Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

NAYS—Against the proposed Annexation: | South of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north

Huntington,

Messrs. Archer,

Barrow,

Jarnagin,

Bates,

Mangum,

Bayard,

Miller,

Berrien,

Morehead,

Choate,

Pearce,

Clayton,

Phelps,

Crittenden,

Porter,

Dayton,

Rives,

Evans,

Simmons,

Foster,

Upham,

White,

Francis,

Woodbridge-25-[all Whigs].

The joint resolve being thus returned to the House as amended by the Senate, a vote was almost immediately taken on concurring, and the amendment of the Senate was assented to Yeas, 134; Nays, 77. [A strict party vote, except that Mr. Dellet of Alabama, (Whig) voted in the majority]. So the Annexation of Texas was decreed, and in the following terms:

latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without Slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said ter ritory north of said Missouri Compromise line, Slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

[WALKER'S AMENDMENT-ADDED.]

"And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall, in his judgment and discretion, deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States, for admission, to negotiate with that Republic; then,

"Be it resolved, That a State to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United States, shall be agreed upon by the Governments

JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXING TEXAS TO of Texas and the United States.
THE UNITED STATES.

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Rep resentatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a Republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.

"SEC. 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guaranties, to wit:

"First. Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.

"Second. Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense, belong ing to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due or owing said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant or unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to become a charge upon the United "Third. New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to the said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provision of the Federal Constitution; and such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

TEXAS having been annexed during the summer of 1845, in pursuance of the foregoing joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, a portion of the United States Army, under Gen. Taylor, was, early in the Spring of 1846, moved down to the east bank of the Rio Grande del Norte, claimed by Texas as her Western boundary, but not so regarded by Mexico. A hostile collision ensued, resulting in war between the United States and Mexico.

that a considerable sum should be placed by It was early thereafter deemed advisable Congress at the President's disposal, to negotiate an advantageous Treaty of Peace and Limits with the Mexican government. A Message to this effect was submitted by President Polk to Congress, August 8th, 1846, and a bill in accordance with its suggestions laid before the House, which proceeded to consider the subject in Committee of the Whole. The bill appropriating $30,000 for immediate use in negotiations with Mexico, and placing $2,000,000 more at the disposal of the President, to be employed in making peace, Mr. David Wilmot, of Pa., after consultation with other Northern Democrats, offered the following Proviso, in addition to the first section of the bill :

"Provided, That as an express and fundament al condition to the acquisition of any territory

from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted." This proviso was carried in Committee, by the strong vote of eighty-three to sixtyfour-only three Members (Democrats) from the Free States, it was said, opposing it. [No record is made of individual votes in Committee of the Whole.] The bill was then reported to the House, and Mr. Rathbun of N. Y. moved the previous question on its engrossment.

Mr. Tibbatts of Ky. moved that it do lie on the table. Defeated-Yeas 79; [Stephen A. Douglas, John A. McClernand, John Pettit, and Robert C. Schenck, voting with the South to lay on the table]; Nays 93; [Henry Grider and William P. Thomasson of Ky. (Whigs) voting with the North against it].

Mr. R. Brodhead of Penn. moved that this resolution lie on the table. Carried; Yeas, 105; Nays, 93.

[Yeas all the members from Slave States, but John W. Houston (Whig), of Delaware, with the following from Free States (all Democrats but Levin):

MAINE. Asa W. H. Clapp, Franklin Clark, Jas. s. Wiley, Hezekiah Williams—4.

NEW-YORK.-Ausburn Birdsall, David S. Jack-
son, Frederick W. Lord, William B. Maclay-4.
PENNSYLVANIA.-Richard Brodhead, Charles
Brown, Lewis C. Levin, Job Mann-4.
OHIO.-William Kennon, jr., John K. Miller,
Thomas Richey, William Sawyer-4.

INDIANA.Charles W. Cathcart, Thomas J.
Henley, John Petitt, John L. Robinson, William

W. Wick-5.

ILLINIOS.-Orlando B. Ficklin, John A. McClernand, William A. Richardson, Robert Smith, Thomas J. Turner-5.

