CHAPTER VI

THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS

THE next occasion for any considerable sectional controversy grew out of the proposed annexation of Texas.

It is certain that the main purpose of the South in the advocacy of that measure was to secure an addition to the waning power of that section. See speech of Mr. Marsh, of Vermont.1

That the opposition of the North to that measure was to prevent that increase, and on account of the three-fifths representation of slaves, is also clear. It is only necessary to cite the resolution of the Legislature of Massachusetts on that subject and a few other authorities. These resolutions denied the constitutional power of Congress to annex Texas, and claimed that it was a power reserved to the people.

The fourth resolution was as follows: "That the people of Massachusetts will never consent to use the powers reserved to themselves to admit Texas, or any other State or Territory, now without the Union, on any other basis than the perfect equality of freemen; and that while slavery or slave representation forms any part of the claims or conditions of admission, Texas, with their consent, can never be admitted." 2

Mr. Dayton, of New Jersey, in opposing annexation, alluded to the three-fifths principle of Southern representation, which weighed five slaves against three freemen, and said his voice would never be given for extending that principle beyond the Sabine.3

The resolutions of the State of Connecticut presented to the House of Representatives December 15, 1845, denied, 'Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 2d Session, 28th Congress, P. 314.

2

Congressional Globe, 2d Session, 28th Congress, p. 299. 'Ibid., p. 333.

like those of Massachusetts, the power of Congress to admit new States, not formed in the original territory of the United States. They denounced the annexation of a large slaveholding territory with the declared intention of giving strength to slavery as a deliberate assault upon the compromises of the Constitution. They also denounced the action of their Senator, J. M. Niles, in voting for the resolution of annexation, which provided for the extension and perpetuation of human slavery and added to its already predominating influence in the National Councils.1

Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana, said in debate in the House that the Northern people "will resent any attempt to extend or perpetuate slavery, or to increase the relative political power of those who have an immediate interest in it."

Mr. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, said that he opposed annexation because it was unconstitutional, and "because I believe it will break up the balance of our system, violate the compromise of the Constitution, and endanger the permanence of the Union; and above all, because I am opposed to the extension of slavery or the addition of another inch of slave territory to the Nation."

Texas was admitted, with a proviso that it might thereafter be divided into five States, and that slavery should be excluded north of 36° 30'.

THE WILMOT PROVISO DURING THE WAR WITH MEXICO

The next great controversy on the subject grew out of the proviso offered by Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, to a bill appropriating money to enable the President to conclude a peace with Mexico. The proviso was first offered on the 8th day of August, 1846. The session was near the end, and there was but little discussion on it. It was adopted in the House by a vote of eighty-three to sixty-four. Stephen A. Douglas, Ficklin, Hogan, and McClernand, of Illinois; Harper and Vinton, of Ohio; Ewing and Ramsey, of Pennsylvania; Wright, of New Jersey, and Rockwell, of Connecticut, were the only Northern men who voted against the proviso.

On the 10th of August the matter came up in the Senate. 1 Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 29th Congress, p. 59.

This was the last day of the session as previously fixed by a concurrent resolution of adjournment.

Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, took the floor and occupied it until the hour of adjournment, whereby the bill to which the proviso was attached was defeated. He was asked to give way for action to be taken prolonging the session. This he declined. He opposed the bill and favored the proviso. He opposed the acquisition of slave territory. He said: "The acquisition of territory on our Southern limits redounded to their" (Southern friends, as he called them) "benefit altogether. The newly acquired territory ranged itself under their banner. . . . And while contemplating the acquisition of territory extensive enough to furnish ten more States, I would like to know if their interest alone is to be consulted? If California is to be annexed, that vast region comprehending one-third at least of the Mexican Republic, with institutions assimilating themselves to those of the Southern States of this Union, I say it seems to me to be a matter which well deserves the attention of the free States, in order that the equipoise of power may not be completely subverted and made to incline in favor of their Southern friends." 1

Here again, in the first speech made in Congress in favor of this celebrated proviso, it was announced that opposition to the bill was grounded on the fact that it increased the political weight of the South in the National Councils.

