[Footnote 131: Transmitting correspondence from 1816 to 1820, inclusive,
between United States ministers to Spain and the Department of State,
between those ministers and Spanish secretaries of state, and between
the Department of State and the Spanish ministers accredited to the
United States.]
WASHINGTON, _June 10, 1844_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
The treaty negotiated by the Executive with the Republic of Texas,
without a departure from any form of proceeding customarily observed in
the negotiations of treaties for the annexation of that Republic to the
United States, having been rejected by the Senate, and the subject
having excited on the part of the people no ordinary degree of interest,
I feel it to be my duty to communicate, for your consideration, the
rejected treaty, together with all the correspondence and documents
which have heretofore been submitted to the Senate in its executive
sessions. The papers communicated embrace not only the series already
made public by orders of the Senate, but others from which the veil
of secrecy has not been removed by that body, but which I deem to be
essential to a just appreciation of the entire question. While the
treaty was pending before the Senate I did not consider it compatible
with the just rights of that body or consistent with the respect
entertained for it to bring this important subject before you. The
power of Congress is, however, fully competent in some other form of
proceeding to accomplish everything that a formal ratification of the
treaty could have accomplished, and I therefore feel that I should but
imperfectly discharge my duty to yourselves or the country if I failed
to lay before you everything in the possession of the Executive which
would enable you to act with full light on the subject if you should
deem it proper to take any action upon it.
I regard the question involved in these proceedings as one of vast
magnitude and as addressing itself to interests of an elevated and
enduring character. A Republic coterminous in territory with our own, of
immense resources, which require only to be brought under the influence
of our confederate and free system in order to be fully developed,
promising at no distant day, through the fertility of its soil, nearly,
if not entirely, to duplicate the exports of the country, thereby making
an addition to the carrying trade to an amount almost incalculable
and giving a new impulse of immense importance to the commercial,
manufacturing, agricultural, and shipping interests of the Union, and at
the same time affording protection to an exposed frontier and placing
the whole country in a condition of security and repose; a territory
settled mostly by emigrants from the United States, who would bring back
with them in the act of reassociation an unconquerable love of freedom
and an ardent attachment to our free institutions--such a question could
not fail to interest most deeply in its success those who under the
Constitution have become responsible for the faithful administration of
public affairs. I have regarded it as not a little fortunate that the
question involved was no way sectional or local, but addressed itself to
the interests of every part of the country and made its appeal to the
glory of the American name.
It is due to the occasion to say that I have carefully reconsidered the
objections which have been urged to immediate action upon the subject
without in any degree having been struck by their force. It has been
objected that the measure of annexation should be preceded by the
consent of Mexico. To preserve the most friendly relations with Mexico;
to concede to her, not grudgingly, but freely, all her rights; to
negotiate fairly and frankly with her as to the question of boundary;
to render her, in a word, the fullest and most ample recompense for any
loss she might convince us she had sustained, fully accords with the
feelings and views the Executive has always entertained.
But negotiation in advance of annexation would prove not only abortive,
but might be regarded as offensive to Mexico and insulting to Texas.
Mexico would not, I am persuaded, give ear for a moment to an attempt
at negotiation in advance except for the whole territory of Texas.
While all the world beside regards Texas as an independent power, Mexico
chooses to look upon her as a revolted province. Nor could we negotiate
with Mexico for Texas without admitting that our recognition of her
independence was fraudulent, delusive, or void. It is only after
acquiring Texas that the question of boundary can arise between the
United States and Mexico--a question purposely left open for negotiation
with Mexico as affording the best opportunity for the most friendly and
pacific arrangements. The Executive has dealt with Texas as a power
independent of all others, both _de facto_ and _de jure_. She was an
independent State of the Confederation of Mexican Republics. When by
violent revolution Mexico declared the Confederation at an end, Texas
owed her no longer allegiance, but claimed and has maintained the right
for eight years to a separate and distinct position. During that period
no army has invaded her with a view to her reconquest; and if she has
not yet established her right to be treated as a nation independent _de
facto_ and _de jure_, it would be difficult to say at what period she
will attain to that condition.
Nor can we by any fair or any legitimate inference be accused of
violating any treaty stipulations with Mexico. The treaties with Mexico
give no guaranty of any sort and are coexistent with a similar treaty
with Texas. So have we treaties with most of the nations of the earth
which are equally as much violated by the annexation of Texas to the
United States as would be our treaty with Mexico. The treaty is merely
commercial and intended as the instrument for more accurately defining
the rights and securing the interests of the citizens of each country.