Nays all the Whigs and a large majority of the Democrats from Free States, with John W. Houston aforesaid.

This vote terminated all direct action in favor of the Wilmot proviso for that Ses

sion.

The bill was then engrossed for its third reading by Yeas 85, Nays 80; and thus passed without further division. A motion July 18th.-In Senate, Mr. Clayton of to reconsider was laid on the table-Yeas Del., from the Select Committee to which 71; Nays 83. So the bill was passed and was referred, on the 12th inst., the bill prosent to the Senate, where Mr. Dixon H. viding a territorial government for Oregon, Lewis of Ala. moved that the Proviso reported a bill to establish Territorial govabove cited be stricken out; on which de- ernments for Oregon, New Mexico, and Calibate arose, and Mr. John Davis of Mass.fornia, which was read. [It proposed to was speaking when, at noon of August 10th, the time fixed for adjournment having arrived, both Houses adjourned without day.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

"And whereas, Congress, in the organization of a territorial government, at an early period of our political history, established a principle worthy of imitation in all future time, forbidding the existence of Slavery in free territory; Therefore,

submit all questions as to the rightful exist ence or extent of Slavery in the Territories to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.]

win of Conn. moved to strike out so much
July 24th.-Second reading. Mr. Bald-
of said bill as relates to California and New
Mexico.

Free Soil men of both parties); Nays, 37.
Rejected; Yeas, 17 (Northern

The bill was discussed through several succeeding days. On the 26th, Mr. Clarke of R. I. moved to add to the 6th section:

Provided, however, That no law, regulation, or act of the provisional government of said Territory permitting Slavery or involuntary servitude therein shall be valid, until the same shall be approved by Congress."

Rejected; Yeas, 19 [Col. Benton, and 18 Northern Freesoilers of both parties]; Nays, 33.

amend the bill by inserting—
Mr. Reverdy Johnson of Md. moved to

"Except only, that in all cases of title to Slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except, also, that a writ "Resolved, That in any territory, that may be of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Suacquired from Mexico, over which shall be estab-preme Court of the United States from the decision lished territorial governments, Slavery, or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be forever prohibited; and that in any act or resolution establishing such governments, a fundamental provision ought to be inserted to that effect."

of the said Supreme Court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district Courts created by this act, or of any judge upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom."

Carried: Yeas, 31 (all sorts); Nays, 19

(all Southern, but Bright, Dickinson, and Hannegan).

Mr. Baldwin of Conn. moved an additional section, as follows:

"SEC. 37. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the attorneys for said Territories, respectively, on the complaint of any person held in involuntary servitude therein, to make application in his behalf in due form of law, to the court next thereafter to be holden in said Territory, for a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to the person so holding such applicant in service as aforesaid, and to pursue all needful measures in his behalf; and if the decision of such court shall be adverse to the application, or if, on the return of the writ, relief shall be denied to the applicant, on the ground that he is a slave held in servitude in said Territory, said attorney shall cause an appeal to be taken therefrom, and the record of all the proceedings in the case to be transmitted to the Supreme Court of the United States as speedily as may be, and to give notice thereof to the Attorney General of the United States, who shall prosecute the same before said Court, who shall proceed to hear and determine the same at the first term thereof."

Yeas, 15 (all Northern, except Benton); Nays, 31.

Mr. Davis of Mass. moved to strike out section 12, and insert as follows:

"Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That so much of the sixth section of the ordinance of the 13th July, 1787, as is contained in the following words; viz: 'There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,' shall be and remain in force in the Territory of Oregon."

This was defeated; Yeas, 21; Nays, 33, as follows:

YEAS—For the Slavery Prohibition : Messrs. Allen, Ohio.

Atherton, N. H. Baldwin, Conn.

Dodge, Wisc. Felch, Mich. Fitzgerald, Mich. Greene, R. I.

Miller, N. J.

Benton, Mo.

Bradbury, Mo.

Hale, N. H.

Clarke, R. I.

