ison declares that Mr. Laussat, the French commissioner who delivered the possession of Louisiana to us, announced the 'Del Norte as its true boundary.' Here, then, in the delivery of the possession of Louisiana by Spain to France, and France to us, Texas is included. In the letter of Mr. Madison of the 8th July, 1804, he declares the opposition of Mr. Jefferson to the 'relinquishment of any territory whatever, eastward of the Rio Bravo.' In the letter of James Monroe, of the 8th November, 1803, he encloses documents, which he says, 'prove incontestably,' that the boundary of Louisiana is the Rio Bravo to the west,' and Mr. Pinckney unites with him in a similar declaration. In a subsequent letter - not to a foreign government, but to Mr. Madison-of the 20th April, 1805, they assert our title as unquestionable. In Mr. Monroe's letters, as secretary of state, dated January 19, 1816, and June 10, 1816, he says none could question our title to Texas;' and he expresses his concurrence in opinion with Jefferson and Madison, that our title to the Del Norte was as clear as to the island of New Orleans.' In his letter, as secretary of state, to Don Onis, of the 12th March, 1818, John Quincy Adams says, 'the claim of France always did extend westward to the Rio Bravo;' 'she always claimed the territory which you call Texas, as being within the limits, and forming a part, of Louisiana.' After demonstrating our title to Texas in this letter, Mr. Adams says, 'Well might Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe write to M. Cevallos, in 1805, that the claim of the United States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo, was as clear as their right to the island of New Orleans.' Again, in his letter of the 31st October, 1818, Mr. Adams says our title to Texas is established beyond the power of further controversy.'

66

Here, then, by the discovery and occupation of Texas, as a part of Louisiana, by Lasalle, for France, in 1685; by the delivery of possession to us, in 1803, by Spain and France; by the action of our government from the date of the treaty of acquisition to the date of the treaty of surrender, (avowedly so, on its face ;) by the opinion of all our presidents and ministers connected in any way with the acquisition, our title to Texas was undoubted. It was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819; but Mr. Clay maintained, in his speech of the 3d April, 1820, that territory could not be alienated merely by a treaty; and consequently, that, notwithstanding the treaty, Texas was still our own. In the cession of a portion of Maine, it was asserted, in legislative resolutions by Massachusetts and

Maine, and conceded by this government, that no portion of Maine could be ceded by treaty without the consent of Maine. Did Texas assent to this treaty, or can we cede part of a Territory, but not of a State? These are grave questions; they raise the point whether Texas is not now a part of our territory, and whether her people may not now rightfully claim the protection of our government and laws. Recollect this was not a question of settlement under the powers of this government of a disputed boundary. The treaty declares, as respects Texas, that we 'cede to his Catholic majesty.' Commenting on this, in his speech before referred to, Mr. Clay says it was not a question of the power in case of dispute of fixing a boundary previously existing.' 'It was, on the contrary, the case of an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain.' Although, then, the government may be competent to fix a disputed boundary, by ascertaining as near as practicable where it is; although also, a State, with the consent of this government, as in the case of Maine, may cede a portion of her territory; yet, it by no means follows that this government, by treaty, could cede a Territory of the Union. Could we by treaty cede Florida to Spain, especially without consulting the people of Florida? and if not, the treaty by which Texas was surrendered, was, as Mr. Clay contended, inoperative.

"By the treaty of 1803, by which, we have seen, Texas was acquired by us from France, we pledged our faith to France, and to the people of Texas, never to surrender that territory. The third article of that treaty declares, 'the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' Such was our pledge to France and to the people of Texas by the treaty of purchase; and if our subsequent treaty of cession to Spain was not unconstitutional and invalid, it was a gross infraction of a previous treaty, and of one of the fundamental conditions under which Texas was acquired.

"Here, then, are many grave questions of constitutional power. Could the solemn guaranty to France, and to the people of Texas, be rescinded by a treaty with Spain? Can this government, by its own mere power, surrender any portion of its territory? Can it cut off a territory without the consent of its people, and surrender them

and the territory to a foreign power? Can it expatriate and expel from the Union its own citizens, who occupy that territory, and change an American citizen into a citizen of Spain or Mexico? These are momentous questions, which it is not necessary now to determine, and in regard to which I advance at this time, no opinion. Certain, however, it is, that with the consent of the people of Texas, Congress can carry out the solemn pledges of the treaty of 1803, and admit one or more States from Texas into the Union.

66 EFFORTS OF ADAMS AND CLAY, AND OF JACKSON AND VAN BUREN, TO REANNEX TEXAS TO THE UNION, IN 1825, 1827, 1829, 1833, AND 1835.

"The question as to Texas, is, in any aspect, a question of the reëstablishment of our ancient boundaries, and the repossession of a territory most reluctantly surrendered. The surrender of territory, even if constitutional, is almost universally inexpedient and unwise, and, in any event, when circumstances may seem to demand such a surrender, the territory thus abandoned, should always be reacquired, whenever it may be done with justice and propriety. Independent of these views, we have the recorded opinion of John Quincy Adams as president, and Henry Clay as secretary of state, and also of Gen. Andrew Jackson as president, and Martin Van Buren as secretary of state, that Texas ought to be reannexed to the Union. On the 26th of March, 1825, Mr. Clay, in conformity with his own views, and the express directions of Mr. Adams, as president, directed a letter to Mr. Poinsett, our minister at Mexico, instructing him to endeavor to procure from Mexico a transfer to us of Texas to the Del Norte. In this letter, Mr. Clay says, 'the president wishes you to effect that object.' Mr. Clay adds, 'the line of the Sabine approaches our great western mart nearer than could be wished. Perhaps the Mexican government may not be unwilling to establish that of the Rio Brassos de Dios, or the Rio Colorado, or the Snow mountains, or the Rio del Norte, in lieu of it.' Mr. Clay urges, also, the importance of having entirely within our limits, the Red river and Arkansas, and their respective tributary streams.'

6

"On the 15th of March, 1827, Mr. Clay again renewed the effort. to procure the cession of Texas. In his letter of instruction of that date, to our minister at Mexico, he says, 'the president has

thought the present might be an auspicious period for urging a negotiation at Mexico, to settle the boundary of the two Republics.' 'If we could obtain such a boundary as we desire, the government of the United States might be disposed to pay a reasonable pecuniary compensation. The boundary we prefer is that, which beginning at the mouth of the Rio del Norte in the sea, shall ascend that river to the mouth of the Rio Puerco, thence ascending this river to its source, and from its source by a line due north to strike the Arkansas, thence, following the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42° north; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South sea.' And he adds, the treaty may provide 'for the incorporation of the inhabitants into the Union.'

"Mr. Van Buren, in his letter, as secretary of state, to our minister at Mexico, dated August 25, 1829, says, 'It is the wish of the president that you should, without delay, open a negotiation with the Mexican government, for the purchase of so much of the province of Texas, as is hereinafter described.' 'He is induced by a deep conviction of the real necessity of the proposed acquisition, not only as a guard for our western frontier, and the protection of New Orleans, but also to secure forever to the inhabitants of the valley of the Mississippi, the undisputed and undisturbed possession of the navigation of that river.' 'The territory, of which a cession is desired by the United States, is all that part of the province of Texas which lies east of a line beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, in the centre of the desert, or grand prairie, which lies west of the Rio Nueces.' And Mr. Van Buren adds, the treaty may provide 'for the incorporation of the inhabitants into the Union.' And he then enters into a long and powerful argument of his own, in favor of the reacquisition of Texas.

6

"On the 20th of March, 1833, Gen. Jackson, through Mr. Livingston, as secretary of state, renews to our minister at Mexico, the former instructions on the subject of the proposed cession.' On the 2d of July, 1835, General Jackson, through Mr. Forsyth, as secretary of state, renews the instructions to obtain the cession of Texas, and expresses an anxious desire to secure the very desirable alteration in our boundary with Mexico.' On the 6th of August, 1835, General Jackson, through Mr. Forsyth, as secretary of state, directs our minister at Mexico to endeavor to procure for us, from that government, the following boundary, beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, proceeding along the eastern bank of the river Rio Bravo del

Norte, to the 37th parallel of latitude, and thence along that parallel to the Pacific. This noble and glorious proposition of General Jackson would have secured to us not only the whole of Texas, but also the largest and most valuable portion of upper California, together with the bay and harbor of San Francisco, the best on the western coast of America, and equal to any in the world. If, then, it was deemed, as it is clearly proved, most desirable to obtain the reannexation of Texas, down to a period as late as August, 1835, is it less important at this period?"

TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION,

Begun and held at the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on Monday, the second day of December, eighteen hundred and forty-four.

JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXING TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 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.

"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