The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 168
xv, 408, 421 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
168
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
her independence so that the tyrant of Mexico '
or any other country could not reach it. 1
Texas, then, was a free and independent nation;
she was not only in fact free and independent, but
she was able to maintain and secure her freedom.
She had achieved it by the noblest patriotism, the
roost undaunted valor. She has acquired it by all
that is held sacred in our revolution. We should
be the last people on earth to deny the right of
revolution—to advocate the divine right of kings.
If we were entitled to our freedom, Texas was en-
titled to her freedom; and when gentlemen talked
about robbing Mexico by the admission of Texas
into this Union, he could draw no distinction be-
tween this robbery, as it was called, and declaring
that we had robbed England of the colonies which
she had owned previously to the declaration of in-
dependence in 1776. If gentlemen who talked
about robbing Mexico had lived in the glorious
days of our revolution, the universal joy which
pervaded the country at the result of the battle of
Yorktown, might perhaps have been marred by
the hoarse croaking of "robbery" of England of her
fair possessions.
Thus, while Texas was free and independent; and
proposed to come into this Union, its admission
would secure a territory of unparalleled fertility;
it would secure to the southwest—our weakest and
most defenceless frontier—a protection which
neither armies, fleets, or military posts could give.
When it was seen by reference to the, map that the
great valley of the West—that the great commerce
of the valley of the Mississippi, constituting in it-
self an empire—that the great mart of all our west-
ern produce was secured by the admission, he
paused to hear what objections there could be to the
measure.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. J. R.
Ingersoll,] who addressed the committee early in
this discussion, had brought forward one of the
most important objections to this bill, viz: that there
was danger in extending our territory; that the
States would fly off by means of the centrifugal
force; and he added, in the course of his remarks,
that the central government here was the heart
through which the life-blood of the system must
flow to all the States. Here was an important ob-
jection to the admission of Texas into the Union—
the enlargement of our territory. This extension
of territory was the very reason why he was an ad-
vocate for Texas, irrespective of its ^position; and
when gentlemen taunted him here as a strict con-
structionist, a State-rights man, if they pleaded, and
still advocated the annexation of Texas, he threw it
back to them, and told them that was the very
ground why he wanted Texas—because it was cal-
culated to secure the doctrines which he advocated—
the doctrines of 1798, which all democrats at least
ought to advocate. Was there any danger of this
government flying to pieces by extending its terri-
tory? He read from Mr. Madison's comments, in
the Federalist, on the constitution, in which he
said Mr. Madison took the doctrine that the natural
limit of a republic was, that extent coming from
which the representatives of the country might meet
as often as the emergencies of the country demand-
ed. He held this doctrine, and he said, in this day
of steam boats • and railroads, that our government
might extend over this continent without danger of
falling to pieces.
But he might be asked how was this extension of
territory to guard the doctrine of State rights.
Every State they added to this Union, every enlarge-
ment of ourdomain, would bean additional obstacle
in the way of the consolidation of this government.
The more diversified the soil, the climate, the pro-
ductions—the more different the pursuits and occupa-
tions, the habits, and education of the different por-
tions of our Union—the more difficult it would be to
get the Congress of the United States ever to con-
solidate and centralize this government. Each State
would demand for itself the rights of legislating for
itself, of consulting its own peculiar interests and
notions. Every State they added to this Union was
but another sentinel on the watchtower of freedom;
every State they added was but another eye to guard
the jewel of liberty: that jewel was State sov-
ereignty.
He referred to the objections to the annexation of
Texas, which had been taken by the gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Marsii] yesterday, and he
complimented the candor with which it had been
brought forward by that gentleman. This objection,
together with that of the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania, comprehended the whole matter in issue.
The objection of the gentleman from Vermont was,
that it was a scramble for political power. Ah!
they had it at last. Conceal it as they would, the
gentleman said, it must come to this. Let it come
(said Mr. C.;) in God's name let it go to Kentucky;
let it go to Ashland—to every whig in the slave-
holding States—-that the whole opposition to this
measure was a scramble on the part of the North
for political power.
[A voice: "A political scramble on the part of the
South."]
In God's name, (continued Mr. C.,) what inter-
est had the South in making a scramble for polit-
ical power? Had the South, by possessing ascen-
dency in the halls, the power of enforcing class le-
gislation on the North, by which they were to plun-
der the North of their own earnings, to interfere
with the domestic institutions of the North, was it
feared that they would make any such interference?
No; every candid man from the North would tell them
that he had no such fear. The South never asked
anything but to be let alone; the slaveholding States
only asked to be permitted to enjoy, in their own
way, their own liberty; that they would not disturb
her peace, and distract her citizens. They would
not attempt to enforce slavery on the North; let the
South have the political ascendency here, and they
ivo'uld never oppress the North.
/ There was, then, some positive reason on the
part of the North for wanting this undue ascen-
dency. Did she want to destroy the balance of
power; to meddle with the slavery of the South;
to force them into measures in regard to their domes-
tic institutions that they denied to them the right to
interfere with? She could have no other object in
wanting this great ascendency of political power,
except for the purpose of wronging and oppressing
the South, and destroying the power of that part of
the Union. No; he wanted this kind of declaration
of the gentleman from Vermont to be understood in
the South; and he wanted the South to answer
through her representative here, and their organs at
home, whether, in their mad devotion to party dis-
cipline, they were prepared to sacrifice all that was
dear to them and their posterity, for the purpose of
becoming closely identified with the federalists, the
abolitionists, and the fanatics of the North.