Hamlin, Me.

Corwin, Ohio,

Davis, Mass.

Niles, Conn.

Dayton, N. J.

Dix, N. Y.

Upham, Vt.

Walker,

Wis.-21.

Spruance, Del.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

July 28th. This bill reached the House, and was taken up and read twice.

Committee of the Whole on the State of the Mr. Linn Boyd of Ky. moved it to a Union.

Mr. C. B. Smith of Ind. moved and obtained a call of the House, when all but eighteen Members responded.

Mr. A. H. Stephens of Ga. moved that the bill do lie on the table. Yeas and Nays ordered, and the motion prevailed: Yeas, 112; Nays, 97.

Yeas all the Free State Whigs, with the following Whigs from Slave States:

VIRGINIA.-John S. Pendleton-1.

NORTH CAROLINA.-Nathaniel Boydon, Richard S. Donnell-2.

GEORGIA.-Alex. H. Stephens-1.

KENTUCKY.-Green Adams, Aylett Buckner,

John B. Thompson-3.

TENNESSEE. John H. Crozier-1.

Total, eight Whigs from Slave States. Democrats from Free States:

[ocr errors]

MAINE. Asa W. H. Clapp, David Hammons, Ephraim K. Smart, James S. Wiley-4. NEW-HAMPSHIRE.--Charles H. Peaslee-1. VERMONT.-Lucius B. Peck-1.

RHODE ISLAND.-Benjamin B. Thurston-1. NEW YORK.-William Collins, Timothy Jenkins, Sidney Lawrence, Frederick W. Lord, William B. Maclay, Henry' Nicoll, George A. Starkweather-7.

PENNSYLVANIA. Wm. Strong, James Thomp. son, David Wilmot-3.

OHIO.-James J. Faran, George Fries, Samuel Lahm. Jonathan D. Morris_4.

INDIANA. Thomas J. Henley-1.

ILLINOIS. Robert Smith, John Wentworth 2.

[blocks in formation]

IOWA. William Thompson._1.

Total Democrats from Free States-30.
Total Whigs from Free States-74.
Nays, 21 Democrats from Free States,
with 76 Democrats and Whigs from Slave
States.

Mr. Pollock of Pa. moved that this vote be reconsidered, and that the motion to reconsider do lie on the table; which prevailed -Yeas, 113; Nays, 96. (Vote same as before, except that Mr. Franklin Clark of Maine changed from the minority to the majority.)

So Mr. Clayton's project of Compromise was defeated.

GEN. CASS'S NICHOLSON LETTER.

acts for a series of years, is as unworthy of the age in which we live, as it is revolting to the common sense and practice of mankind. It would conduce but little to our future security, or, indeed, to our present reputation, to declare that we repudiate all expectation of compensation from the Mexican Government, and are fighting, not for any practical result, but for some vague, perhaps philanthropic object, which escapes my penetration, and must be defined by those who assume this new principle of national intercommunication. All wars are to be deprecated, as well by the statesman as by the philanthropist. They are great evils; but there are greater evils than these, and submission to injustice is among its rights and its honor, when assailed, would them. The nation which should refuse to defend soon have neither to defend; and, when driven to war, it is not by professions of disinterestedness and declarations of magnanimity that its rational taught a lesson of forbearance-the strongest seobjects can be best obtained, or other nations curity for permanent peace. We are at war with Mexico, and its vigorous prosecution is the surest means of its speedy termination, and ample indemnity the surest guaranty against the recurrence of such injustice as provoked it.

strongly impressed with the opinion, that a great this subject, in my own as well as others; and change has been going on in the public mind upon that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions, that the principle it involves should be kept out of the National Legislature, and left to the people of the confederacy in their respective local

Immediately after the adjournment of Congress, in 1847, Gen. Cass was currently The Wilmot Proviso has been before the counreported to have expressed his favorable try some time. It has been repeatedly discussed opinion of the Wilmot Proviso, and his re-in Congress, and by the public Press. I am gret that Mr. Davis's untimely remarks in the Senate had deprived him (Cass) of an opportunity of recording his vote in its favor. This remark he was said to have made in a railroad car, on his homeward journey from Washington. If such a position were taken by him, however, it was not long maintained; as the following letter from his pen appeared during the winter of 1847-8, and proved a prelude to the nomination of the writer for President, by the Democratic National Convention which assembled at Baltimore in the spring of 1848. It may be regarded as the first logical and well-considered enunciation of the doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty."