Mr. Wilmot on February 1, 1847,-war being still flagrant, before the great victory of the American arms at Buena Vista, and before Scott had commenced his march from Vera Cruz to the City of Mexico,-again offered his proviso to a bill appropriating three millions of dollars to enable the President to conclude a peace with Mexico. After a great deal of acrimonious discussion, the Senate bill, without the proviso, was passed in the House. Yeas, one hundred and fifteen; nays, eighty-one.2

Peace was made and territory acquired without any laws being enacted with a provision prohibiting slavery in the acquired domain.

Before any territorial government was formed for California she applied under a non-slaveholding Constitution for 'Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 29th Congress, p. 1221.

2

Congressional Globe, 2d Session, 29th Congress, p. 573.

At

admission into the Union as a State. There had been no previous enabling Act, no civil government even. She was under military rule when her Constitution was formed. the same time there were pending questions concerning the boundary of Texas, the formation of a civil government for New Mexico, and also for Utah, and for the passage of a more effective law for the delivery of fugitive slaves.

Mr. Clay, after a long retirement from public life, returned to the Senate to aid in settling these serious questions. The wish of the North was to place Congressional interdiction of slavery on the new Territories. The Senate resisted and proposed the running of the Missouri compromise line of 36° 30' to the Pacific. This was rejected. Bills for these Territories were then formed upon the principles of nonintervention as to slavery in the territory, and so finally passed. The debate on the subject of slavery was long and bitter. The South resisted the admission of California under a non-slaveholding Constitution. It was complained that the admission of the State was wholly irregular; that the military commander had aided in forming the convention that framed the Constitution. The South could not, without reluctance and chagrin, see the splendid territory acquired through Southern policies, and in a very large degree by Southern valor, wrested from that section and added to the already preponderating influence and power of the North. The reluctance was greater since the spirit of sectionalism had grown more and more bitter, and the danger was imminent that the ultimate aim of the North would be accomplished, that is, the destruction of slavery in the states.

So the South, or a large portion of it, resisted the admission of California upon grounds of irregularities in forming the Constitution,-upon grounds that had been waived in the case of Texas. The North, seeing the opportunity of adding a great State to the already overwhelming preponderance of that section, forgot the constitutional objection that from 1803 down to that time it had maintained,-that no power existed in Congress to admit new States from territory acquired since the formation of the Constitution. As late as 1845, as we have seen, the doctrine had been maintained in full force by great northern statesmen, and sanctioned by solemn resolutions of state Legislatures.

So the North, with absolute unanimity, favored the immediate admission of California; fifty-six Southern Representatives voted against it. These inconsistencies came from the same old enduring cause, a contest for sectional political power. Both sides recognized the truth of the declaration made by Mr. Quincy in opposing the admission of Louisiana in 1811, "that when the weight of particular sections of a confederacy was greatly unequal, the resulting power would be abused, and that it was not in the nature of man to exercise it with moderation." The South felt this keenly, being the weaker party, and cherishing domestic institutions to which the North was bitterly hostile. Shall it be added that the North felt and acknowledged its truth and had determined to secure the greatly preponderant power, and to use it in its own discretion, without reference to the interests or wishes of the South? It is certain that the South thought so. Reading over these proceedings now, after the lapse of forty years, we will be struck with the passion and heat of the debates. There seemed to be insanity on both sides with reference to the Territories. Whether slavery should be excluded from them by Congressional action was of no practical importance, a mere question of prejudice on one side and of pride on the other. But the voice of reason, if not silent, was at least drowned by passion.

1

Mr. Webster, in his great speech, March 7, 1850,2 demonstrated that slavery could not go into the Territories acquired from Mexico: "That it (slavery) was excluded by the law of nature, the law of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth, a law that with a strength beyond all laws of human enactment settled the question forever."

Speaking of the Wilmot proviso, he declared that "such a proviso would be idle as respects any effect it would have upon the Territory, and I would not take the pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to reenact the will of God. I would put in no Wilmot proviso, for the mere purpose of a taunt and of a reproach." Yet for a mere taunt and a reproach the North was eager to put in the form of law the Wilmot proviso. Mr. Webster lost caste and popularity in his own State for his action, and Southern men who acted 1 Written about 1891 or 1892.

'Webster's Works, Vol. 5, p. 324 et seq.