PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TEXAS: MR. PRESTON'S MOTION AND SPEECH:
EXTRACTS.
The republic of Texas had now applied for admission into the federal
Union, as one of its States. Its minister at Washington, Memucan
Hunt, Esq., had made the formal application to our executive
government. That was one obstacle in the way of annexation removed.
It was no longer an insult to her to propose to annex her; and she
having consented, it referred the question to the decision of the
United States. But there was still another objection, and which
was insuperable: Texas was still at war with Mexico; and to annex
her was to annex the war--a consequence which morality and policy
equally rejected. MR. PRESTON, of South Carolina, brought in a
resolution on the subject--not for annexation, but for a legislative
expression in favor of the measure, as a basis for a tripartite
treaty between the United States, Mexico and Texas; so as to
effect the annexation by the consent of all parties, to avoid all
cause of offence; and unite our own legislative with the executive
authority in accomplishing the measure. In support of this motion,
he delivered a speech which, as showing the state of the question
at the time, and presenting sound views, and as constituting a link
in the history of the Texas annexation, is here introduced--some
extracts to exhibit its leading ideas.
"The proposition which I now submit in regard to this prosperous
and self-dependent State would be indecorous and presumptuous,
had not the lead been given by Texas herself. It appears by
the correspondence of the envoy extraordinary of that republic
with our own government, that the question of annexation on
certain terms and conditions has been submitted to the people
of the republic, and decided in the affirmative by a very
large majority; whereupon, and in pursuance of instructions
from his government, he proposes to open a negotiation for the
accomplishment of that object. The correspondence has been
communicated upon a call from the House of Representatives, and
thus the proposition becomes a fit subject for the deliberation
of Congress. Nor is it proposed by my resolution, Mr. President,
to do any thing which could be justly construed into cause
of offence by Mexico. The terms of the resolution guard our
relations with that republic; and the spirit in which it is
conceived is entirely averse to any compromise of our national
faith and honor, for any object, of whatever magnitude.
More especially would I have our intercourse with Mexico
characterized by fair dealing and moderation, on account of her
unfortunate condition, resulting from a long-continued series
of intestine dissensions, which all who have not been born to
liberty must inevitably encounter in seeking for it. As long,
therefore, as the pretensions of Mexico are attempted to be
asserted by actual force, or as long as there is any reasonable
prospect that she has the power and the will to resubjugate
Texas, I do not propose to interfere. My own deliberate
conviction, to be sure, is, that that period has already passed;
and I beg leave to say that, in my judgment, there is more
danger of an invasion and conquest of Mexico by Texas, than that
this last will ever be reannexed to Mexico.
"I disavow, Mr. President, all hostile purposes, or even ill
temper, towards Mexico; and I trust that I impugn neither
the policy nor principles of the administration. I therefore
feel myself at liberty to proceed to the discussion of the
points made in the resolution, entirely disembarrassed of
any preliminary obstacle, unless, indeed, the mode by which
so important an act is to be effected may be considered as
interposing a difficulty. If the object itself be within the
competency of this government, as I shall hereafter endeavor
to show, and both parties consent, every means mutually agreed
upon would establish a joint obligation. The acquisition of
new territory has heretofore been effected by treaty, and
this mode of proceeding in regard to Texas has been proposed
by her minister; but I believe it would comport more with
the importance of the measure, that both branches of the
government should concur, the legislature expressing a previous
opinion; and, this being done, all difficulties, of all kinds
whatsoever, real or imaginary, might be avoided by a treaty
tripartite between Mexico, Texas, and the United States, in
which the assent and confirmation of Mexico (for a pecuniary
consideration, if you choose) might be had, without infringing
the acknowledged independence and free agency of Texas.
"The treaty, Mr. President, of 1819, was a great oversight
on the part of the Southern States. We went into it blindly,
I must say. The great importance of Florida, to which the
public mind was strongly awakened at that time by peculiar
circumstances, led us precipitately into a measure by which we
threw a gem away that would have bought ten Floridas. Under any
circumstances, Florida would have been ours in a short time;
but our impatience induced us to purchase it by a territory ten
times as large--a hundred times as fertile, and to give five
millions of dollars into the bargain. Sir, I resign myself to
what is done; I acquiesce in the inexorable past; I propose
no wild and chimerical revolution in the established order of
things, for the purpose of remedying what I conceive to have
been wrong originally. But this I do propose: that we should
seize the fair and just occasion now presented to remedy the
mistake which was made in 1819; that we should repair as far as
we can the evil effect of a breach of the constitution; that we
should re-establish the integrity of our dismembered territory,
and get back into our Union, by the just and honorable means
providentially offered to us, that fair and fertile province
which, in an evil hour, we severed from the confederacy.
"But the boundary line established by the treaty of 1819 not
only deprives us of this extensive and fertile territory, but
winds with "a deep indent" upon the valley of the Mississippi
itself, running upon the Red River and the Arkansas. It places
a foreign nation in the rear of our Mississippi settlements,
and brings it within a stone's throw of that great outlet which
discharges the commerce of half the Union. The mouth of the
Sabine and the mouth of the Mississippi are of a dangerous
vicinity. The great object of the purchase of Louisiana was to
remove all possible interference of foreign States in the vast
commerce of the outlet of so many States. By the cession of
Texas, this policy was, to a certain extent, compromised.
"The committee, it appears to me, has been led to erroneous
conclusions on this subject by a fundamental mistake as to the
nature and character of our government; a mistake which has
pervaded and perverted all its reasoning, and has for a long
time been the abundant source of much practical mischief in the
action of this government, and of very dangerous speculation.
