■IBI 
 
 
 "F 390 
 .W79 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 

 r. '^o >^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;. %?w.* ^^^'^-^^ '^^" /WW^"' ^^"\ O 
 
 g" .^JW!^ °3 .,-2^" v'U:>L% ^-f* 
 

 ?; ^-^ °<*. 
 
 ^^-^^ 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 ^o' %'^-/ %'W'\o'> V-^\/ "°-^• 
 
 . s-^^-.- /% ''-^s ^^'\ ''^m.- ./"-- • 
 
 ^'^^'' 
 
 <- 
 
 A 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 MR.^WINTHROP, OP MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS, 
 
 DELIVERED IN 
 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN. 6, 1845. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. AND G. S. GIDEON. 
 1845. 
 

SPEECH 
 
 House of Representatives of the United States, January 6, 1345. — Tlie Joint Resolution for 
 the Annexation of Texas being under consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the 
 State of the Union — 
 
 Mr WINTHROP said : 
 
 I have very little hope, Mr. Chairman, of saying any thing new on the 
 question before us, or of giving any new interest or force to the views 
 which have aheady been presented, both to Congress and the Country, by 
 the master minds of the nation. Certainly, I have not risen to attempt any 
 formal response to the challenge which was tendered me a few days since by 
 the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, (Mr. C. J. Ingersoll.) 
 That gentleman was pleased to call on me emphatically for an argument. 
 He was particular in warning me against declamation. He would he con- 
 tented widi nothing short of an argument. Now, sir, I must be allowed to 
 say that such a call, and such a caution, woidd have come with something 
 of a better grace from the honorable member, if he had given me tlie exam- 
 ple as well as the precept. If he had " reck'd his own rede," and had given 
 to the House something better than a desultory string of bald assertions and 
 balder assumptions, he might have thrown down the gauntlet to whom he 
 pleased. But I must protest that it was a little ungracious in the honorable 
 member, to urge upon me the steep and thorny way of arguing a negative, 
 after sauntering along the primrose path of dalliance himself, with the burden 
 of the atfirmative faii'ly upon his own shoulders. 
 
 The honorable member from Alabama, (Mr. Payne,) who spoke last, was 
 somewhat in the same vein. " He would not entertain the House with a 
 mere Fourth of July oration." He, too, wanted nothing but an argument. 
 Now, with all deference to the better judgment of the honorable member, I 
 must be allowed to express a doubt, whether a good Fourth of July oration 
 would not be one of the best arguments that could be framed for this precise 
 occasion. When men seem ready to forget their own country, and to run. 
 after foreign alliances ; to disregard the feelings of their fellow-citizens, and 
 expend their sympathies upon aliens ; and to look more to the security of 
 slavery than of freedom; it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that some remem- 
 brance of the fourth of July; that some recalling and recounting of the 
 early days, and the early deeds of our Revolution; that some reminiscences 
 of the period when Virginia, and South Carolina, and Massachusetts, were 
 bound together by mutual league, by united thoughts and counsels, by equal 
 hope and hazard in the glorious enterprise of Independence ; that some re- 
 currence to tlie opinions, as well as to the acts, of our patriot fathers; their 
 opinions about freedom, and about what constituted " an extension of the area 
 of freedom;" their opinions, too, about slavery, in those days, when one of 
 the greatest complaints against Great Britain was, not that she considered 
 slavery an evil, and, having abolished it at great cost in her own colonies, 
 had expressed a wish — (no further harm) — a wish that it might be abolished 
 
throughout the world, — but that she regarded it as the source of a profitable 
 traffic ; that she would not suffer South Carolina and Virginia to abolish it ; 
 and had even reprimanded a Governor of South Carolina for assenting to an 
 act for that purpose: — it seems to me, I say, that some such Fourth of July 
 oration as this, woidd be an argument every way suitable and seasonable. 
 
 At any rate, the stricter argument of this case belongs rightfully to those 
 in favor of the annexation. It belongs to those who seek to accomplish 
 this momentous change in our national condition and our national identity. 
 It belongs to those who are dissatislied with their existing country, and who 
 are ready to peril its peace, its honor, and its union, in order to obtain another 
 and an ampler theatre for their transoendant patriotism. It is for them to 
 argue this question. It is for them to make a case. It is for them to show 
 the consummate policy of the measure. It is for them, above all, to prove 
 their Constitutional power to accomplish it. 
 
 As for us, Mr. Chairman, who seek no change — who are content with 
 our country as it is — who look to its augmentation by internal development, 
 and not by external acquisition — whose only policy it is to improve, build 
 up, illustrate, and defend the land and the liberties we now enjoy — we might 
 well be excused from arguments of any sort on such a subject. It would be 
 enough for us to sit quietly in our seats, and, when called on to give our 
 voices upon these resolutions, to say of our country, as the old Barons of 
 England said of their laws, when threatened with usurpation : Nolumus, 
 nolwniis, mutari ! 
 
 Sir, I desire to press this point upon the consideration and upon the con- 
 sciences of gentlemen around me ; and more especiallj^ of those who, being 
 associated politically with the friends of annexation, are understood to enter- 
 tain doubts as to the constitutionality of the scheme proposed. We have a 
 Constitution. We have sworn to support it. It is a Constitution of limited 
 powers — of specific grants of power. It declares in its OAvn terms that " the 
 enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage 
 Others retained by the people." It declares further, that "the powers not 
 delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to 
 the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is 
 thus the duty of every man who gives his support to a measure of legislation, 
 to be convinced in his own mind that the measure is positively Constitutional. 
 It is not for him to call for arguments from others to prove it unconstitution- 
 al. It is not for him to find justification for his vote in the feebleness or in, 
 the silence of those who deny liis power, but in the force and the convinc- 
 ing proof of those who maintain it. Still less is it for him to adopt the ex- 
 traordinary doctrine advanced by an honorable member from Alabama, (Mr. 
 Belseh,) who has told us that, in case of constitutional difficulty on this ques- 
 tion, he should follow the maxim of Hoyle : " Where you are in doubt, take 
 the trick 1''^ Northern gentlemen have often been charged with latitudina- 
 rianism in their interpretation of the Constitution. They profess to be al- 
 ways in favor of a liberal construction of it. But they have never yet car- 
 ried their liberality to such a pitch as this. It may be the attribute of a good 
 judge to amplify his jiu'isdiction ; but we hold it to be the duty of an honest 
 republican legislator, under a limited Government like ours, to exercise no 
 doubtful powers ; and to believe nothing constitutional without a reason, a 
 substantial reason, for the faith that is in him. 
 
