at the threshold of these menaced atrocities, 
 while yet the assassin's sword is undrawn, their 
 government should interpose (as it has interposed) 
 in the name of outraged humanity, in the name of 
 violated law, its solemn protest against them. Should 
 that protest be effectual, well; our interpostion will 
 have averted murder and preserved peace: but 
 should it prove unavailing, and the butchery, in very 
 deed, proceed, the spirit of our fathers must be 
 dead v/ithin us, if v/e grudge our treasure or oar 
 blood, whenever both may be needed, to arrest 
 Mexican barbarity. 
 
 My conclusions are, then: that it is both wise and 
 lawful to accede to the wishes of Texas, and incor- 
 porate that country into our Union; and that, till 
 that incorporation is consummated, it is our duty to 
 protest, and, if need be, to protect Texas, against 
 all violations of international law, with which she 
 has been menaced. The custom of nations permitfc' 
 this cour.se; our national honor demands it. Bold- 
 ness and plain dealing, ehastened by prudent fore- 
 sight, are a nation's best resource against foreign en- 
 encroachment; her surest means to avert the calami- 
 ties of war. Boldly, then, and without reserve, leti 
 us meet this question. Let us annex Texas at^' 
 once. The liberal portion of Uie world will ap- 
 prove, the rest will acquiesce; and, in ten years, tlic- 
 wonder will be, not that Texas has settled quietly 
 down into an integral portion of our confederacy;, 
 but that men should ever have been found, so blind 
 to the iritei-ests of their country, as to oppose her 
 annexation. 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 646 884 6 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 646 884 6