Gen. Cass to A. O. P. Nicholson.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24, 1847. DEAR SIR,-I have received your letter, and shall answer it as frankly as it is written.

You ask me whether I am in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory, and what are my sentiments with regard to the Wilmot Proviso.

I have so often and so explicitly stated my views of the first question, in the Senate, that it seems almost unnecessary to repeat them here. As you request it, however, I shall briefly give

them.

I think, then, that no peace should be granted to Mexico, till a reasonable indemnity is obtained for the injuries which she has done us. The territorial extent of this indemnity is, in the first instance, a subject of Executive consideration. There the Constitution has placed it, and there I am willing to leave it: not only because I have full confidence in its judicious exercise, but because, in the ever-varying circumstances of a war, it would be indiscreet, by a public declaration, to commit the country to any line of indemnity, which might otherwise be enlarged, as the obstinate injustice of the enemy prolongs the contest, with its loss of blood and treasure.

It appears to me, that the kind of metaphysical magnanimity which would reject all indemnity at the close of a bloody and expensive war, brought on by a direct attack upon our troops by the enemy, and preceded by a succession of unjust

governments.

The whole subject is a comprehensive one, and fruitful of important consequences. It would be ill-timed to discuss it here. I shall not assume such general views as are necessary to the fair that responsible task, but shall confine myself to exhibition of my opinions.

We may well regret the existence of Slavery in the Southern States, and wish they had been saved from its introduction. But there it is, not by the act of the present generation; and we must deal with it as a great practical question, involv ing the most momentous consequences. We have neither the right nor the power to touch it where it exists; and if we had both, their exercise, by any means heretofore suggested, might lead tc results which no wise man would willingly en counter, and which no good man could contem plate without anxiety.

The theory of our Government presupposes that its various members have reserved to themselves the regulation of all subjects relating to what may be termed their internal police. They are sovereign within their boundaries, except in those cases where they have surrendered to the General Government a portion of their rights, in order to give effect to the objects of the Union, whether these concern foreign nations or the seve ral States themselves. Local institutions, if I may so speak, whether they have reference to Slavery or to any other relations, domestic or public, are left to local authority, either original or derivative. Congress has no right to say that there shall be Slavery in New-York, or that there shall be no Slavery in Georgia; nor is there any other human power, but the people of those States, respectively, which can change the relations existing therein; and they can say, if they will, We will have Slavery in the former, and we will abolish it in the latter.

In various respects, the Territories differ from the States. Some of their rights are inchoate, and they do not possess the peculiar attributes of sovereignty. Their relation to the General Gov

[ocr errors]

it. It should be limited to the creation of proper governments for new countries, acquired or settled, and to the necessary provision for their eventual admission into the Union; leaving, in the mean time, to the people inhabiting them, to regulate their internal concerns in their own way. They are just as capable of doing so as the people of the States; and they can do so, at any rate as soon as their political independence is recognized by admission into the Union. During this temporary condition. it is hardly expedient to call into exercise a doubtful and invidious authority, which questions the intelligence of a respectable portion of our citizens, and whose limitation, whatever it may be, will be rapidly approaching its termination-an authority which would give to Congress despotic power, uncontrolled by the Constitution, over most important sections of our common country. For, if the relation of master and servant may be regulated or annihilated by its legislation, so may the regulation of husband and wife, of parent and child, and of any other condition which our institutions and the habits of our society recognize. What would be thought if Congress should undertake to prescribe the terms of marriage in New-York, or to regulate the authority of parents over their children in Pennsylvania? And yet it would be as vain to seek one justifying the interference of the national legislature in the cases referred to in the original States of the Union. I speak here of the inherent power of Congress, and do not touch the question of such contracts as may be formed with new States when admitted into the confederacy.

