INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS.
During several months memorials had been coming in from public
meetings in different cities in favor of acknowledging the
independence of Texas--the public feeling in behalf of the people
of that small revolted province, strong from the beginning of the
contest, now inflamed into rage from the massacres of the Alamo
and of Goliad. Towards the middle of May news of the victory of
San Jacinto arrived at Washington. Public feeling no longer knew
any bounds. The people were exalted--Congress not less so--and
a feeling for the acknowledgment of Texian independence, if not
universal, almost general. The sixteenth of May--the first sitting
of the Senate after this great news--Mr. Mangum, of North Carolina,
presented the proceedings of a public meeting in Burke county, of
that State, praying Congress to acknowledge the independence of the
young republic. Mr. Preston said: "The effects of that victory had
opened up a curtain to a most magnificent scene. This invader had
come at the head of his forces, urged on by no ordinary impulse--by
an infuriate fanaticism--by a superstitious catholicism, goaded on
by a miserable priesthood, against that invincible Anglo-Saxon race,
the van of which now approaches the _del Norte_. It was at once a
war of religion and of liberty. And when that noble race engaged in
a war, victory was sure to perch upon their standard. This was not
merely the retribution of the cruel war upon the Alamo, but that
tide which was swollen by this extraordinary victory would roll
on; and it was not in the spirit of prophecy to say where it would
stop." Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, said:
"He had, upon the 22d of April last, called the attention of the
Senate to the struggle in Texas, and suggested the reservation
of any surplus that might remain in the treasury, for the
purpose of acquiring Texas from whatever government might remain
the government _de facto_ of that country. At that period (said
Mr. W.) no allusion had been made, he believed, by any one in
either House of Congress to the situation of affairs in Texas.
And now (said Mr. W.), upon the very day that he had called the
attention of the Senate to this subject, it appeared that Santa
Anna had been captured, and his army overthrown. Mr. W. said he
had never doubted this result. When on the 22d of April last,
resolutions were introduced before the Senate by the senator
from Ohio (Mr. Morris), requesting Congress to recognize the
independence of Texas, he (Mr. W.) had opposed laying these
resolutions on the table, and advocated their reference to
a committee of the Senate. Mr. W. said he had addressed the
Senate then under very different circumstances from those which
now existed. The cries of the expiring prisoners at the Alamo
were then resounding in our ears; the victorious usurper was
advancing onward with his exterminating warfare, and, in the
minds of many, all was gloom and despondency; but Mr. W. said
that the published report of our proceedings demonstrated that
he did not for a moment despond; that his confidence in the
rifle of the West was firm and unshaken; and that he had then
declared that the sun was not more certain to set in the western
horizon, than that Texas would maintain her independence; and
this sentiment he had taken occasion to repeat in the debate on
this subject in the Senate on the 9th of May last. Mr. W. said
that what was then prediction was now reality; and his heart
beat high, and his pulse throbbed with delight, in contemplating
this triumph of liberty. Sir (said Mr. W.), the people of the
valley of the Mississippi never could have permitted Santa Anna
and his myrmidons to retain the dominion of Texas."
Mr. Walker afterwards moved the reference of all the memorials in
relation to Texas to the Committee on Foreign Relations. If the
accounts received from Texas had been official (for as yet there
were nothing but newspaper accounts of the great victory), he would
have moved for the immediate recognition of the Texian independence.
Being unofficial, he could only move the reference to the committee
in the expectation that they would investigate the facts and bring
the subject before the Senate in a suitable form for action. Mr.
Webster said:
"That if the people of Texas had established a government _de
facto_, it was undoubtedly the duty of this government to
acknowledge their independence. The time and manner of doing
so, however, were all matters proper for grave and mature
consideration. He should have been better satisfied, had this
matter not been moved again till all the evidence had been
collected, and until they had received official information of
the important events that had taken place in Texas. As this
proceeding had been moved by a member of the administration
party, he felt himself bound to understand that the Executive
was not opposed to take the first steps now, and that in
his opinion this proceeding was not dangerous or premature.
