« ZurückWeiter »
improvement and accumulation at the same time it excited it. The desire grew by what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eagerness for other territory, a new area or new areas for the cultivation of the cotton crop, and measures leading to this result were brought about, rapidly, one after another, under the lead of Southern men at the head of the Government, — they having a majority in both branches, – to accomplish their ends. The honorable member from Carolina observed that there has been a majority all along in favor of the North. If that be true, sir, the North has acted either very liberally and kindly, or very weakly; for they never exercised that majority five times in the history of the Government. Never. Whether they were outgeneralled, or whether it was owing to other causes, I shall not stop to consider, but no man acquainted with the history of the country can deny, that the general lead in the politics of the country, for three-fourths of the period that has elapsed since the adoption of the constitution, has been a Southern lead. In 1802, in pursuit of the idea of opening a new cotton region, the United States obtained a cession from Georgia of the whole of her western territory, now embracing the rich and growing state of Alabama. In 1803, Louisiana was purchased from France, out of which the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri have been framed as slaveholding states. In 1819 the cession of Florida was made, bringing another cession of slaveholding property and territory. Sir, the honorable member from South Carolina thought he saw in certain operations of the Government, — such as the manner of collecting the revenue, and the tendency of those measures to promote emigration into the country, - what accounts for the more rapid growth of the North than the South. He thinks that more sapient growth not the operation of time, but of the system of government established under this constitution. That is a matter of opinion. To a certain extent it may be so; but it does seem to me that if any operation of the Government could be shown in any degree to have promoted the population, and growth, and wealth of the North, it is much more sure that there are sundry important and distinct operations of the Government, about which no man can doubt, tending to promote, and which absolutely have promoted the increase of the slave interest and the slave territory of the South. Allow me to say, that it was not time that brought in Louisiana; it was the act of men. It was not time that brought in Florida; it was the act of men. And lastly, sir, to complete those acts of men which have contributed so much to enlarge the area and the sphere of the institution of slavery, Texas, great and vast and illimitable Texas, was added to the Union as a slave State in 1845; and that, sir, pretty much closed the whole chapter and settled the whole account. That closed the whole chapter—that settled the whole account, because the annexation of Texas upon the conditions and under the guaranties upon which she was admitted, did not leave an acre of land capable of being cultivated by slave labor between this Capitol and the Rio Grande or the Nueces, or whatever is the proper boundary of Texas — not an acre, not one. From that moment the whole country from this place to the western boundary of Texas, was fixed, pledged, fastened, decided to be slave territory forever, by the solemn guaranties of law. And I now say, sir, as the proposition upon which I stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which I intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at this moment within the United States, or any territory of the United States, a single foot of land the character of which, in regard to its being free soil territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law and some irrepealable law beyond the power of the action of this Government. Now, is it not so with respect to Texas? Why, it is most manifestly so. The honorable member from South Carolina, at the time of the admission of Texas, held an important post in the Executive Department of the Government; he was Secretary of State. Another eminent person of great activity and adroitness in affairs, I mean the late Secretary of the Treasury, (Mr. Walker) was a leading member of this body, and took the lead in the business of annexation; and I must say that they did their business faithfully and thoroughly; there was no botch left in it. They rounded it off, and made as close joiner-work as ever was put together. Resolutions of annexation were brought into Congress fitly joined together — compact, firm, efficient, conclusive upon the great object which they have in view. And those resolutions passed. Allow me to read the resolution. It is the third clause of the second section of the resolution of the 1st March, 1845, for the admission of Texas, which applies to this part of the case. That clause reads in these words: “New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to 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 provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said Territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north 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 Territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.” Now what is here stipulated, enacted, secured It is, that all Texas south of 36° 30', which is nearly the whole of it, shall be admitted into the Union as a slave State—it was a slave State and therefore came in as a slave State — and the guaranty is that new States shall be made out of it, and that such States as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying south of 36° 30', may come in as slave States to the number of four, in addition to the State then in existence, and admitted at that time by these resolutions. I know no form of legislation that can strengthen that. I know no mode of recognition that can add a tittle of weight to it. I listened respectfully to the resolutions of my honorable friend from Tennessee, (Mr. BELL) He proposed to recognize that stipulation with Texas. But any additional recognition would weaken the force of it; because it stands here on the ground of a contract, a thing done for a consideration. It is a law founded on a contract with Texas and designed to carry that contract into effect. A recognition, not founded on any consideration and any contract, would not be so strong as it now stands on the face of the resolution. Now I know no way, I candidly confess, in which this government, acting in good faith, as I trust it always will, can relieve itself from that stipulation and pledge, by any honest course of legislation whatever. And, therefore, I say again that so far as Texas is concerned — the whole of Texas south of 36°30', which I suppose embraces all the slave territory—there is no land, not an acre, the character of which is not established by law, a law which cannot be repealed without the violation of a contract, and plain disregard of the public faith. I hope, sir, it is now apparent that my proposition, so far as Texas is concerned, has been maintained, and the provision in this article —and it has been well suggested by my friend from Rhode Island that that part of Texas which lies north of thirty-four degrees of north latitude may be formed into free States—is dependent, in like manner, upon the consent of Texas, herself a slave State. Well, now, sir, how came this? How came it that within these walls, where it is said by the honorable member from South Carolina that the free States have a majority — this resolution of annexation, such as I have described it, found a majority in both Houses of Congress’ Why, sir, it found that majority by the great addition of Northern votes added to the entire southern vote, or at least, nearly the whole of the southern votes. That majority was made up of Northern as well as of Southern votes. In the House of Representatives it stood, I think, about eighty Southern votes for the admission of Texas, and about fifty Northern votes for the admission of Texas. In the Senate, the vote stood for the admission of Texas, twenty-seven, and twenty-five against it; and of those twenty-seven votes constituting a majority for the admission of Texas in this body, no less than thirteen of them came from the free States — four of them were from New England. The whole of these thirteen Senators from the free States—within a fraction, you see, of one-half of all the votes in this body for the admission of Texas, with its immeasurable extent of slave territory—were sent by the votes of free States.
Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our history of political events, political parties, and political men, as is afforded by this measure for the admission of Texas, with this immense territory, that a bird cannot fly over in a week. [Laughter.] Sir, New England, with some of her votes, supported this measure. Three-fourths of the votes of liberty-loving Connecticut went for it in the other House, and one-half here. There was one vote for it in Maine, but I am happy to say not the vote of the honorable member who addresssed the Senate the day before yesterday, (MR. HAMLIN,) and who was then a Representative from Maine in the other House; but there was a vote or two from Maine — aye, and there was one vote for it from Massachusetts, the gentleman then representing, and now living in the district in which the prevalence of free-soil sentiment for a couple of years or so has defeated the choice of any member to represent it in Congress. Sir, that body of Northern and Eastern men, who gave those votes at that time, are now seen taking upon themselves, in the nomenclature of politics, the appellation of the Northern Democracy. They undertook to wield the destinies of this empire — if I may call a republic an empire — and their policy was, and they persisted in it, to bring into this country all the territory they could. They did it under pledges — absolute pledges to the slave interest in the case of Texas, and afterwards they lent their aid in bringing in these new conquests. My honorable friend from Georgia, in March, 1847, moved the Senate to declare that the war ought not to be prosecuted for acquisition, for conquest, for the dismemberment of Mexico. The same Northern Democracy entirely voted against it. He did not get a vote from them. It suited the views, the patriotism, the elevated sentiments of the Northern Democracy to bring in a world here, among the mountains and valleys of California and New Mexico, or any other part of Mexico, and then quarrel about it—to bring it in and then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the Wilmot proviso. There were two eminent and highly respectable gentlemen from the North and East, then leading gentlemen in this Senate—Irefer, and I do so with entire respect, for I entertain for both of those gentlemen in general high regard, to MR. Dix, of New York, and MR. NILEs, of Connecticut — who voted for the admission of Texas. They would not have that vote any other way than as it stood; and they would have it as it did stand. I speak of the vote upon the annexation of Texas. Those two gentlemen would have the resolution of annexation just as it is, and they voted for it just as it is, and their eyes were all open to it. My
honorable friend, the member who addressed us the other day from South Carolina, was then Secretary of State. His correspondence with Mr. MURPHY, the chargé d'affaires of the United States in Texas, had been published. That correspondence was all before those gentlemen, and the Secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence that the great object sought by the annexation of Texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the South. Why, sir, he said, in so many words MR. CALhoun. Will the honorable Senator permit me to interrupt him for a moment? MR. Webster. Certainly. MR. CALhoun. I am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable gentleman; but upon a point of so much importance, I deem it right to put myself rectus in curiá. I did not put it upon the ground assumed by the Senator. I put it upon this ground : that Great Britain had announced to this country, in so many words, that her object was to abolish slavery in Texas, and through Texas to accomplish the abolishment of slavery in the United States and the world. The ground I put it on was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and, if great Britain succeeded in her object, it would be impossible that that srontier could be secured against the aggression of the abolitionists; and that this Government was bound, under the guaranties of the constitution, to protect us against such a state of things. MR. Webster. That comes, I suppose, sir, to exactly the same thing. It was, that Texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the South. MR. CALhoun. Another view is very distinctly given. MR. WebstER. That was the object set forth in the correspondence of a worthy gentleman not now living, who preceded the honorable member from South Carolina in that office. There repose on the files of the Department of State, as I have occasion to know, strong letters from Mr. Upshur to the United States minister in England, and I believe there are some to the same minister from the honorable Senator himself, asserting to this effect the sentiments of this Government that Great Britain was expected not to interfere to take Texas out of the hands of its then existing Government, and make it a free country. But my argument, my suggestion is this: that those gentlemen who composed the Northern democracy when Texas was brought into the Union, saw with all their eyes that it was brought in as a slave country, and brought in for the purpose of being maintained as a slave territory to the Greek Kalends. I rather think that the honorable gentleman who was then Secretary of State might, in some of his correspondence with