What bad faith can be implied or charged upon the Government of the
United States for successfully negotiating with an independent power
upon any subject not violating the stipulations of such treaty I confess
my inability to discern.
The objections which have been taken to the enlargement of our territory
were urged with much zeal against the acquisition of Louisiana, and yet
the futility of such has long since been fully demonstrated. Since that
period a new power has been introduced into the affairs of the world,
which has for all practical purposes brought Texas much nearer to the
seat of Government than Louisiana was at the time of its annexation.
Distant regions are by the application of the steam engine brought
within a close proximity.
With the views which I entertain on the subject, I should prove
faithless to the high trust which the Constitution has devolved upon me
if I neglected to invite the attention of the representatives of the
people to it at the earliest moment that a due respect for the Senate
would allow me so to do. I should find in the urgency of the matter a
sufficient apology, if one was wanting, since annexation is to encounter
a great, if not certain, hazard of final defeat if something be not
_now_ done to prevent it. Upon this point I can not too impressively
invite your attention to my message of the 16th of May and to the
documents which accompany it, which have not heretofore been made
public. If it be objected that the names of the writers of some of the
private letters are withheld, all that I can say is that it is done
for reasons regarded as altogether adequate, and that the writers are
persons of the first respectability and citizens of Texas, and have such
means of obtaining information as to entitle their statements to full
credit. Nor has anything occurred to weaken, but, on the contrary, much
to confirm, my confidence in the statements of General Jackson, and
my own statement, made at the close of that message, in the belief,
amounting almost to certainty, "that instructions have already been
given by the Texan Government to propose to the Government of Great
Britain, forthwith on the failure [of the treaty], to enter into a
treaty of commerce and an alliance offensive and defensive."
I also particularly invite your attention to the letter from Mr.
Everett, our envoy at London, containing an account of a conversation in
the House of Lords which lately occurred between Lord Brougham and Lord
Aberdeen in relation to the question of annexation. Nor can I do so
without the expression of some surprise at the language of the minister
of foreign affairs employed upon the occasion. That a Kingdom which is
made what it now is by repeated acts of annexation--beginning with the
time of the heptarchy and concluding with the annexation of the Kingdoms
of Ireland and Scotland--should perceive any principle either novel or
serious in the late proceedings of the American Executive in regard to
Texas is well calculated to excite surprise. If it be pretended that
because of commercial or political relations which may exist between the
two countries neither has a right to part with its sovereignty, and that
no third power can change those relations by a voluntary treaty of union
or annexation, then it would seem to follow that an annexation to be
achieved by force of arms in the prosecution of a just and necessary war
could in no way be justified; and yet it is presumed that Great Britain
would be the last nation in the world to maintain any such doctrine.
The commercial and political relations of many of the countries of Europe
have undergone repeated changes by voluntary treaties, by conquest,
and by partitions of their territories without any question as to the
right under the public law. The question, in this view of it, can be
considered as neither "serious" nor "novel." I will not permit myself to
believe that the British minister designed to bring himself to any such
conclusion, but it is impossible for us to be blind to the fact that
the statements contained in Mr. Everett's dispatch are well worthy of
serious consideration. The Government and people of the United States
have never evinced nor do they feel any desire to interfere in public
questions not affecting the relations existing between the States of the
American continent. We leave the European powers exclusive control over
matters affecting their continent and the relations of their different
States; the United States claim a similar exemption from any such
interference on their part. The treaty with Texas was negotiated from
considerations of high public policy, influencing the conduct of the
two Republics. We have treated with Texas as an independent power
solely with a view of bettering the condition of the two countries. If
annexation in any form occur, it will arise from the free and unfettered
action of the people of the two countries; and it seems altogether
becoming in me to say that the honor of the country, the dignity of the
American name, and the permanent interests of the United States would
forbid acquiescence in any such interference. No one can more highly
appreciate the value of peace to both Great Britain and the United
States and the capacity of each to do injury to the other than myself,
but peace can best be preserved by maintaining firmly the rights which
belong to us as an independent community.
So much have I considered it proper for me to say; and it becomes me
only to add that while I have regarded the annexation to be accomplished
by treaty as the most suitable form in which it could be effected,
should Congress deem it proper to resort to any other expedient
compatible with the Constitution and likely to accomplish the object
I stand prepared to yield my most prompt and active cooperation.
The great question is not as to the manner in which it shall be done,
but whether it shall be accomplished or not.
The responsibility of deciding this question is now devolved upon you.