Mr. W. was of opinion that it would be best not to act with
precipitation. If this information was true, they would
doubtless before long hear from Texas herself; for as soon as
she felt that she was a country, and had a country, she would
naturally present her claims to her neighbors, to be recognized
as an independent nation. He did not say that it would be
necessary to wait for this event, but he thought it would be
discreet to do so. He would be one of the first to acknowledge
the independence of Texas, on reasonable proof that she had
established a government. There were views connected with Texas
which he would not now present, as it would be premature to do
so; but he would observe that he had received some information
from a respectable source, which turned his attention to the
very significant expression used by Mr. Monroe in his message
of 1822, that no European Power should ever be permitted to
establish a colony on the American continent. He had no doubt
that attempts would be made by some European government to
obtain a cession of Texas from the government of Mexico."
Mr. King, of Alabama, counselled moderation and deliberation,
although he was aware that in the present excited feeling in
relation to Texas, every prudent and cautious course would be
misunderstood, and a proper reserve be probably construed into
hostility to Texian independence: but he would, so long as he
remained a member on that floor, be regardless of every personal
consideration, and place himself in opposition to all measures which
he conceived were calculated to detract from the exalted character
of this country for good faith, and for undeviating adherence to all
its treaty stipulations. He then went on to say:
"He knew not whether the information received of the
extraordinary successes of the Texans was to be relied on or
not; he sincerely hoped it might prove true; no man here felt
a deeper detestation of the bloodthirsty wretches who had
cruelly butchered their defenceless prisoners, than he did;
but, whether true or false, did it become wise, discreet,
prudent men, bound by the strongest considerations to preserve
the honor and faith of the country, to be hurried along by the
effervescence of feeling, and at once abandon the course, and,
he would say, the only true course, which this government has
invariably, heretofore, pursued towards foreign powers? We have
uniformly (said Mr. K.) recognized the existing governments--the
governments _de facto_; we have not stopped to inquire whether
it is a despotic or constitutional government; whether it is
a republic or a despotism. All we ask is, does a government
actually exist? and, having satisfied ourselves of that fact,
we look no further, but recognize it as it is. It was on this
principle (said Mr. K.)--this safe, this correct principle,
that we recognized what was called the Republic of France,
founded on the ruins of the old monarchy; then, the consular
government; a little after, the imperial; and when that was
crushed by a combination of all Europe, and that extraordinary
man who wielded it was driven into exile, we again acknowledged
the kingly government of the House of Bourbon, and now the
constitutional King Louis Philippe of Orleans.
"Sir (said Mr. K.), we take things as they are; we ask not
how governments are established--by what revolutions they are
brought into existence. Let us see an independent government in
Texas, and he would not be behind the senator from Mississippi
nor the senator from South Carolina in pressing forward to its
recognition, and establishing with it the most cordial and
friendly relations."
Mr. Calhoun went beyond all other speakers, and advocated not
only immediate recognition of the independence of Texas, but her
simultaneous admission into the Union; was in favor of acting on
both questions together, and at the present session; and saw an
interest in the slaveholding States in preventing Texas from having
the power to annoy them. And he said:
"He was of opinion that it would add more strength to the cause
of Texas, to wait for a few days, until they received official
confirmation of the victory and capture of Santa Anna, in order
to obtain a more unanimous vote in favor of the recognition of
Texas. He had been of but one opinion, from the beginning, that,
so far from Mexico being able to reduce Texas, there was great
danger of Mexico, herself, being conquered by the Texans. The
result of one battle had placed the ruler of Mexico in the power
of the Texans; and they were now able, either to dictate what
terms they pleased to him, or to make terms with the opposition
in Mexico. This extraordinary meeting had given a handful of
brave men a most powerful control over the destinies of Mexico;
he trusted they would use their victory with moderation. He
had made up his mind not only to recognize the independence of
Texas, but for her admission into this Union; and if the Texans
managed their affairs prudently, they would soon be called upon
to decide that question. No man could suppose for a moment
that that country could ever come again under the dominion of
Mexico; and he was of opinion that it was not for our interests
that there should be an independent community between us and
Mexico. There were powerful reasons why Texas should be a part
of this Union. The Southern States, owning a slave population,
were deeply interested in preventing that country from having
the power to annoy them; and the navigating and manufacturing
interests of the North and the East were equally interested in
making it a part of this Union. He thought they would soon be
called on to decide these questions; and when they did act on
it, he was for acting on both together--for recognizing the
independence of Texas, and for admitting her into the Union.