 I am not at all surprised, however, at the disposition which has been mani- 
 
fested in some quarters to shift the burthen of proof, and to call for arguments 
 from others, instead of attemptinsf to malce a case for themselves. Unquestion- 
 ably the friends of Texas in this House have a heavy task on llieir hands. Un- 
 able to agree upon any plan among themselves ; having exhausted every art 
 for reconciling their discordant opinions ; the ultima ratio of a letter from 
 the Hermitage, even, having been resorted to in vain ; the old Roman cement 
 having altogether lost its cohesive quality upon this occasion ; their only hope 
 seems now to be, that, by throwing all their individual schemes before the 
 Committee, the blows of their enemies may prove more efficient than the 
 love pats of their friends, and may knock some one of tliem into a sliape, or 
 impress upon some one of them a co/or, which will secure for it the su])port 
 of a majority. I have reason to think that the members from Massachusetts, 
 and the Northern States generally, are relied upon to perform a principal part 
 in this moulding and coloring process. It seems to be hoped that tlie Anti- 
 slavery feeling which we are supposed to represent, will exhibit itself to such 
 an excess, will be betrayed into such an intemperate outbreak upon this ques- 
 tion, as to embarrass the position of some of our Whig friends from the 
 South, and eidier to compel them to vote for annexation now, or to stimu- 
 late the States whicli they represent to send back to the next Congress those 
 who will. 
 
 Such, Mr. Chairman, is the forlorn hope of the fiiends of Texas at this mo- 
 ment. I trust they will be disappointed in it. They have already elected, a Pre- 
 sident under some such influence: But I rejoice to believe that they will fail 
 in annexing Texas by it, at diis session at least. I certainly, for one, shall 
 minister to no such mischief. I have no hesitation in saying that I shall op- 
 pose the annexation of Texas, now and always, upon the ground that it in- 
 volves an extension of domestic slavery. No considerations of National 
 aggrandizement ; no allurements of Northern interest and advantage ; were 
 they even as real, as in this case they are specious and delusive ; will ever win 
 my assent to an enlargement of the slave-liolding territory of my country. 
 Nor shall I hesitate to speak of slavery in connexion with this question, if 
 my time be not exhausted before 1 reach tliat topic in the order of my re- 
 marks. I shall do so firmly and fearlessly, as I have always done in this 
 House and elsewhere ; but I shall do so in a spirit of entire deference to the 
 Constitudon, which I have sworn to support, and which it is my special pur- 
 pose in these remarks to maintain and vindicate. I shall speak of slavery, 
 too, with the most unqualified admission, which no Northern statesman has 
 ever withheld, Uiat over slavery, as it now exists within any of the existing 
 , ^,'*St5tes oft^thg Union, this Government has no manner of control. 
 
 *No, sir, this question is not to be settled in this manner, or in any manner, I 
 trust, at the present session. As often,indeed,as I relk^ct on its magnitude,! find 
 it difficult to realize that it is really and in good faith before us for decision. 
 Certainly, Mr. Chainnan, it is impossible for me to reconcile, with any views 
 Avhich I entertain of the nature of our Government and the character of our 
 Constitution, the idea that such a question as this can be decided finally and 
 forever, here and now, by this Congress, in this way, under these circum- 
 stances. An irrevocable incorporation into our Union of a vast foreign na- 
 tion ; the naturalization, by a stroke of the pen, of I know not how many 
 thousand Mexicans, and of all the other aliens who may have resided six 
 months in Texas ; the admission of five and twenty thousand slaves into 
 our country, in defiance of that compromise of the Constitution and laws 
 
tinder which no slaves were to be admitted after the year 1808; the annex- 
 ation of a territory large enough to alter all the relations and destroy all the 
 balances of our existing system, — of a capacity not merely for adding new 
 stars to our .Constellation, but for disturbing the courses, and even changing 
 the orbits, of those which are now revolving in harmony together, for turning 
 them upon a new centre and towards another sun ; that such a measure 
 should be initiated, carried on, and consummated as this has been, and is 
 now proposed to be, is, in my judgment, monstrous, monstrous beyond all ex- 
 pression. 
 