They were told that they had no constitutional
power to annex Texas. That question had already
been argued so ably, he would not enter into a mi-
nute examination of the subject. He recollected,
however, when it had been proposed toreannex Tex-
as by treaty, they had heard it thundered from the
Capitol, and from every State in the Union, that it
was a gross assumption of power on the part of an
accidental, irresponsible, ambitious President, to
promote his own ends; and that it would be a dec-
laration of war with Mexico; that Congress only
had the power to annex Texas, because Congress
only could declare war. He really had been simple
enough to suppose that they were honest in that
declaration. But now, when they proposed to re-
annex Texas, not by treaty, but to admit her by act
or resolution of Congress as an entire State into this
Union, they heard it thundered from the same party
that Congress had not the power to admit Texas as
a State, because it belonged to the treaty-making
power. If it did not belong to the treaty-making
power or to Congress, where, he asked, was the
power? There were but three departments—the
executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. He
had heard no one say that it belonged to the judi-
ciary. This was a great attribute of sovereignty,
that could not be lost. If they proved that it did
not belong to the general government, he would
prove to them that it did not belong to the
State governments, and then they were charging our
fdlheis who framed the constitution with the folly,
ay, with the madness of having omitted in its com-
position an essential attribute of sovereignty. This
attribute of sovereignty could not be annihilated; it
was not gone. It belonged, then, to the general,
and not to the State governments; and he read from
the Federalist the views of Mr. Madison respecting
the powers of the general and the State governments
confirmatory of this position.
But they were met here with the Ia*,v of nations,
and they were told that this thing could not be done,
beeause a State could not merge its sovereignty.
This doctrine had not its origin in these halls; it
originated in the British Parliament; its origin was
with that subtle, cunning power, which had at all
times its eyes upon the question; which had been
looking on Texas as her own undisputed clime. There
it was declared to be a question which merited the se-
rious attention of the British government. Let them
inquire of that selfish, unscrupulous power, where
were the independent governments of Ireland, Wales,
Scotland? That they were once free, was| attested
both by history and by song; but they had lost
their freedom. The classic highlands of Scotland
might reverberate in the hurried accents of despair,
"Where is my freedom?" and echo answers
"Where?" They had been swallowed up by that
power which now, when her interests required it,
preached to other nations that a nation could not
merge its sovereignty.
They had another example which had a bearing
on this subject, viz: the thirteen original States.
They were sovereign and free as Texas or as Eng-
land? Where was their sovereignty? Where was the
sovereignty of Massachusetts. It might be said,
and truly, that Massachusetts was still sovereign
and independent, and had only delegated a portion
of her power for^ specific purposes to the general
government. This was precisely what they intend-
ed Texas should do; that in becoming a member of
this Union, she would surrender only the sover-
eignty that Massachusetts had surrendered when
the Union was formed.
But they were met here with the objection that
Texas could not come into this Union with the con-
sent of all the partners, on the old law maxim that
a new member could not be admitted into a copart-
nership without the consent of all the members of
that copartnership. This might suit the capacities
of a county court lawyer, but it never could have
any weight with statesmen. They had the consent,
if the gentleman desired, of every partner in the
original firm, without asking for it now. In the
formation of the articles of copartnership, that con-
sent had been given unconditionally; yes, it was
declared in the constitution expressly that new
States might be admitted into the Union, and that by
the Congress of the United States. In support of
his views on this point, Mr. C. read from the Fed-
eralist. If there were any doubt on this point, he
might refer also to the journal of the convention, the
articles of the confederation (by which it was agreed
that Canada might be admitted into this Union) to
the rejection'of every proposition.to restrict this pow-
er, and the adoption of it in the unlimited form in
which it now stood into the constitution of the Uni-
ted States.
There were various other small objections which
deserved a passing notice. In the first place, it was
objected that we will have to assume the debts of
Texas if we annex her to the Union. Now, (said
Mr. .C.,) we do not propose to assume her debts.
The measure which he advocated was one which
proposed to admit Texas as a State, to allow her to
keep her own lands, arid to pay her own debts.
But suppose (said Mr. C.) that we do have to pay
her debts: were not those debts created in conse-
quence of our want of faith? Were not these debts
incurred m re-establishing that freedom which we
deprived her of when we thrust her from us, and
transferred her to a foreign despot, by the treaty of
1819? He asked gentlemen if it was not a debt
which appealed to us by every feeling which ought
to govern our counsels here—that appealed to us as
the price by which they redeemed the freedom
which was once theirs, and which we de-
prived them of by the treaty of 1819. But that
debt was a mere bagatelle; it constituted no real
objection to the measure with those who urged
it, and was a mere bugbear to frighten those who
wished to be frightened. If we assume the debts of
Texas, wc shall do but mere justice; and the lands
which we shall receive for them will be more than
sufficient to pay them thrice o.ver. He, for one, he
would inform gentlemen, was ready to go for the
bill that will give Texas all her lands, and leave her
to pay her own debts. He conceded that point, to
obviate the objections of those who so strenuously
opposed paying the debts of Texas. But it had
been said, and that, too, by high authority, that if
Texas is admitted into the Union, it will not only
produce a dissolution of the Union, but that it would
ustify such a catastrophe. Now, this was language
which fell strangely on the ears of western men.
Why, in the new States, said Mr. C., to talk of dis-
union is little better than treason. We do not suffer
our minds to dwell on such a theme, and if we hear
it, we dismiss it frOm us with loathing and abhor-
rence. It might do for the old Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to talk of disunion; she might threat-
en it again and again; but he would tell Massachu-
setts that she could not dissolve the Union if she
tried to do it. No proposition of that kind had ever
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/184/: accessed May 4, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.