Though he felt the deepest solicitude on this subject, he was
for acting calmly, deliberately, and cautiously, but at the same
time with decision and firmness. They should not violate their
neutrality; but when they were once satisfied that Texas had
established a government, they should do as they had done in
all other similar cases: recognize her as an independent nation;
and if her people, who were once citizens of this Republic,
wished to come back to us, he would receive them with open arms.
If events should go on as they had done, he could not but hope
that, before the close of the present session of Congress, they
would not only acknowledge the independence of Texas, but admit
her into the Union. He hoped there would be no unnecessary
delay, for, in such cases, delays were dangerous; but that they
would act with unanimity, and act promptly."
The author of this View did not reply to Mr. Calhoun, being then on
ill terms with him; but he saw in the speech much to be considered
and remembered--the shadowings forth of coming events; the
revelation of a new theatre for the slavery agitation; and a design
to make the Texas question an element in the impending election. Mr.
Calhoun had been one of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, at the time that Texas
was ceded to Spain, and for reasons (as Mr. Monroe stated to General
Jackson, in the private letter heretofore quoted) of internal policy
and consideration; that is to say, to conciliate the free States,
by amputating slave territory, and preventing their opposition
to future Southern presidential candidates. He did not use those
precise words, but that was the meaning of the words used. The
cession of Texas was made in the crisis of the Missouri controversy;
and both Mr. Monroe and Mr. Calhoun received the benefit of the
conciliation it produced: Mr. Monroe in the re-election, almost
unanimous, of 1820; and Mr. Calhoun in the vice-presidential
elections of 1824 and 1828; in which he was so much a favorite of
the North as to get more votes than Mr. Adams received in the free
States, and owed to them his honorable election by the people, when
all others were defeated, on the popular vote. Their justification
(that of Mr. Monroe's cabinet) for this cession of a great province,
was, that the loss was temporary--"that it could be got back again
whenever it was wanted"--but the victory of San Jacinto was hardly
foreseen at that time. It was these reasons (Northern conciliation,
and getting it back when we pleased) that reconciled General Jackson
to the cession, at the time it was made. One of the foremost to give
away Texas, Mr. Calhoun was the very foremost to get her back; and
at an immense cost to our foreign relations and domestic peace. The
immediate admission of Texas into the Union, was his plan. She was
at war with Mexico--we at peace: to incorporate her into the Union,
was to adopt her war. We had treaties of amity with Mexico: to join
Texas in the war, was to be faithless to those treaties. We had a
presidential election depending; and to discuss the question of
Texian admission into our Union, was to bring that element into the
canvass, in which all prudent men who were adverse to the admission
(as Mr. Van Buren and his friends were), would be thrown under the
force of an immense popular current; while all that were in favor
of it would expect to swim high upon the waves of that current. The
proposition was incredibly rash, tending to involve us in war and
dishonor; and also disrespectful to Texas herself, who had not asked
for admission; and extravagantly hasty, in being broached before
there was any official news of the great victory. Before the debate
was over, the author of this View took an opportunity to reply,
without reference to other speakers, and to give reasons against
the present admission of Texas. But there was one of Mr. Calhoun's
reasons for immediate admission, which to him was enigmatical, and
at that time, incomprehensible; and that was, the prevention of
Texas "from having the power to annoy" the Southern slave States. We
had just been employed in suppressing, or exploding, this annoyance,
in the Northeast; and, in the twinkling of an eye, it sprung up in
the Southwest, two thousand miles off, and quite diagonally from its
late point of apparition. That sudden and so distant re-appearance
of the danger, was a puzzle, remaining unsolved until the Tyler
administration, and the return of Mr. Duff Green from London, with
the discovery of the British abolition plot; which was to be planted
in Texas, spread into the South, and blow up its slavery. Mr.