 What, sir, is the brief history of this measure? Secretly and stealth- 
 ily concocted originally by a President not of the people's choice, by 
 an accidental occupant of the Executive chair; devised by him for 
 his own ambitious ends, and upon his own individual responsibility; — ■ 
 let me rather say iri'espofisibilit)/, (for the history of the last twelve 
 or fifteen years has proved that our Republican President is the most 
 irresponsible officer known to the civihzed world, and may do with impimity 
 what wovdd cost many a King his crown, neck and all;) — rejected emphati- 
 cally by the Senate, to whom, as a legitimate bianch of the treaty-making 
 power, it was submitted ; it has now been introduced into this House, after 
 a single hour's deliberation' in a Conunittee on Foreign Affairs , and is about 
 to be pressed to a decision with as little ceremony as an act to pay an annual 
 salary, or to establish a new post route ! Why, sir, if it were a mere question 
 of Foreign relations — if it concerned no interest, 'afTected no right, touched 
 no prerogative of our own American people, a course like this would be ex- 
 traordinary enough; but, reaching as this measure does to the very sum of 
 our own domestic affairs, intluencing, as it will, the whole destiny of our 
 country as long as our country may survive it, such a mode of proceed- 
 ing is calculated to excite alarm in the breast of every reflecting patriot. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, there are many distinct views to be taken of this transac- 
 tion, either of which would more than exhaust the little time allowed us 
 ■under the hoiu- rule. Thei-e is the Executive view of it ; displaying as 
 much of assumption and usurpation, in all its civil and all its military devel- 
 opments, as has ever signalized an equal period in the history of the most 
 despotic ruler in Christendom. There is the Diplomatic \'\e\\ of it; ex- 
 liibitina" a correspondence which, I venture to say, has made more than 
 are willing 1o acknowledge it, blush, and cover their faces in shame, at such 
 a degradation of oiu' ngitional character before the world. I am glad to find 
 that even the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Mr. C. J. In- 
 gersoll) has not been quite able to suppress an intimation of disgust for 
 some of the State papers and diplomatic correspondence of the case. There 
 is the Texan view of the question, too. Sir, I have never cherished any 
 particular sympathy for the people of Texas. I have heretofore been rather 
 inclined to agree with Governor McDuffie in the views presented in an ad- 
 mirable message of his to the liegislature of South Carolina in December, 
 1S36 ; in which he not only expressed the opinion that " if we should admit 
 Texas into our Union while Mexico is still waging war against that Pro- 
 viace, witli a view to re-establish her supremacy over it, we should, by the 
 very act itself, make ourselves a party to the war," and that we could not 
 *' take this step without incurring this heavy responsibility, until Mexico her- 
 self shall recognise the independence pf her revolted Province ;" but in 
 which he said also, " 1 am utterly at a loss to perceive what title either of 
 
the parties to this controversy can have to the sympathies of the American 
 people. If it be alleged that the insurgents of Texas are emigrants from 
 the United States, it is obvious to reply that, by their voluntary expatriation, 
 under whatever circumstances of adventure, of speculation, of honor or of 
 infamy, they have forfeited all claim to oin- paternal regard. If it be true 
 that they have left a land of freedom for a land of despotism, they have done 
 it with their eyes open, and deserve their destiny." Perhaps this language 
 is a little too severe, but I am clearly of opinion that men who have deserted 
 their own country for a foreign soil, are not pre-eminently entitled to our 
 freshest and most cordial sympathies. I confess, however, that lecent circum- 
 stances have created something of reaction in my mind in regard to the peo- 
 ple of Texas. I cannot help feeling some sympatliy with that people under 
 the precise circumstances in which they are now placed; betrayed, as ihey 
 have been, into so humiliating a posture, by false pretences and false promises. 
 Where has been the fuliilment of that promise which a President of the Unit- 
 ed States, speaking through his Secretary of State, dared to hold out to them 
 a year ago : " Measures have been taken to ascertain the opinions and views of 
 Senators upon the sul.iject, and it is found that a dear constitutional majo- 
 rity of two-thirds are in favor of the nieasureV Sir, may we not begin to 
 entertain a hope that the people of Texas will awake to some respect for 
 themselves under the treatment they have received, and' will no longer suffer 
 themselves to be duped and trifled with either by Presidents or Congresses? 
 If they would summon up something of a just national ])ride, repel all fur- 
 ther overtures to aimexation, expose all the arts and intrigues hij which they 
 have been seduced^ and resolve to maintain their stand as an independent 
 nation against Mexico and against the world, the " God speed" of all good 
 men would go with them. There seems to be some probability of such a 
 movement. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs has warn- 
 ed us of the danger of delay. " There is nothing to be dreaded," says he, 
 " but delay. Delay is imminently dangerous." And why is delay danger- 
 ous? Because, says he, '•'• there must be in Texas a great deal of per- 
 sonal selfish opposition to annexation. Many eminent men may oppose it^ 
 What a confession is this ! So we are not only to get the start of the sober 
 second thought of our own American people upon this question, but of the 
 people of Texas too ! We aie to take a snap judgment on the willingness 
 of both nations to enter upon this fatal marriage ! 
 
 But.I turn to even graver views of the subject. When tlie measure was 
 originally reported from the Committee of which I have the honor to be a 
 member, I denounced it off-hand as unconstitutional in substance and un- 
 constitutional in form ; as in violation of the law of nations, and of the good 
 faith of our own country; as calculated to involve us in an unjust and dis- 
 honorable war ; and as eminently objectionable from its relations to the sub- 
 ject of domestic slavery. The honorable member fiom Alabama (Mr. 
 Payne) has been pleased to denominate this my manifesto^ and has done 
 me the undeserved honor of considering me the spokesmun of my ]xirty in 
 pronouncing it. I spoke for nobody but myself then, and am auiliorized to 
 speak for nobody but myself now. But I repeat the expressions delil:)eiately 
 this moining, and shall take them as my text in wliat remains of uny hoiu-. 
 
 And, first, Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who deny tiie authority of 
 this Government to annex a foreign nation to our Union, by any process 
 whatever, sliort of the general consent of the people ; certainly by any mod^ 
 
8 
 
 less formal than that required for an amendment of the Constitution, Gentle- 
 men tell us that this point was settled by the purchase of Louisiana and Florida. 
 No, no, sir, it was not settled by either of those cases. What said Mr. 
 Van Buren in 1S37? What said Mr. Forsyth, expressing, as he undoubted- 
 ly did, the result of the deliberations of Mr. Van Buren 's entire Cabinet ? 
 His official reply to Mr. Memucan Hunt has been often quoted, but cannot 
 be too often held up before the eyes of the people : 
 
 " The question of the annexation of a foreign independent State to the United States has 
 never before been presented to this GovernnieiU. Since the adoption of their Constitution, two 
 lai-ge additions have been made to the domain originally claimed by the United States." ^ * * 
 
 " The circumstance, however, of their being colonial possessions of France and Spain, and 
 therefore dependant on the metropolitan Governments, renders those transactions materially dif- 
 ferent from that whicli would be presented by the question of the annexation of Texas. " The 
 latter is a State, with an independent government, acknowledged as such by the United States, 
 and claimmg a territory beyond, though bordering on, the' region ceded by "France in the treaty 
 of the 30th of April, 1803. Whether the Constitution of the United States contemplated the 
 annexation of .such a State, and, if so, in what manner that object is to be effected, are ques- 
 tions, m the opinion of the President, it would be inexpedient, under existing circumstances, to 
 agitate." 
 
 Here is no pretence of the right to annex, and much less to re-annex, 
 Texas under the Louisiana or Florida precedents. Here is not a word about 
 Texas having been sacrificed by the Florida treaty. The Texan territory is 
 declared to be '' beyond^ though bordering on, the region ceded by France 
 in the treaty of the 30th of April, 1803."" The Louisiana and Florida pre- 
 cedents are declared to be " materially diflerent" from the question of the 
 annexation of Texas. And the point is expressly proposed, as one for 
 doubt, to say the least, whether the Constitution ever contemplated the an- 
 nexation of such a State, 
 
 But who are the persons who declare so impatiently, that the constitution- 
 al power of Congress to annex Texas has been settled by precedent? They 
 are those who deny the authority of precedent upon every othei- question 
 but this. They are those l)y whom the idea is utterly rejected and derided, 
 that the signatures of W^ashington and Madison to the charters of a National 
 Bank, and the existence of such an institution for foity years, are to be con- 
 sidered as settling the constitutionality of its incorporation ; and who are 
 hailing the re-establishnient of the Subtreasury system as a return to the 
 Constitution — as a restoration of the Government, under the auspices of 
 Jackson and Tyler, to that state of original purity from which it was cor- 
 ruptly perverted by Washington and Madison! Cicero tells us of some oc- 
 casion on Avhich tlie Roman augurs could not look each other in the face 
 without laughing ; and it would be even more impossible, 1 should imagine, 
 for those initiated in the mysteries of the purity of either Gen. Jackson's or 
 Mr. Tyler's administrations, to preserve their gravity at such an idea as this. 
 But who, again, are those who maintain so stoutly the binding obligation of 
 precedent on this occasion? They are those, in part, who are just ready to 
 make a new atten)pt at nullifying' a protective tariff, although the preamble 
 of the first Revenue Law upon the statute book declares, that the encourage- 
 ment of domestic indu.stry was one of its principal objects, and although 
 e\eYy President of the United States, from Washington to Jackson incjusive, 
 has put his name to bills or messages clistinctly recognising the same principle! 
 
 Sir, I am no despiser of precedents. For the deliberate decisions of our 
 early Congresses and Cabinets upon questions of constitutional intention 
 and interpretation, I entertain the most deferential respect. But for the Lou- 
 
9 
 
 isiana precedent, even if it were not " materially different" from the ques- 
 tion before us, I profess to entertain no respect whatever. If it be a prece- 
 dent for any thing-, it is a precedent for the successful violation of the Con- 
 stitution, and not for its just interpretation and exeqution. It is of that school 
 of political morality which declares that " where tliere is a will., there is a 
 Avay." It belongs to the Hoyle principle of action — " where you are in 
 doubt, take the trick." I say this in no spirit of disrespect to Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 Every body knows that Mr. Jefferson himself admitted that, in the acqui- 
 sition of Louisiana, he had done " an act beyond the Constitution," and that 
 he repeatedly besought his friends to procure the adoption of an amendment 
 to the Constitution to ratify the act. His views were such as no unpreju- 
 diced mind can resist. " When I consider (said he) that the limits of the 
 United States are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution 
 expressly declares itself to be made for the United States, I cannot help be- 
 lieving that the intention was not to permit Congress to admit into the Union 
 new States which should be formed out of the Territory, for which and un- 
 der whose authority alone they were then acting. I do not believe it was 
 meant that they might receive England, Ireland, Holland, t'tc, into it." 
 
 And who can doubt that Mr. Jefferson was right in this judgment? Who 
 can imagine that the people of 1789 intended to make a Constitution for 
 any country but their own country ; or ever dreamed that ihey were giving 
 authority to their temporary Representatives, to yoke them in, to bind up 
 their fortunes forever, with any foreign natibn, which, by its scrip or its land 
 warrants, or by any other influence, worthy or unworthy, might have obtained 
 favor in our Legislative Councils? 
 
 The honorable member from Alabama (Mr. Payne) considered this whole 
 question settled by the express authority of Congress to "admit new States." 
 Even his interpretation of the Constitution, however, would not cover the 
 present proposition. Here is territory to be acquired, as *vell as a State to 
 be admitted. Indeed, the resolutions reported by the Committee of Foreign 
 Affairs make no pretension to admitting Texas, or any part of it, as a State. 
 Nor do eiUier of the pending amendments. They propose a mere acquisi- 
 tion of territory ; and annihilate Texas as a State in the very act of annexa- 
 tion. But the whole history and context of the Constitution forbid such an 
 interpretation of the power to admit new States, as the honorable member 
 contends for. At the time of the formation of the Constitution there were 
 large territories belonging to the States, or already ceded to the nation, out 
 of which new States were to be formed. The Constitution itself was to go 
 into effect whenever ratified by nine States, and there was no knowing how 
 long the other four of the old thirteen might hold off These views are 
 amply suflScient to fulfil the reasonable intent of the clause giving authority 
 to admit new States. More than that, a proposition was expressly negatived 
 m the Convention by which the Constitution was framed, by a vote of eight 
 States to three, declaring that " the Legislature of the United States shall 
 have power to erect new States within as well as without the tei'ritory 
 claimed by the several States, or either of them, and admit the same into 
 the Union." And this was the very last vote before the adoption of the 
 clause in its present form ! 
 
 An attempt has been made to derive an inference in favor of this proceed- 
 ing from the articles of confederation, and to represent the }X)wer ib admit 
 new States into the Union as a mere extension^of the provision by which 
 
10 
 
 Canada and other colonies might have been admitted into the old confederacy. 
 But no such infeience can be sustained for a moment by any one who looks 
 tt) the contemporaneous construction of this clause of the Constitution by 
 Mr. Madison, in the Federalist : 
 
 " In the articles of Confederation (says he) no provision is found on this important subject, 
 Canada was to be admitted of right, on her joining in the measures of the United States, and the 
 other Colonies, by which were evidently meant, the other British Colonies, at the discretion of 
 nine States. The eventual estiiblishment of J^'eio States, seems to have been overlooked by the 
 compilers of that instrument. We have seen the inconvenience of this omission, and the as- 
 sumption of power into which Congress have been led by it. With great propriety, therefore, 
 has the new system supplied the defect. The general precaution, that no new States shall be 
 formed, without the concurrence of the federal authority and that of the States concerned, is 
 consonant to the principles which ought to govern such transactions. The particular precaution 
 against the erection of new States, by the partition of a State without its consent, quiets the 
 jealdusy of the larger States ; as that of the smaller is quieted by a like precaution against a 
 junction of States without their consent." 
 
 Here, sir, is the whole commentary on the power to admit new States, in 
 the celebrated work by whiclnthe Constitution was explained and recom- 
 mended to the People. How entirely it negatives the idea of any analogy 
 between this article of the Constitution and the Canada clause of the con- 
 federation ! How distinctly it asserts the difierence between admitting foreign 
 colonies and admitting new States ! How plainly it implies that the States 
 to be admitted were to be literally new States, established on our own Na- 
 tional Territory, and under our own national authority ! Who can believe 
 for a moment, after reading it, that the admission of foreign States was within 
 the most remote contemplation of those by whom the provision was framed ? 
 How could Mr. Madison have omitted all allusion to such an idea, if, in his 
 opinion, it were embraced within the legitimate construction of the clause ! 
 
 Sir, there are other passages in Mr. Madison's masterly essays upon the 
 ConstitiUion, equally conclusive as to the understanding of the framers of 
 the Constitution. ,We all know that one of the great objections arrayed 
 against the establishment of our National Government in 1789, was drawn 
 from the extent of country over which it was to operate. Not a few of the 
 people of that day considered it impossible, that a republican system could 
 be rendered effective, even throughout the whole of the territory which we 
 then possessed. One of Mr. Madison's replies to this objection is full of 
 significance in regard to the constitutional question which we are now con- 
 sidering. 
 
 "A second ob.servation to be made (says he) is, that the immediate object of the Federal Con- 
 stitution, is to secure the Union of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be practica- 
 ble ; and to add to them such other States, as may arise in their own bosoms, or in their neigh- 
 borhoods, which we cannot doubt to be equally practicable. The arrangements that may be 
 necessary for tho.se angles and fractions of our territory, which lie on our northwestern frontier, 
 must be left to those whom further discoveries and experience will render more equal to the 
 task." 
 
 How irresistible is the inference from language like this ! The object of 
 the Constitution is stated to be, to secure the union of the existing States, 
 and to add to them such other States as may arise in their own bosoms, or 
 in their neighborhoods ; wliile the only difficulty which is contemplated, is 
 declared to be in relation to " those angles and fractions of our territory 
 which lie on our northwestern frontier." 
 
 There were compromises entered into, also, at die adoption of the Consti- 
 tution, utterly inconsistent with a construction such as is now set up. The 
 slave basis compromise, which has been so often alluded to of late, and which 
 Massachusetts lias been falsely accused of a design to violate, because she saw 
 
11 
 
 fit to exercise her constitutional prerogatis-e of proposing an amendment to the 
 Constitution, was arranged with unquestionable reference to our country as it 
 then was. There was no Louisiana then. There was no Florida then. 
 The great Northwestern Territor}^ had been dedicated to human liberty for- 
 ever, by the immortal ordinance of 1787 ; an act which proved conclusively 
 what our fothers understood by "an extension of the area of freedom." 
 Slavery was nowhere regarded as a blessing ; was nowhere proclaimed (as 
 it has recently been proclaimed by the Secretary of State, in the correspon- 
 dence to which this subject has given occasion) "a political institution, essen- 
 tial to the peace, safety, and prosperity of those States of the Union in which 
 it exists." Its gradual extinction, on tiic other liand, ^\'as hopefully and 
 confidently predicted. It was supposed tliat, as long as it continued, a great 
 and growing preponderance would be secured to the free States, and the 
 three-fifths principle was admitted upon diis understanding alone. This, at 
 least, is my reading of tlie history of those times. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the United States ceases to be that 
 Constitution to which the States have assented, both in relation to this and 
 to others of its provisions, when its authority is thus extended beyond the ori- 
 ginal sphere for which it was designed. That instrument is as essentially 
 changed by a change of its parties, as by a change of its provisions, and the 
 same poAver is alone competent to both. It is for the people alone, not by 
 the equivocal expression of a Presidential election, but by the solemn forms 
 prescribed by their own Constitution, to say, whether they will admit new 
 members into nieir copartnership, and upon what terms. Nay, I doubt whether 
 even an amendment of the Constitution, ratified even by three-fourths 
 of the States, ought to be considered as forcing the other fourth to submit 
 to a measure of this soit. The annexation of a foreign nation to this 
 nation, or of this nation to a foreign nation, is a change of our country 
 as well as a change of our Constitution. It is bringing us into association 
 with those with whom we have never agreed to be associated. It is a new 
 compact, into which each individual State ought to have, and has, the right 
 of saying for itself whether it is willing to enter, as fully as each State had 
 originally the right of saying whether it would enter into the compact which 
 now binds us together. If ever there was a question which appealed direct- 
 ly to State Rights, this is it; and it will be a mockery to suggest the exist- 
 ence of any such rights from this time forth, if this measure can be consum- 
 mated in defiance of them. Massachusetts is not accustomed to indulge in 
 threats of disunion. They are the abundant products of other soils. She 
 loves the Union. In her name I would say, let the day perish in which it 
 shall be said ^'■this Union is dissolved;'''' let it not be joined unto the days 
 of the year ; let it not come into the number of the months ! The language 
 of her excellent Governor, in a messtige received b]^ this morning's mail, is 
 the language of all her citizens : 
 