ernment is very imperfectly defined by the Constitution; and it will be found, upon examination, that in that instrument the only grant of power concerning them is conveyed in the phrase, Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States.” Certainly this phraseology is very loose, if it were designed to include in the grant the whole power of legislation over persons, as well as things. The expression, the "territory and other property," fairly construed, relates to the public lands, as such; to arsenals, dockyards, forts, ships, and all the various kinds of property which the United States may and must possess. But surely the simple authority to dispose of and regulate these does not extend to the unlimited power of legislation; to the passage of all laws, in the most general acceptation of the word; which, by-the-by, is carefully excluded from the sentence. And, indeed, if this were so, it would render unnecessary another provision of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the power to legislate, with the consent of the States, respectively, over alle places purchased for the "erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards," etc. These being the "property" of the United States, if the power to make "needful rules and regulations concerning" them includes the general power of legislation, then the grant of authority to regulate "the territory and other property of the United States" is unlimited, wherever subjects are found for its operation, and its exercise needed no auxiliary provision. If, on the other hand, it does not include such power of legislation over the "other property" of the United States, then it Of all the questions that can agitate us, those does not include it over their," territory;" for the which are merely sectional in their character are same terms which grant the one, grant the other. the most dangerous, and the most to be depre“Territory” is here classed with property, and cated. The warning voice of him who from his treated as such; and the object was evidently to character and services and virtue had the best enable the General Government, as a property-right to warn us, proclaimed to his countrymen, holder—which, from necessity, it must be-to manage, preserve and "dispose of" such property as it might possess, and which authority is essential almost to its being. But the lives and persons of our citizens, with the vast variety of objects connected with them, cannot be controlled by an authority which is merely called into existence for the purpose of making rules and regulations for the disposition and management of property. Such, it appears to me, would be the construction put upon this provision of the Constitution, were this question now first presented for consideration, and not controlled by imperious circumstances. The original ordinance of the Congress of the Confederation, passed in 1787, and which was the only act upon this subject in force at the adoption of the Constitution, provided a complete frame of government for the country north of the Ohio, while in a territorial condition, and for its eventual admission in separate States into the Union. And the persuasion that this ordinance contained within itself all the necessary means of execution, probably prevented any direct reference to the subject in the Constitution, further than vesting in Congress the right to admit the States formed under it into the Union. However, circumstances arose, which required legislation, as well over the territory north of the Ohio as over other territory, both within and without the original Union, ceded to the general Government, and, at various times, a more enlarged power has been exercised over the Territories-meaning thereby the different Territorial Governmentsthan is conveyed by the limited grant referred to. How far an existing necessity may have operated in producing this legislation, and thus extending, by rather a violent implication, powers not directly given, I know not. But certain it is that the 3. Because I believe a general_conviction that principle of interference should not be carried be- such a proposition would succeed, would lead to yond the necessary implication, which produces | an immediate withholding of the supplies, and

in his Farewell Address-that monument of wisdom for him, as I hope it will be of safety for them-how much we had to apprehend from measures peculiarly affecting geographical sections of our country. The grave circumstances in which we are now placed make these words words of safety; for I am satisfied, from all I have seen and heard here, that a successful attempt to engraft the principles of the Wilmot Proviso upon the legislation of this Government, and to apply them to new territory, should new territory be acquired, would seriously affect our tranquillity. I do not suffer myself to foresee or to foretell the consequences that would ensue ; for I trust and believe there is good sense and good feeling enough in the country to avoid them, by avoiding all occasions which might lead to them.

Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of leaving to the people of any territory, which may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate it for themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution. Because

1. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the requisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity-the establishment of territorial governments when needed-leaving to the inhabitants all the rights compatible with the relations they bear to the confederation.

2. Because I believe this measure, if adopted, would weaken, if not impair, the union of the States; and would sow the seeds of future discord, which would grow up and ripen into an abundant harvest of calamity.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »