TEXAS ANNEXATION TREATY: FIRST SPEECH OF MR. BENTON AGAINST IT:
EXTRACTS.
MR. BENTON. The President, upon our call, sends us a map and
a memoir from the Topographical bureau to show the Senate the
boundaries of the country he proposes to annex. This memoir is
explicit in presenting the Rio Grande del Norte in its whole extent
as a boundary of the republic of Texas, and that in conformity to
the law of the Texian Congress establishing its boundaries. The
boundaries on the map conform to those in the memoir: each takes for
the western limit the Rio Grande from head to mouth; and a law of
the Texian Congress is copied into the margin of the map, to show
the legal, and the actual, boundaries at the same time. From all
this it results that the treaty before us, besides the incorporation
of Texas proper, also incorporates into our Union the left bank of
the Rio Grande, in its whole extent from its head spring in the
_Sierra Verde_ (Green Mountain), near the South Pass in the Rocky
Mountains, to its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico, four degrees south of
New Orleans, in latitude 26°. It is a "_grand and solitary river_,"
almost without affluents or tributaries. Its source is in the region
of eternal snow; its outlet in the clime of eternal flowers. Its
direct course is 1,200 miles; its actual run about 2,000. This
immense river, second on our continent to the Mississippi only, and
but little inferior to it in length, is proposed to be added in the
whole extent of its left bank to the American Union! and that by
virtue of a treaty for the _re_-annexation of Texas! Now, the real
Texas which we acquired by the treaty of 1803, and flung away by
the treaty of 1819, never approached the Rio Grande except near its
mouth! while the whole upper part was settled by the Spaniards, and
great part of it in the year 1694--just one hundred years before
La Salle first saw Texas!--all this upper part was then formed
into provinces, on both sides of the river, and has remained under
Spanish, or Mexican authority ever since. These former provinces of
the Mexican viceroyalty, now departments of the Mexican republic,
lying on both sides of the Rio Grande from its head to its mouth, we
now propose to incorporate, so far as they lie on the left bank of
the river, into our Union, by virtue of a treaty of _re_-annexation
with Texas. Let us pause and look at our new and important proposed
acquisitions in this quarter. First: there is the department,
formerly the province of New Mexico, lying on both sides of the
river from its head spring to near the Paso del Norte--that is to
say, half down the river. This department is studded with towns and
villages--is populated--well cultivated--and covered with flocks
and herds. On its left bank (for I only speak of the part which we
propose to _re_-annex) is, first, the frontier village Taos, 3,000
souls, and where the custom-house is kept at which the Missouri
caravans enter their goods. Then comes Santa Fé, the capital, 4,000
souls--then Albuquerque, 6,000 souls--then some scores of other
towns and villages--all more or less populated, and surrounded
by flocks and fields. Then come the departments of Chihuahua,
Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, without settlements on the left bank of
the river, but occupying the right bank, and commanding the left.
All this--being parts of four Mexican departments--now under Mexican
governors and governments--is permanently reannexed to this Union,
if this treaty is ratified; and is actually reannexed from the
moment of the signature of the treaty, according to the President's
last message, to remain so until the acquisition is rejected by
rejecting the treaty! The one-half of the department of New Mexico,
with its capital, becomes a territory of the United States: an angle
of Chihuahua, at the Paso del Norte, famous for its wine, also
becomes ours: a part of the department of Coahuila, not populated on
the left bank, which we take, but commanded from the right bank by
Mexican authorities: the same of Tamaulipas, the ancient Nuevo San
Tander (New St. Andrew), and which covers both sides of the river
from its mouth for some hundred miles up, and all the left bank of
which is in the power and possession of Mexico. These, in addition
to the old Texas; these parts of four States--these towns and
villages--these people and territory--these flocks and herds--this
_slice_ of the republic of Mexico, two thousand miles long, and
some hundred broad--all this our President has cut off from its
mother empire, and presents to us, and declares it is ours till the
Senate rejects it! He calls it Texas! and the cutting off he calls
_re_-annexation! Humboldt calls it New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila,
and Nuevo San Tander (now Tamaulipas); and the civilized world may
qualify this _re_-annexation by the application of some odious and
terrible epithet. Demosthenes advised the people of Athens not to
take, but to _re_-take a certain city; and in that _re_ laid the
virtue which saved the act from the character of spoliation and
robbery. Will it be equally potent with us? and will the _re_,
prefixed to the annexation, legitimate the seizure of two thousand
miles of a neighbor's dominion, with whom we have treaties of peace,
and friendship, and commerce? Will it legitimate this seizure, made
by virtue of a treaty with Texas, when no Texian force--witness the
disastrous expeditions to Mier and to Santa Fé--have been seen near
it without being killed or taken, to the last man?
The treaty, in all that relates to the boundary of the Rio Grande,
is an act of unparalleled outrage on Mexico. It is the seizure of
two thousand miles of her territory without a word of explanation
with her, and by virtue of a treaty with Texas, to which she is no
party. Our Secretary of State (Mr. Calhoun) in his letter to the
United States chargé in Mexico, and seven days after the treaty was
signed, and after the Mexican minister had withdrawn from our seat
of government, shows full well that he was conscious of the enormity
of this outrage; knew it was war; and proffered volunteer apologies
to avert the consequences which he knew he had provoked.
The President, in his special message of Wednesday last, informs
us that we have acquired a title to the ceded territories by his
signature to the treaty, wanting only the action of the Senate to
perfect it; and that, in the mean time, he will protect it from
invasion, and for that purpose has detached all the disposable
portions of the army and navy to the scene of action. This is a
caper about equal to the mad freaks with which the unfortunate
emperor Paul, of Russia, was accustomed to astonish Europe about
forty years ago. By this declaration the thirty thousand Mexicans
in the left half of the valley of the Rio del Norte are our
citizens, and standing, in the language of the President's message,
in a hostile attitude towards us, and subject to be repelled as
invaders. Taos, the seat of the custom-house, where our caravans
enter their goods, is ours: Santa Fé, the capital of New Mexico,
is ours: Governor Armijo is our governor, and subject to be tried
for treason if he does not submit to us: twenty Mexican towns and
villages are ours; and their peaceful inhabitants, cultivating
their fields and tending their flocks, are suddenly converted, by a
stroke of the President's pen, into American citizens, or American
rebels. This is too bad: and, instead of making themselves party to
its enormities, as the President invites them to do, I think rather
that it is the duty of the Senate to wash its hands of all this
part of the transaction by a special disapprobation. The Senate is
the constitutional adviser of the President, and has the right, if
not the duty, to give him advice when the occasion requires it. I
therefore propose, as an additional resolution, appliable to the
Rio del Norte boundary only--the one which I will read and send to
the Secretary's table--stamping as a spoliation this seizure of
Mexican territory--and on which, at the proper time, I shall ask the
vote of the Senate.
I now proceed a step further, and rise a step higher, Mr.
President, in unveiling the designs and developing the conduct of
our administration in this hot and secret pursuit after Texas. It
is my business now to show that war with Mexico is a design and
an object with it from the beginning, and that the treaty-making
power was to be used for that purpose. I know the responsibility
of a senator--I mean his responsibility to the moral sense of his
country and the world--in attributing so grave a culpability to this
administration. I know the whole extent of this responsibility, and
shall therefore be careful to proceed upon safe and solid ground. I
shall say nothing but upon proof--upon the proof furnished by the
President himself--and ask for my opinions no credence beyond the
strict letter of these proofs. For this purpose I have recourse
to the messages and correspondence which the President has sent
us, and begin with the message of the 22d of April--the one which
communicated the treaty to the Senate. That message, after a strange
and ominous declaration that no sinister means have been used--no
intrigue set on foot--to procure the consent of Texas to the
annexation, goes on to show exactly the contrary, and to betray the
President's design to protect Texas by receiving her into our Union
and adopting her war with Mexico.
I proceed to another piece of evidence to the same effect--namely,
the letter of the present Secretary of State to Mr. Benjamin Green,
our chargé at Mexico, under date of the 19th of April past. The
letter has been already referred to, and will be only read now in
the sentence which declares that the treaty has been made in the
full view of war! for that alone can be the meaning of this sentence:
"It has taken the step (to wit, the step of making the treaty)
in full view of all possible consequences, but not without a
desire and a hope that a full and fair disclosure of the causes
which induced it to do so, would prevent the disturbance of the
harmony subsisting between the two countries, which the United
States is anxious to preserve."
This is part of the despatch which communicates to Mexico the
fact of the conclusion of the treaty of annexation--that treaty,
the conclusion of which the formal and reiterated declarations of
the Mexican government informed our administration, during its
negotiation, would be war. I will quote one of these declarations,
the last one made by General Almonte, the Mexican minister, and in
reply to the letter of our Secretary who considered the previous
declarations as _threats_. General Almonte disclaims the idea of a
_threat_--repeats his asseveration that it is a _notice_ only, and
that in a case in which it was the right and the duty of Mexico to
give the _notice_ which would apprise us of the consequences of
carrying the treaty of annexation to a conclusion.
After receiving this notification from the Mexican minister,
the letter of our present Secretary, of the 19th instant, just
quoted, directing our chargé to inform the Mexican government of
the conclusion of the treaty of annexation, must be considered as
an official notification to Mexico that the war has begun! and so
indeed it has! and as much to our astonishment as to that of the
Mexicans! Who among us can ever forget the sensations produced in
this chamber, on Wednesday last, when the marching and the sailing
orders were read! and still more, when the message was read which
had set the army and navy in motion!
These orders and the message, after having been read in this
chamber, were sent to the printer, and have not yet returned: I can
only refer to them as I heard them read, and from a brief extract
which I took of the message; and must refer to others to do them
justice. From all that I could hear, the war is begun; and begun by
orders issued by the President before the treaty was communicated
to the Senate! We are informed of a squadron, and an army of
"_observation_," sent to the Mexican ports, and Mexican frontier,
with orders to watch, remonstrate, and report; and to communicate
with President Houston! Now, what is an army of _observation_, but
an army in the field for war? It is an army whose name is known,
and whose character is defined, and which is incident to war alone.
It is to watch the ENEMY! and can never be made to watch a FRIEND!
Friends cannot be watched by armed men, either individually or
nationally, without open enmity. Let an armed man take a position
before your door, show himself to your family, watch your movements,
and remonstrate with you, and report upon you, if he judged your
movements equivocal: let him do this, and what is it but an act of
hostility and of outrage which every feeling of the heart, and every
law of God and man, require you to resent and repulse? This would be
the case with the mere individual; still more with nations, and when
squadrons and armies are the watchers and remonstrants. Let Great
Britain send an army and navy _to lie in wait_ upon our frontiers,
and before our cities, and then see what a cry of war would be
raised in our country. The same of Mexico. She must feel herself
outraged and attacked; she must feel our treaties broken; all our
citizens within her dominions alien enemies; their commerce to be
instantly ruined, and themselves expelled from the country. This
must be our condition, unless the Senate (or Congress) saves the
country. We are at war with Mexico now; and the message which covers
the marching and sailing orders is still more extraordinary than
they. The message assumes the republic of Texas to be part of the
American Union by the mere signature of the treaty, and to remain
so until the treaty is rejected, if rejected at all; and, in the
mean time, the President is to use the army and the navy to protect
the acquired country from invasion, like any part of the existing
Union, and to treat as hostile all adverse possessors or intruders.
According to this, besides what may happen at Vera Cruz, Tampico,
Matamoros, and other ports, and besides what may happen on the
frontiers of Texas proper, the Mexican population in New Mexico, and
Governor Armijo, or in his absence the governor _ad interim_, Don
Mariano Chaves, may find themselves pursued as rebels and traitors
to the United States.
The war with Mexico, and its unconstitutionality, is fully shown:
its injustice remains to be exhibited, and that is an easy task.
What is done in violation of treaties, in violation of neutrality,
in violation of an armistice, must be unjust. All this occurs in
this case, and a great deal more. Mexico is our neighbor. We are
at peace with her. Social, commercial, and diplomatic relations
subsist between us, and the interest of the two nations requires
these relations to continue. We want a country which was once ours,
but which, by treaty, we have acknowledged to be hers. That country
has revolted. Thus far it has made good its revolt, and not a doubt
rests upon my mind that she will make it good for ever. But the
contest is not over. An armistice, duly proclaimed, and not revoked,
strictly observed by each in not firing a gun, though inoperative
thus far in the appointment of commissioners to treat for peace:
this armistice, only determinable upon notice, suspends the war. Two
thousand miles of Texian frontier is held in the hands of Mexico,
and all attempts to conquer that frontier have signally failed:
witness the disastrous expeditions to Mier and to Santa Fé. We
acknowledge the right--the moral and political right--of Mexico to
resubjugate this province, if she can. We declare our neutrality: we
profess friendship: we proclaim our respect for Mexico. In the midst
of all this, we make a treaty with Texas for transferring herself
to the United States, and that without saying a word to Mexico,
while receiving notice from her that such transfer would be war.
Mexico is treated as a nullity; and the province she is endeavoring
to reconquer is suddenly, by the magic of a treaty signature,
changed into United States domain. We want the country; but instead
of applying to Mexico, and obtaining her consent to the purchase,
or waiting a few months for the events which would supersede the
necessity of Mexican consent--instead of this plain and direct
course, a secret negotiation was entered into with Texas, in total
contempt of the acknowledged rights of Mexico, and without saying
a word to her until all was over. Then a messenger is despatched
in furious haste to this same Mexico, the bearer of volunteer
apologies, of deprecatory excuses, and of an offer of ten millions
of dollars for Mexican acquiescence in what Texas has done. Forty
days are allowed for the return of the messenger; and the question
is, will he bring back the consent? That question is answered in
the Mexican official notice of war, if the treaty of annexation
was made! and it is answered in the fact of not applying to her
for her consent before the treaty was made. The wrong to Mexico is
confessed in the fact of sending this messenger, and in the terms of
the letter of which he was the bearer. That letter of Mr. Secretary
Calhoun, of the 19th of April, to Mr. Benjamin Green, the United
States chargé in Mexico, is the most unfortunate in the annals of
human diplomacy! By the fairest implications, it admits insult and
injury to Mexico, and violation of her territorial boundaries! it
admits that we should have had her previous consent--should have had
her concurrence--that we have injured her as little as possible--and
that we did all this in full view of all possible consequences!
that is to say, in full view of war! in plain English, that we have
wronged her, and will fight her for it. As an excuse for all this,
the imaginary designs of a third power, which designs are four times
solemnly disavowed, are brought forward as a justification of our
conduct; and an incomprehensible terror of immediate destruction
is alleged as the cause of not applying to her for her "_previous
consent_" during the eight months that the negotiation continued,
and during the whole of which time we had a minister in Mexico, and
Mexico had a minister in Washington. This letter is surely the most
unfortunate in the history of human diplomacy. It admits the wrong,
and tenders war. It is a confession throughout, by the fairest
implication, of injustice to Mexico. It is a confession that her
"_concurrence_" and "_her previous consent_" were necessary.