The mistake lies in considering this, as to its nature and
powers, a consolidated government of one people, instead of a
confederated government of many States. There is no one single
act performed by the people of the United States, under the
constitution, _as one people_. Even in the popular branch of
Congress this distinction is maintained. A certain number of
delegates is assigned to each State, and the people of each
State elect for their own State. When the functionaries of the
government assemble here, they have no source of power but
the constitution, which prescribes, defines, and limits their
action, and constitutes them, in their aggregate capacity, a
trust or agency, for the performance of certain duties confided
to them by various States or communities. This government is,
therefore, a confederacy of sovereign States, associating
themselves together for mutual advantages. They originally came
together as sovereign States, having no authority and pretending
to no power of reciprocal control. North Carolina and Rhode
Island stood off for a time, refusing to join the confederacy,
and at length came into it by the exercise of a sovereign
discretion. So too of Missouri, who was a State fully organized
and perfect, and self-governed, before she was a State of this
Union; and, in the very nature of things, this has been the
case with all the States heretofore admitted, and must always
continue to be so. Where, then, is the difficulty of admitting
another State into this confederacy? The power to admit new
States is expressly given. "New States may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union." By the very terms of the grant, they
must be _States_ before they are admitted; when admitted, they
become States _of the Union_. The terms, restrictions, and
principles upon which new States are to be received, are matters
to be regulated by Congress, under the constitution.
"Heretofore, in the acquisition of Louisiana and Florida, France
and Spain both stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded
territories should be incorporated in the Union of the United
States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of
the federal constitution, and admitted to all the privileges,
rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.
In compliance with this stipulation, Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Missouri have been admitted into the Union, and at no distant
day Florida will be. Now, if we contract with France and Spain
for the admission of States, why shall we not with Texas? If
France can sell to us her subjects and her territory, why cannot
the people of Texas give themselves and their territory to us?
Is it more consistent with our republican notions that men and
territory can be transferred by the arbitrary will of a monarch,
for a price, than that a free people may be associated with us
by mutual consent?
"It is supposed that there is a sort of political impossibility,
resulting from the nature of things, to effect the proposed
union. The committee says that "the measure is in fact the union
of _two_ independent governments." Certainly the _union_ of
twenty-seven "independent governments;" but the committee adds,
that it should rather be termed the dissolution of both, and the
formation of a new one, which, whether founded on the same or
another written constitution, is, as to its identity, different
from either. This can only be effected by the _summum jus_, &c.
"A full answer to this objection, even if many others were not
at hand, as far as Texas is concerned, is contained in the fact
that the _summum jus_ has been exercised.
"Her citizens, by a unanimous vote, have decided in favor of
annexation; and, according to the admission of the committee,
this is sufficiently potent to dissolve their government, and
to surrender themselves to be absorbed by ours. To receive this
augmentation of our territory and population, manifestly does
not dissolve this government, or even remodel it. Its identity
is not disturbed. There is no appeal necessary to the _summum
jus populi_ for such a political arrangement on our part,
even if the _summum jus populi_ could be predicated of this
government, which it cannot. Now, it is very obvious that two
free States may associate for common purposes, and that these
common purposes may be multiplied in number or increased in
importance at the discretion of the parties. They may establish
a common agency for the transaction of their business; and this
may include a portion or all of their political functions.
The new creation may be an agency if created by States, or a
government if created by the people; for the people have a right
to abolish and create governments. Does any one doubt whether
Texas could rejoin the republic of Mexico? Why not, then,
_re_join this republic?
"No one doubts that the States now composing this Union might
have joined Great Britain after the declaration of independence.
The learned committee would not contend that there was a
political impossibility in the union of Scotland and England,
or of Ireland and Britain; or that, in the nature of things, it
would be impossible for Louisiana, if she were a sovereign State
out of this Union, to join with the sovereign State of Texas in
forming a new government.
"There is no point of view in which the proposition for
annexation can be considered, that any serious obstacle in point
of form presents itself. If this government be a confederation
of States, then it is proposed to add another State to the
confederacy. If this government be a consolidation, then it
is proposed to add to it additional territory and population.
That we can annex, and afterwards admit, the cases of Florida
and Louisiana prove. We can, therefore, deal with the people of
Texas for the territory of Texas, and the people can be secured
in the rights and privileges of the constitution, as were the
subjects of Spain and France.
"The Massachusetts legislature experience much difficulty in
ascertaining the mode of action by which the proposed annexation
can be effected, and demand "in what form would be the
practical exercise of the supposed power? In what department
does it lie?" The progress of events already, in a great
measure, answers this objection. Texas has taken the initiative.
Her minister has introduced the subject to that department
which is alone capable of receiving communications from foreign
governments, and the executive has submitted the correspondence
to Congress. The resolutions before you propose an expression
of opinion by Congress, which, if made, the executive will
doubtless address itself earnestly, in conjunction with the
authorities of Texas, to the consummation of the joint wishes of
the parties, which can be accomplished by treaty, emanating from
one department of this government, to be carried into effect by
the passage of all needful laws by the legislative department,
and by the exercise of the express power of Congress to admit
new States."
The proposition of Mr. Preston did not prevail; the period for the
annexation of Texas had not yet arrived. War still existing between
Mexico and Texas--the _status_ of the two countries being that of
war, although hostilities hardly existed--a majority of the Senate
deemed it unadvisable even to take the preliminary steps towards
annexation which his resolution proposed. A motion to lay the
proposition on the table prevailed, by a vote of 24 to 14.