Bedford Brown, and others, answered Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Brown said:
"He regarded our national character as worth infinitely more
than all the territorial possessions of Mexico, her wealth, or
the wealth of all other nations added together. We occupied a
standing among the nations of the earth, of which we might well
be proud, and which we ought not to permit to be tarnished. We
have, said Mr. B., arrived at that period of our history, as
a nation, when it behooves us to act with the greatest wisdom
and circumspection. But a few years since as a nation, we were
comparatively in a state of infancy; we were now, in the
confidence of youth, and with the buoyancy of spirit incident
to this period of our existence as a nation, about to enter on
'man's estate.' Powerful in resources, and conscious of our
strength, let us not forget the sacred obligations of justice
and good faith, which form the indispensable basis of a nation's
character--greatness and freedom; and without which, no people
could long preserve the blessings of self-government. Republican
government was based on the principles of justice; and for it to
be administered on any other, either in its foreign or domestic
affairs, was to undermine its foundation and to hasten its
overthrow."
Mr. Rives concurred in the necessity for caution; and said:
"This government should act with moderation, calmness, and
dignity; and, because he wished the Senate to act with that
becoming moderation, calmness, and dignity, which ought to
characterize its deliberations on international subjects, it
was his wish that the subject might be referred. If it was
postponed, it would come up again for discussion, from morning
to morning, to the exclusion of most of the business of the
Senate, as there was nothing to prevent the presentation of
petitions every morning, to excite discussion. It was for the
purpose of avoiding these discussions, that he should vote
to refer it at once to the Committee on Foreign Relations. A
prominent member of that committee had been long and intimately
acquainted with the subject of our foreign relations, and there
were members on it representing all the different sections of
the country, to whose charge he believed the subject could be
safely committed. It would seem, from the course of debate
this morning, that gentlemen supposed the question of the
recognition of the independence of Texas, or its admission into
this Union, was directly before the Senate; and some gentlemen
had volunteered their opinions in advance of the report of the
committee. He did not vote to refer it to the committee to
receive its quietus, but that they might give their views upon
it; nor did he feel as if he were called upon to express an
opinion upon the propriety of the measure. It was strange that
senators, who stated that their opinions were made up, should
oppose the reference."
Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, was entirely in favor of preserving the
national faith inviolate, and its honor untarnished, and ourselves
from the imputation of base motives in our future conduct in
relation to Texas, and said:
"This was a case in which this government should act with
caution. In ordinary cases of this kind the question was only
one of fact, and was but little calculated to compromit the
interests or honor of the United States; but the question in
regard to Texas was very different, and vastly more important.
That is a country on our own borders, and its inhabitants, most
of them, emigrants from the United States; and most of the brave
men constituting its army, who are so heroically fighting to
redeem the province, are citizens of the United States, who
have engaged in this bold enterprise as volunteers. Were this
government to be precipitate in acknowledging the independence
of Texas, might it not be exposed to a suspicion of having
encouraged these enterprises of its citizens? There is another
consideration of more importance. Should the independence of
Texas be followed by its annexation to the United States,
the reasons for suspicions derogatory to the national faith
might be still stronger. If we, by our own act, contribute to
clothe the constituted authorities of the province with the
power of sovereignty over it, and then accept a cession of
the country from those authorities, might there not be some
reason to charge us with having recognized the independence
of the country as a means of getting possession of it? These
and other considerations require that this government should
act with caution; yet, when the proper time arrives it will be
our duty to act, and to act promptly. But he trusted that all
would feel the importance of preserving the national faith and
national honor. They should not only be kept pure, but free from
injurious suspicions, being more to be prized than any extension
of territory, wealth, population, or other acquisition, which
enters into the elements of national prosperity or power."
The various memorials were referred to the committee on foreign
relations, consisting of Mr. Clay, Mr. King of Georgia, Mr.