 " Ma5?sachu?etts as a State, has ever maintained, and e%"er will maintain, the whole of the 
 Constitution of the United States. All her people love and respect it. Hard and unequal a.s 
 she considers this feature of that honored instrument, she will bow to it with reverence so long 
 as it remains the supreme law of the land. She regards all the guaranties of the Constitution, 
 whether they relate to the institutions of the North or the South, as equally binding upon every 
 member of the Union. She will stand by the Union and the Constitution as they were formed, 
 let them be assailed from what quarter they may, and with inviolable fidelity perform all her ob- 
 ligations towards them." 
 
 Massachusetts desires the establishment of no new confederations. Her 
 
12 
 
 sons would go to the formation of another Government, as the ancient Jews 
 to the building of the second Temple, not without many tears at the remem- 
 brance of the first. But, sir, the Union which they love, is the Union as it 
 is. And if there be any thing which would shake that attachment, any 
 thing which would absolve her and all the States from their owed allegiance 
 to the Constitution, it is precisely such an act as is now before us. It may 
 remain to be seen, after its consummation, whether any of the States wjjl 
 claim the advantage of such an absolution. 
 
 I come next, Mr. Chairman, to a consideration of the mode in which the 
 annexation of Texas is now proposed to be accomplished. The forms of free 
 government have often been said to survive the substance ; and I trust that 
 not a few of those who are willing to adopt this measure in the abstract, will 
 refuse to unite for that purpose in any palpable infraction of constitutional 
 forms. The resolution repoited by the Connnittee on Foreign Affairs is, in 
 my judgment, such an infraction ; so palpable and so plain, that, as the vene- 
 rable Gallatin has said in his letter of last month, "one may well fear to ob- 
 scure that Avhich is self-evident, by adding any argument to the simple recital 
 of the constitutional provision, and of the proposed resolution." 
 
 Sir, if there be any thing clear from the distribution of powers contained 
 in the Constitution, it is that this House has no authority whatever to make 
 a treaty, compact, bargain, settlement, call it what you will, with a foreign 
 Power. This House may be, and often is, called on to carry out a treaty 
 already made, by the appropriation of money or otherwise ; and gendemen 
 may differ as to how far we have any discretion in such cases, and how far our 
 obligation is specific and positive to fulfil the provisions of a treaty. But, so 
 far as the making of the treaty is concerned, the whole power is with the 
 President and Senate. " The President shall have power, by and with the 
 advice and consent of the Senate, tckmake treaties, provided two-thirds of 
 the Senators present concur." This is the language of the Constitution. 
 
 And what are treaties? " A treaty, says Tliomas Jefferson in his manual, 
 is a law of die land. It differs from other laws only, as it 'must have the 
 consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that na- 
 tion." 
 
 " The essence of the legislative authority, says Alexander Hamilton in 
 the Federalist, is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the 
 regulation of the society ; whUe the execution of the laws, and the employ- 
 ment of the common strength, either for this purpose, or for the common 
 defence, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate. The 
 power of making treaties is, plainly, neither the one nor the other. It re- 
 lates neidier to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enactment of 
 new ones ; and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects 
 are contracts ivith foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it 
 from the obligations of good faiUi. Tliey are not rules prescribed by the 
 sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign.'''' 
 
 Such is the constitutional provision, and such is its interpretation by the lead- 
 ers of the two great parties to which the adoption of the Constitution gave rise. 
 It is thus the Senate alone, the body in wliich the Stiites have an equal suf- 
 frage, guarantied to them forever, which can alone advise and consent to the 
 ratification of any compact with a foreign nation ; and that body nnist do so 
 by a two-lliirds vote, or not at all. The doctrine of the Constitution is, that 
 one-third of the States, though the smallest in the Union, if they can obtain 
 
13 
 
 a single vote from any other State, may forbid any alliance or compactwbat- 
 ever with other Governments. The doctrine of the Constitution is also, that 
 the functions of this House, and of the Legislative Congress of which it is 
 a branch, begin and end with domestic legislation, and reach not one inch 
 beyond our own established national boundaries. There is no other par- 
 tition liiie which can be drawn between the legislative power and the treaty- 
 making power : and, if that line be once overthrown, all distinction be- 
 tween the two departments is at an end. Yet here we have before us the 
 jilain and imdisguised proposition to enter into a compact with another 
 nation; a compact which has already been submitted to the Senate as a 
 treaty, and which has been rejected by them as such. The chairman of the 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs has. indeed, erased the word treaty {rom his 
 resolutions, and has substituted the word settlement. The honorable mem- 
 ber from Ohio, too, in his amendment, has omitted the word set tlemetit, and 
 hus substituted the parenthetical phrase Texas consenting: But neither words, 
 nor the omission of words, can alter things. Nor can consent give jurisdic- 
 tion. Both resolutions relate to lands, to laws, to property, to persons, out of 
 our own territory ; and both attempt to do that which cannot be done with- 
 out the consent of another Government. No man pretends that this is not a 
 transaction to which there are two parties ; one of them, the United States 
 of America ; the other, an independent foreign nation. Na man pretends 
 that both these parties must not agree together, and make a compact or 
 bargain, in order to render the transaction complete. The chairman of 
 Foreign Affairs has expressly said , in his opening speech : " As it is a bargain 
 or contract with another country, it seems to me that an arrangement, care- 
 fully dio:ested, with tlie agents of that country, authorized ad hoc, must be 
 the best mode, if not the only one." This admission determines the whole 
 question. It makes the transaction a treaty ; a treaty, it is true, anomalous 
 in its character ; annihilating one of its parties ; transcending the powers of 
 the other; but still a treaty in form, a treaty if any thing. And it gives to 
 these resolutions the character of a bold and unblushing attempt to break 
 down the barriers of the Constitution by overthrowing the legitimate authori- 
 ty of the Senate. 
 
 And, Mr. Chairman, when the Senate of the United States is thus about 
 to be despoiled of its peculiar prerogative, for the accomplishment of this 
 particular act, it may not be amiss to recall for a moment, in die language 
 of one of the Fathers of the Constitution, the views widi which that body 
 was constituted, and that prerogative conferred upon it: 
 
 " A fifth desideratum, (said James Madison,) illustrating the utility of a Senate, is the want 
 of a due sense of national character. An attention to the judgment of other nations, is im- 
 portant to every government, for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of 
 any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other 
 nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy : the second is, that in doubtful cases, 
 particularly where the national councils maybe warped by some strong passion, or momentary 
 interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world, may be the best guide that can 
 be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations .' And 
 how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her 
 measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably 
 appear to the unbiassed part of manknid." 
 
 Again, says the same eminent statesman and patriot, in the same connex- 
 ion : 
 
 " As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually 
 will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the vicM'S of its rulers ; so there are par- 
 ticular moments in public affairs, when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or 
 some illicit advantage, or misled by the aitful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for 
 
14 
 
 measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In 
 these critical moments, how salutary will be th^e interference of some temperate and respectable 
 body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by 
 the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the 
 public mind. " 
 
 Such were the views with which tlie Senate of the United States was es- 
 tabhshed, and such the views with which it was entrusted with the treaty- 
 making power ; and if there were ever an occasion which illustrated the wisdom 
 of this feature of the Constitution, and commended it to the respect and sup- 
 port of all good citizens, this, this is it. 
 
 When was there ever exhibited a greater want of a due sense of National 
 character, than in tlie course of this Texan negotiation ? When was there 
 ever manifested a more wanton disposition to defy the judgment of other na- 
 tions, to outrage the opinion of the civilized world, and to shut the eyes to 
 the light in which the acts of this Government must appear to the unbiassed 
 part of mankind, than in the means by which this measure has been pur- 
 sued, and in the motives in Avhich it avowedly originated? When were ir- 
 regular passions, illicit advantages, and artful misrepresentations of interested 
 men, more plainly at work than now, in stimulating the clamor with which 
 the immediate annexation of Texas is demanded? When was the interven- 
 tion of some conservative body more needed, until reason, justice, and truth 
 can regain their authority over the public mind^ Sir, these passages have 
 seemed to me to savor of an almost prophetic application to the service which 
 the Senate are called on to discharge at the present crisis. Let me rather 
 say, to the service which they have already and nobly discharged, and for 
 which that body deserves other recompense, than to be so rudely stripped 
 of its hitherto unquestioned constitutional prerogative ! 
 
 The honorable member from Alabama, (Mr. Belser,) denies,however,that 
 this proceeding is any encroachment on the authority of the Senate, and has 
 made an effort to produce some precedents of what he calls legislAtive treaties. 
 One class of cases to which he referred was that of compacts with our own 
 States for the cession of lands. Who can pretend that these are treaties ? 
 The whole idea of a treaty under our Constitution, as I have already proved, 
 is a compact with a foreign Power. And the States of this Union have 
 never been called foreign in relation to tlie General Government, or even 
 foreign in relation to each other, unless in certain recent resolutions of South 
 Carolina, of which possibly something may be heard from Massachusetts 
 hereafter, but to which I shall make no allusion now. The General Govern- 
 ment, I presume, may purchase lands of a State, as well as of any other cor- 
 poration or individual, for constitutional purposes; but such a purchase is 
 no more a treaty in one case than in the other. 
 
 The honorable member referred us next to a lav\' of which he was particidar 
 in giving us the volume and page. (Laws of the United States, 3cl volume, 
 page 5G2.) AV^hy, sir, this is an act for taking possession of Louisiana, after 
 the ratification of the treaty ! 
 
 His next illustration of legislative treaties was a resolution of 15lh Janu- 
 ary, 1811 — a resolution which was passed by both branches in secret session, 
 and which was withheld from publication for a long period after its passage 
 This resolution, Mr. Cliairman, contains mteresting and edifying matter, and 
 with the leave of the Conmiittee, I will read it : — 
 
15 
 
 R^.SOLUTION. 
 
 Taking into view the peculiar situation of Spain, and of her American provinces, and consid- 
 ering the influence which the destiny of the territory adjoining the Southern border of the United 
 States may have upon their security, tranquihty, and commerce : therefore, 
 
 " Resolved by the Senate and House of Eepresentcdives of the United States of Jlmerica in Congress 
 assembled, That the United States, under the pecuhar circumstances of the existing crisis, cannot, 
 without serious inquietude, see any part of the said territory pass into the hands of any foreign 
 power; and that a due regard to their own safety compels them to provide, under certain contin- 
 gencies, for the temporary occupation of the said territory ; they, at the same time, declare that 
 the said territory shall, in their hands, remain subject to future negotiation." 
 
 I am at a loss to perceive, sir, in what part of this resohition any thing of 
 the character of a treaty is to be found, legislative or otherwise. I am glad 
 it has been alluded to, however, as it affords the best possible illustration of 
 what the Congress of 1811 understood by that law ai necessity^ that right of 
 self-preservation., which has been so often appealed to in justification of the 
 measure before us. The resolution provides only for a temporary occupa- 
 tion of the Florida territory, and, instead of setting Spain at defiance, ex- 
 pressly declares that the said territory shall rentain subject to future nego- 
 tiation. 
 