Tallmadge, Mr. Mangum, and Mr. Porter of Louisiana; which reported
early, and unanimously, in favor of the recognition of the
independence of Texas, as soon as satisfactory information should
be received, showing that she had a civil government in operation
capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of a
civilized power. In the report which accompanied the Resolution, its
author, Mr. Clay, said:
"Sentiments of sympathy and devotion to civil liberty,
which have always animated the people of the United States,
have prompted the adoption of the resolution, and other
manifestations of popular feeling which have been referred
to the committee, recommending an acknowledgment of the
independence of Texas. The committee shares fully in all these
sentiments; but a wise and prudent government should not act
solely on the impulse of feeling, however natural and laudable
it may be. It ought to avoid all precipitation, and not adopt
so grave a measure as that of recognizing the independence of a
new Power, until it has satisfactory information, and has fully
deliberated.
"The committee has no information respecting the recent
movements in Texas, except such as is derived from the
public prints. According to that, the war broke out in
Texas last autumn. Its professed object, like that of our
revolutionary contest in the commencement, was not separation
and independence, but a redress of grievances. In March last,
independence was proclaimed, and a constitution and form of
government were established. No means of ascertaining accurately
the exact amount of the population of Texas are at the command
of the committee. It has been estimated at some sixty or seventy
thousand souls. Nor are the precise limits of the country which
passes under the denomination of Texas known to the committee.
They are probably not clearly defined, but they are supposed to
be extensive, and sufficiently large, when peopled, to form a
respectable Power."
Mr. Southard concurred in the views and conclusion of the report,
but desired to say a few words in reply to that part of Mr.
Calhoun's speech which looked to the "balance of power, and the
perpetuation of our institutions," as a reason for the speedy
admission of Texas into the Union, and said:
"I should not have risen to express these notions, if I had not
understood the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] to
declare that he regarded the acknowledgment of the independence
of Texas as important, and principally important, because it
prepared the way for the speedy admission of that State as
a member of our Union; and that he looked anxiously to that
event, as conducing to a proper balance of power, and to the
perpetuation of our institutions. I am not now, sir, prepared
to express an opinion on that question--a question which all
must foresee will embrace interests as wide as our Union, and
as lasting in their consequences as the freedom which our
institutions secure. When it shall be necessarily presented to
me, I shall endeavor to meet it in a manner suitable to its
magnitude, and to the vital interests which it involves; but I
will not, on the present resolution, anticipate it; nor can I
permit an inference, as to my decision upon it, to be drawn from
the vote which I now give. That vote is upon this resolution
alone, and confined to it, founded upon principles sustained
by the laws of nations, upon the unvarying practice of our
government, and upon the facts as they are now known to exist.
It relates to the independence of Texas, not to the admission of
Texas into this Union. The achievement of the one, at the proper
time, may be justified; the other may be found to be opposed by
the highest and strongest considerations of interest and duty. I
discuss neither at this time; nor am I willing that the remarks
of the senator should lead, in or out of this chamber, to the
inference that all those who vote for the resolution concur with
him in opinion. The question which he has started should be left
perfectly open and free."
The vote in favor of the Resolution reported by Mr. Clay was
unanimous--39 senators present and voting. In the House of
Representatives a similar resolution was reported from the House
Committee of foreign relations, Mr. John Y. Mason, of Virginia,
chairman; and adopted by a vote of 113 to 22. The nays were: Messrs.
John Quincy Adams, Heman Allen, Jeremiah Bailey, Andrew Beaumont,
James W. Bouldin, William Clark, Walter Coles, Edward Darlington,
George Grennell, jr., Hiland Hall, Abner Hazeltine, William Hiester,
Abbott Lawrence, Levi Lincoln, Thomas C. Love, John J. Milligan,
Dutee J. Pearce, Stephen C. Phillips, David Potts, jr., John Reed,
David Russell, William Slade.
It is remarkable that in the progress of this Texas question both
Mr. Adams and Mr. Calhoun reversed their positions--the former being
against, and the latter in favor, of its alienation in 1819; the
former being against, and the latter in favor of its recovery in
1836-'44.--Mr. Benton was the last speaker in the Senate in favor
of the recognition of independence; and his speech being the most
full and carefully historical of any one delivered, it is presented
entire in the next chapter; and, it is believed, that in going more
fully than other speakers did into the origin and events of the
Texas Revolution, it will give a fair and condensed view of that
remarkable event, so interesting to the American people.