 But the honorable member from Alabama alluded, lastly, to cases of com- 
 mercial regulation. These cases undoubtedly are somewhat peculiar in their 
 character, but they are clearly distinguisliable from treaties. Congress, in the 
 passage of such acts, undertakes to do nothing to which the consent of another 
 government is necessary. We impose certain duties, for instance, or open cer- 
 tain ports, conditionally upon the action of foreign governments. We can impose 
 the same duties, or open the same ports, without any such condition. We 
 can make the same regulations, subject to any other condition of time or of 
 circumstance, as well as subject to the legislation of a foreign government. 
 The concurrent or reciprocal legislation of another nation is a mere niotive, 
 in view of which we proceed to pass acts to which we are entirely competent 
 of ourselves, which operate only within our own boundaries, and which the 
 consent of no other party is necessary to complete. The whole doctrine of 
 the distinction between the legislative and the treaty-making power, how- 
 ever, has been laid down by the present Secretary of State with so much 
 precision and power, that I will detain the committee no longer upon it my- 
 self, but will proceed to read some extracts of the speech of Mr. Calhoun on 
 the commercial treaty with Great Britain, in the House of Representatives, 
 January 8, 1816. (See Elliott's Debates, vol. iv, p. 273.) 
 
 " He would establish, he trusted, to the satisfaction of the House, that the treaty-making 
 power, when it was legitimately exercised, always did that ^chich could not be done by /reiy." 
 
 " Why cannot Congress make peace r They liave the power to make war. * * Why can- 
 not Congress, then, repeal the act making war? He acknowledged, with the gentleman, they 
 •cannot consistently with reason. * * The reason is plain ; one pmcer may make icar ; it re- 
 quires two to make peace. * * It required a contract or a treaty between the nations at war. 
 Is this peculiar to a treaty of peace .' J^^o ; it is common to all treaties. It arises out of their na- 
 ture, and not from any incidental circumstance attaching itself to a particular class. It is no more 
 nor less than that Congress cannot make a contract with a foreign nation. * * * Whenever, then, 
 an ordinary subject of legislation can only be regulated by contract, it passes from the sphere of 
 the ordinary power of making laws, and attaches itself to that of making treaties, wherever it is 
 lodged. * * * ,Whatcver, then, concerns our foreign relations, whatever requires the conseixt of 
 another nation, belongs to the treaty power ; can only be regulated by it ; and it is competent to regu- 
 late all sucli subjects, provided — and here are its true limits — such regulations are not inconsis- 
 tent with the Constitution. * * * It has for its object, contracts with foreign nations; as the 
 powers of Congress have for their object whatever can be done in relation to the powers delegated 
 to it without the consent of foreign nations. Each in its proper sphere operates with genial in- 
 fluence ; but xchen they become eiratic, then they are pm-tento^us and daiigerous. A treaty never can 
 
16 
 
 legitimately do that which can be done by law ; and the converse is ulso true. Suppose the discri- 
 milnating duties repealed on both sides by law, yet what is effected by this treaty would not even 
 then he done ; the plighted faith would be wanting. Either side might repeal its law tinthout a 
 Ireach of contract. It appeared to him that gentlemen are too much influenced on this subject, by 
 the example of Great Britain. Instead of looking to tlie nature of our Government, they have been 
 swayed in their opinion by the practice of that government, to which we are but too much in 
 the liabit of looking for precedents." 
 
 But we are now told, Mr. Chaimian, that Texas was once a, part of our own 
 ten-itory, ceded to us by France in 1803 ; that this is, therefore, no question of 
 original annexation ; that we are only about to reclaim and re-annex it. Sir, we 
 have often, heard of the magic power of words before now, but the question 
 before us will be a lasting illustration of the mightier magic of syllables. 
 There were two editions of a memorable letter to the people of Carroll coun- 
 ty, Kentucky, published last Spring; the first was a letter relative to the an- 
 nexation of Texas ; the second was a letter relative to the re-annexation of 
 Texas. They were published within a few weeks of each other, and prove 
 how much importance is attached to this mono -syllabic after-thought. Oh, 
 Sir, if the friends of this measure had exhibited half as much of the " sua- 
 viter in modo^'' as they have of the '■'■fortiter in re," it would have been 
 ])etter, far better for the honor of our country. 
 
 But my hour is on the point of expiring, and I must leave all further remark 
 upon the subject to another opportunity. I rejoice to beheve that this is not 
 the last time of asking in relation to this abhorrent union, and that we are 
 not called on to declare our objections to it now, under the penalty of for- 
 ever afterwards holding our peace. Meantime, circumstances may have 
 changed before the measure is presented to us again. It may come before 
 the country in a more constitutional shape. It may involve less danger of 
 war. It may involve less encroachment on the rights of others. Objections 
 of a temporary and formal character may have been removed. But I am 
 unwilhng to resume my seat without saying, that no such change of circum- 
 stances will alter the case for me. I am against annexation, now and always — 
 
 Because I believe it to be clearly unconstitutional in substance ; 
 
 Because I believe it will break up the balance of our system, violate the 
 compromises of the Constitution, and endanger the permanence of our 
 Union ; 
 
 And, above all, because I am uncompromisingly opposed to the extension 
 of Domestic Slavery, or to the addition of another inch of Slaveholding Ter- 
 ritory to this Nation. 
 
 MD 3. ^'^ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 v^ .*r^% < 
 
 
 <Jy' 
 
 
 <<> 
 
 y O _ 
 
 • ^^ 
 
 • '^ .c^"" ^'A%i/h^. t. .^^ 
 
 - % ..^■" ^:h\Wa' 
 
%.'-'' .0 ... <>. 
 
 °o 
 
 
 >» w £==jn ifc-5 vf c. * KW Kr //u _ «<* vw 
 
 -^r.^ 
 
 A 
 
 ..<^^ 
 
 l\ 
 
 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 646 977 2 ^