It is now my purpose, Mr. President, to show that all this movement,
which is involving such great and serious consequences, and drawing
upon us the eyes of the civilized world, is bottomed upon a weak and
groundless pretext, discreditable to our government, and insulting
and injurious to Great Britain. We want Texas--that is to say,
the Texas of La Salle; and we want it for great national reasons,
obvious as day, and permanent as nature. We want it because it
is geographically appurtenant to our division of North America,
essential to our political, commercial, and social system, and
because it would be detrimental and injurious to us to have it
fall into the hands or to sink under the domination of any foreign
power. For these reasons, I was against sacrificing the country
when it was thrown away--and thrown away by those who are now so
suddenly possessed of a fury to get it back. For these reasons, I am
for getting it back whenever it can be done with peace and honor,
or even at the price of just war against any intrusive European
power: but I am against all disguise and artifice--against all
pretexts--and especially against weak and groundless pretexts,
discreditable to ourselves, offensive to others, too thin and
shallow not to be seen through by every beholder, and merely
invented to cover unworthy purposes. I am against the inventions
which have been brought forward to justify the secret concoction of
this treaty, and its sudden explosion upon us, like a ripened plot,
and a charged bomb, forty days before the conventional nomination
of a presidential candidate. In looking into this pretext, I shall
be governed by the evidence alone which I find upon the face of the
papers, regretting that the resolution which I have laid upon the
table for the examination of persons at the bar of the Senate, has
not yet been adopted. That resolution is in these words:
"_Resolved_, That the AUTHOR of the '_private letter_' from
London, in the summer of 1843 (believed to be Mr. Duff Green),
addressed to the American Secretary of State (Mr. Upshur), and
giving him the first intelligence of the (imputed) British
anti-slavery designs upon Texas, and the contents of which
'_private letter_' were made the basis of the Secretary's
leading despatch of the 8th of August following, to our chargé
in Texas, for procuring the annexation of Texas to the United
States, be SUMMONED to appear at the bar of the Senate, to
answer on oath to all questions in relation to the contents of
said '_private letter_,' and of any others in relation to the
same subject: and also to answer all questions, so far as he
shall be able, in relation to the origin and objects of the
treaty for the annexation of Texas, and of all the designs,
influences, and interests which led to the formation thereof.
"_Resolved, also_, That the Senate will examine at its bar,
or through a committee, such other persons as shall be deemed
proper in relation to their knowledge of any, or all, of the
foregoing points of inquiry."
I hope, Mr. President, this resolution will be adopted. It is due
to the gravity of the occasion that we should have facts and good
evidence before us. We are engaged in a transaction which concerns
the peace and the honor of the country; and extracts from private
letters, and letters themselves, with or without name, and, it may
be, from mistaken or interested persons, are not the evidence on
which we should proceed. Dr. Franklin was examined at the bar of
the British House of Commons before the American war, and I see no
reason why those who wish to inform the Senate, and others from
whom the Senate could obtain information, should not be examined
at our bar, or at that of the House, before the Senate or Congress
engages in the Mexican war. It would be a curious incident in the
Texas drama if it should turn out to be a fact that the whole
annexation scheme was organized before the reason for it was
discovered in London! and if, from the beginning, the abolition
plot was to be burst upon us, under a sudden and overwhelming sense
of national destruction, exactly forty days before the national
convention at Baltimore! I know nothing about these secrets; but,
being called upon to act, and to give a vote which may be big with
momentous consequences, I have a right to know the truth; and shall
continue to ask for it, until fully obtained, or finally denied.
I know not what the proof will be, if the examination is had. I
pretend to no private knowledge; but I have my impressions; and if
they are erroneous, let them be effaced--if correct, let them be
confirmed.
In the absence of the evidence which this responsible and
satisfactory examination might furnish, I limit myself to the
information which appears upon the face of the papers--imperfect,
defective, disjointed, and fixed up for the occasion, as those
papers evidently are. And here I must remark upon the absence of
all the customary information which sheds light upon the origin,
progress, and conclusion of treaties. No minutes of conferences--no
protocols--no propositions, or counter-propositions--no inside view
of the nascent and progressive negotiation. To supply all this
omission, the Senate is driven to the tedious process of calling
on the President, day by day, for some new piece of information;
and the endless necessity for these calls--the manner in which
they are answered--and the often delay in getting any answer at
all--become new reasons for the adoption of my resolution, and for
the examination of persons at the bar of the Senate.
The first piece of testimony I shall use in making good the position
I have assumed, is the letter of Mr. Upshur, our Secretary of State,
to Mr. Murphy, our chargé in Texas dated the 8th day of August, in
the year 1843. It is the first one, so far as we are permitted to
see, that begins the business of the Texas annexation; and has all
the appearance of beginning it in the middle, so far as the United
States are concerned, and upon grounds previously well considered:
for this letter of the 8th of August, 1843, contains every reason
on which the whole annexation movement has been defended, or
justified. And, here, I must repeat what I have already said: in
quoting these letters of the secretaries, I use the name of the
writer to discriminate the writer, but not to impute it to him.
The President is the author: the secretary only his head clerk,
writing by his command, and having no authority to write any thing
but as he commands. This important letter, the basis of all Texian
"_immediate_" annexation, opens thus:
"SIR: A private letter from a citizen of Maryland, then in
London, contains the following passage:
"'I learn from a source entitled to the fullest confidence, that
there is now here a Mr. Andrews, deputed by the abolitionists
of Texas to negotiate with the British government. That he has
seen Lord Aberdeen, and submitted his project for the abolition
of slavery in Texas, which is, that there shall be organized a
company in England, who shall advance a sum sufficient to pay
for the slaves now in Texas, and receive in payment Texas lands;
that the sum thus advanced shall be paid over as an indemnity
for the abolition of slavery; and I am authorized by the Texian
minister to say to you, that Lord Aberdeen has agreed that the
British government will guarantee the payment of the interest
on this loan, upon condition that the Texian government will
abolish slavery.'
"The writer professes to feel entire confidence in the accuracy
of this information. He is a man of great intelligence, and well
versed in public affairs. Hence I have every reason to confide
in the correctness of his conclusions."
The name of the writer is not given, but he is believed to be Mr.
Duff Green--a name which suggests a vicarious relation to our
Secretary of State--which is a synonym for intrigue--and a voucher
for finding in London whatever he was sent to bring back--who is the
putative recipient of the Gilmer letter to a friend in Maryland,
destined for General Jackson--and whose complicity with this Texas
plot is a fixed fact. Truly this "inhabitant of Maryland," who lived
in Washington, and whose existence was as ubiquitous as his _rôle_
was vicarious, was a very indispensable agent in all this Texas plot.
The letter then goes on, through a dozen elaborate paragraphs,
to give every reason for the annexation of Texas, founded on the
apprehension of British views there and the consequent danger
to the slave property of the South, and other injuries to the
United States, which have been so incontinently reproduced, and so
tenaciously adhered to ever since.
Thus commenced the plan for the immediate annexation of Texas to
the United States, as the only means of saving that country from
British domination, and from the anti-slavery schemes attributed to
her by Mr. Duff Green. Unfortunately, it was not deemed necessary
to inquire into the truth of this gentleman's information; and it
was not until four months afterwards, and until after the most
extraordinary efforts to secure annexation had been made by our
government, that it was discovered that the information given by
Mr. Green was entirely mistaken and unfounded! The British minister
(the Earl of Aberdeen) and the Texian chargé in London (Mr. Ashbel
Smith), both of whom were referred to by Mr. Green, being informed
in the month of November of the use which had been made of their
names, availed themselves of the first opportunity to contradict the
whole story to our minister, Mr. Everett. This minister immediately
communicated these important contradictions to his own government,
and we find them in the official correspondence transmitted to us
by Mr. Everett, under dates of the 3d and 16th of November, 1843. I
quote first from that of the 3d of November:
(Here was read Mr. Everett's account of his first conversation with
the Earl of Aberdeen on this subject.)
I quote copiously, and with pleasure, Mr. President, from this
report of Lord Aberdeen's conversation with Mr. Everett; it is
frank and friendly, equally honorable to the minister as a man and
a statesman, and worthy of the noble spirit of the great William
Pitt. Nothing could dissipate more completely, and extinguish more
utterly, the insidious designs imputed to Great Britain; nothing
could be more satisfactory and complete; nothing more was wanting to
acquit the British government of all the alarming designs imputed
to her. It was enough; but the Earl of Aberdeen, in the fulness of
his desire to leave the American government no ground for suspicion
or complaint on this head, voluntarily returned to the topic a few
days afterwards; and, on the 6th of November, again disclaims in the
strongest terms the offensive designs imputed to his government. Mr.
Everett thus relates, in his letter of the 16th of November, the
substance of these renewed declarations:
(Here the letter giving an account of the second interview was read.)
Thus, twice, in three days, the British minister fully, formally,
and in the broadest manner contradicted the whole story upon the
faith of which our President had commenced (so far as the papers
show the commencement of it) his immediate annexation project, as
the only means of counteracting the dangerous designs of Great
Britain! But this was not all. There was another witness in London
who had been referred to by Mr. Duff Green; and it remained for this
witness to confirm or contradict his story. This was the Texian
chargé (Mr. Ashbel Smith): and the same letter from Mr. Everett,
of the 16th of November, brought his contradiction in unequivocal
terms. Mr. Everett thus recites it:
(The passage was read.)
Such was the statement of Mr. Ashbel Smith! and the story of Mr.
Duff Green, which had been made the basis of the whole scheme for
_immediate_ annexation, being now contradicted by two witnesses--the
two which he himself had named--it might have been expected that
some halt or pause would have taken place, to give an opportunity
for consideration and reflection, and for consulting the American
people, and endeavoring to procure the consent of Mexico. This
might have been expected: but not so the fact. On the contrary, the
_immediate_ annexation was pressed more warmly than ever, and the
administration papers became more clamorous and incessant in their
accusations of Great Britain. Seeing this, and being anxious (to use
his own words) to put a stop to these misrepresentations, and to
correct the errors of the American government, the Earl of Aberdeen,
in a formal despatch to Mr. Pakenham, the new British minister at
Washington, took the trouble of a third contradiction, and a most
formal and impressive one, to all the evil designs in relation to
Texas, and, through Texas, upon the United States, which were thus
perseveringly attributed to his government. This paper, destined to
become a great landmark in this controversy, from the frankness and
fulness of its disavowals, and from the manner in which detached
phrases, picked out of it, have been used by our Secretary of State
[Mr. CALHOUN] since the treaty was signed, to justify its signature,
deserves to be read in full, and to be made a corner-stone in the
debate on this subject. I therefore, quote it in full, and shall
read it at length in the body of my speech. This is it:
(The whole letter read.)
This was intended to stop the misrepresentations which were
circulated, and to correct the errors of the government in relation
to Great Britain and Texas. It was a reiteration, and that for the
third time, and voluntarily, of denial of all the alarming designs
attributed to Great Britain, and by means of which a Texas agitation
was getting up in the United States. Besides the full declaration
made to our federal government, as head of the Union, a special
assurance was given to the slaveholding States, to quiet their
apprehensions, the truth and sufficiency of which must be admitted
by every person who cannot furnish proof to the contrary. I read
this special assurance a second time, that its importance may be
more distinctly and deeply felt by every senator:
"_And the governments of the slaveholding States may be
assured, that, although we shall not desist from those open and
honest efforts which we have constantly made for procuring the
abolition of slavery throughout the world, we shall neither
openly nor secretly resort to any measures which can tend to
disturb their internal tranquillity, or thereby to affect the
prosperity of the American Union._"
It was on the 26th day of February that this noble despatch was
communicated to the (then) American Secretary of State. That
gentleman lost his life by an awful catastrophe on the 28th, and it
seems to be understood, and admitted all around, that the treaty
of annexation was agreed upon, and virtually concluded before his
death. Nothing, then, in Lord Aberdeen's declaration, could have
had any effect upon its formation or conclusion. Yet, six days
after the actual signature of the treaty by the present Secretary
of State--namely, on the 18th day of April--this identical despatch
of Lord Aberdeen is seized upon, in a letter to Mr. Pakenham, to
justify the formation of the treaty, and to prove the necessity
for the _immediate_ annexation of Texas to the United States, as
a measure of self-defence, and as the only means of saving our
Union! Listen to the two or three first paragraphs of that letter:
it is the long one filled with those negro statistics of which Mr.
Pakenham declines the controversy. The secretary says:
(Here the paragraphs were read, and the Senate heard with as
much amazement as Mr. Pakenham could have done, that comparative
statement of the lame, blind, halt, idiotic, pauper and jail tenants
of the free and the slave blacks, which the letter to the British
minister contained, with a view to prove that slavery was their best
condition.)
It is evident, Mr. President, that the treaty was commenced, carried
on, formed, and agreed upon, so far as the documents show its
origin, in virtue of the information given in the private letter of
Mr. Duff Green, contradicted as that was by the Texian and British
ministers, to whom it referred. It is evident from all the papers
that this was the case. The attempt to find in Lord Aberdeen's
letter a subsequent pretext for what had previously been done, is
evidently an afterthought, put to paper, for the first time, just
six days after the treaty had been signed! The treaty was signed
on the 12th of April: the afterthought was committed to paper, in
the form of a letter to Mr. Pakenham, on the 18th! and on the 19th
the treaty was sent to the Senate! having been delayed seven days
to admit of drawing up, and sending in along with it, this _ex post
facto_ discovery of reasons to justify it. The letter of Mr. Calhoun
was sent in with the treaty: the reply of Mr. Pakenham to it, though
brief and prompt, being written on the same day (the 19th of April),
was not received by the Senate until ten days thereafter--to wit: on
the 29th of April; and when received, it turns out to be a fourth
disavowal, in the most clear and unequivocal terms, of this new
discovery of the old designs imputed to Great Britain, and which
had been three times disavowed before. Here is the letter of Mr.
Pakenham, giving this fourth contradiction to the old story, and
appealing to the judgment of the civilized world for its opinion
on the whole transaction. I read an extract from this letter; the
last one, it is presumed, that Mr. Pakenham can write till he hears
from his government, to which he had immediately transmitted Mr.
Calhoun's _ex post facto_ letter of the 18th.
(It was read.)
Now what will the civilized world, to whose good opinion we must all
look: what will Christendom, now so averse to war, and pretexted
war: what will the laws of reason and honor, so just in their
application to the conduct of nations and individuals: what will
this civilized world, this Christian world, these just laws--what
will they all say that our government ought to have done, under
this accumulation of peremptory denials of all the causes which
we had undertaken to find in the conduct of Great Britain for our
"_immediate_" annexation of Texas, and war with Mexico? Surely these
tribunals will say: _First_, That the disavowals should have been
received as sufficient; _or Secondly_, They should be disproved, if
not admitted to be true; _or Thirdly_, That reasonable time should
be allowed for looking further into their truth.
One of these things should have been done: our President does
neither. He concludes the treaty--retains it a week--sends it to
the Senate--and his Secretary of State obtains a promise from the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations [Mr. ARCHER] to
delay all action upon it--not to take it up for forty days--the
exact time that would cover the sitting of the Baltimore democratic
convention for the nomination of presidential candidates! This
promise was obtained under the assurance that a special messenger
had been despatched to Mexico for her consent to the treaty; and the
forty days was the time claimed for the execution of his errand,
and at the end of which he was expected to return with the required
consent. Bad luck again! This despatch of the messenger, and delay
for his return, and the _reasons_ he was understood to be able to
have offered for the consent of Mexico, were felt by all as an
admission that the consent of Mexico must be obtained, cost what
millions it might. This admission was fatal! and it became necessary
to take another tack, and do it away! This was attempted in a
subsequent message of the President, admitting, to be sure, that
the messenger was sent, and sent to operate upon Mexico in relation
to the treaty; but taking a fine distinction between obtaining her
consent to it, and preventing her from being angry at it! This
message will receive justice at the hands of others; I only heard it
as read, and cannot quote it in its own words. But the substance of
it was, that the messenger was sent to prevent Mexico from going to
war with us on account of the treaty! as if there was any difference
between getting her to consent to the treaty, and getting her not to
dissent! But, here again, more bad luck. Besides the declarations
of the chairman of Foreign Relations, showing what this messenger
was sent for, there is a copy of the letter furnished to us of which
he was the bearer, and which shows that the "_concurrence_" of
Mexico was wanted, and that apologies are offered for not obtaining
her "_previous consent_." But, of this hereafter. I go on with the
current of events. The treaty was sent in, and forty days' silence
upon it was demanded of the Senate. Now why send it in, if the
Senate was not to touch it for forty days? Why not retain it in the
Department of State until the lapse of these forty days, when the
answer from Mexico would have been received, and a fifth disavowal
arrived from Great Britain! if, indeed, it is possible for her to
reiterate a disavowal already four times made, and not received?
Why not retain the treaty during these forty days of required
silence upon it in the Senate, and when that precious time might
have been turned to such valuable account in interchanging friendly
explanations with Great Britain and Mexico? Why not keep the treaty
in the Secretary of State's office, as well as in the Secretary of
the Senate's office, during these forty days? Precisely because the
Baltimore convention was to sit in thirty-eight days from that time!
and forty days would give time for the "_Texas bomb_" to burst and
scatter its fragments all over the Union, blowing up candidates for
the presidency, blowing up the _tongue-tied_ Senate itself for not
ratifying the treaty, and furnishing a new Texas candidate, anointed
with gunpowder, for the presidential chair. This was the reason,
and as obvious as if written at the head of every public document.
In the mean time, all these movements give fresh reason for an
examination of persons at the bar of the Senate. The determination
of the President to conclude the treaty, before the Earl of
Aberdeen's despatch was known to him--that is to say, before the
26th of February, 1844: the true nature of the messenger's errand
to Mexico, and many other points, now involved in obscurity, may
be cleared up in these examinations, to the benefit and well being
of the Union. Perhaps it may chance to turn out in proof, that the
secretary, who found his reasons for making the treaty and hastening
the immediate annexation, had determined upon all that long before
he heard of Lord Aberdeen's letter.
But to go on. Instead of admitting, disproving, or taking time to
consider the reiterated disavowals of the British government, the
messenger to Mexico is charged with our manifesto of war against
that government, on account of the imputed designs of Great Britain,
and in which they are all assumed to be true! and not only true,
but fraught with such sudden, irresistible, and irretrievable ruin
to the United States, that there was no time for an instant of
delay, nor any way to save the Union from destruction but by the
"_immediate_" annexation of Texas. Here is the letter. It is too
important to be abridged; and though referred to several times, will
now be read in full. Hear it:
(The letter read.)
This letter was addressed to Mr. Benjamin Green, the son of Mr. Duff
Green; so that the beginning and the ending of this "_immediate_"
annexation scheme, so far as the invention of the pretext, and the
inculpation of Great Britain is concerned, is in the hands of father
and son--a couple, of whom it may be said, in the language of Gil
Blas, "These two make a pair." The letter itself is one of the most
unfortunate that the annals of diplomacy ever exhibited. It admits
the wrong to Mexico, and offers to fight her for that wrong; and not
for any thing that she has done to the United States, but because
of some supposed operation of Great Britain upon Texas. Was there
ever such a comedy of errors, or, it may be, tragedy of crimes! Let
us analyze this important letter; let us examine it, paragraph by
paragraph.
The first paragraph enjoins the strongest assurances to be given to
Mexico of our indisposition to wound the dignity or honor of Mexico
in making this treaty, and of our regret if she should consider
it otherwise. This admits that we have done something to outrage
Mexico, and that we owe her a volunteer apology, to soften her
anticipated resentment.
The same paragraph states that we have been driven to this step in
self-defence, and to counteract the "_policy adopted_," and the
"_efforts made_" by Great Britain to abolish slavery in Texas.
This is an admission that we have done what may be offensive and
injurious to Mexico, not on account of any thing she has done to us,
but for what we fear Great Britain may do to Texas. And as for this
plea of self-defence, it is an invasion of the homicidal criminal's
prerogative, to plead it. All the murders committed in our country,
are done in self-defence--a few through insanity. The choice of the
defence lies between them, and it is often a nice guess for counsel
to say which to take. And so it might have been in this case; and
insanity would have been an advantage in the plea, being more
honorable, and not more false.
The same paragraph admits that the United States has made this
treaty in full view of war with Mexico; for the words "_all possible
consequences_," taken in connection with the remaining words of the
sentence, and with General Almonte's notice filed by order of his
government at the commencement of this negotiation, can mean nothing
else but war! and that to be made by the treaty-making power.
The second paragraph directs the despatch of Lord Aberdeen to be
read to the Mexican Secretary of State, to show him our cause of
complaint against Great Britain. This despatch is to be read--not
delivered, not even a copy of it--to the Mexican minister. He may
take notes of it during the reading, but not receive a copy, because
it is a document to be sent to the Senate! Surely the Senate would
have pardoned a departure from _etiquette_ in a case where war
was impending, and where the object was to convince the nation we
were going to fight! that we had a right to fight her for fear of
something which a third power might do to a fourth. To crown this
scene, the reading is to be of a document in the English language,
to a minister whose language is Spanish; and who may not know what
is read, except through an interpreter.
The third paragraph of this pregnant letter admits that questions
are to grow out of this treaty, for the settlement of which a
minister will be sent by us to Mexico. This is a most grave
admission. It is a confession that we commit such wrong upon Mexico
by this treaty, that it will take another treaty to redress it;
and that, as the wrong doer, we will volunteer an embassy to atone
for our misconduct. Boundary is named as one of these things to be
settled, and with reason; for we violate 2,000 miles of Mexican
boundary which is to become ours by the ratification of this treaty,
and to remain ours till restored to its proper owner by another
treaty. Is this right? Is it sound in morals? Is it safe in policy?
Would we take 2,000 miles of the Canadas in the same way? I presume
not. And why not? why not treat Great Britain and Mexico alike? why
not march up to "Fifty-Four Forty" as courageously as we march
upon the Rio Grande? Because Great Britain is powerful, and Mexico
weak--a reason which may fail in policy as much as in morals. Yes,
sir! Boundary will have to be adjusted, and that of the Rio Grande;
and until adjusted, we shall be aggressors, by our own admission, on
the undisputed Mexican territory on the Rio Grande.
The last paragraph is the most significant of the whole. It is a
confession, by the clearest inferences, that our whole conduct to
Mexico has been tortuous and wrongful, and that she has "_rights_,"
to the settlement of which Mexico must be a party. The great
admissions are, the want of the concurrence of Mexico; the want of
her previous consent to this treaty; its objectionableness to her;
the violation of her boundary; the "_rights_" of each, and of course
the right of Mexico to settle questions of security and interest
which are unsettled by the present treaty. The result of the whole
is, that the war, in full view of which the treaty was made, was an
unjust war upon Mexico.
Thus admitting our wrong in injuring Mexico, in not obtaining her
concurrence; in not securing her previous consent; in violating her
boundary; in proceeding without her in a case where her rights,
security, and interests are concerned; admitting all this, what is
the reason given to Mexico for treating her with the contempt of
a total neglect in all this affair? And here strange scenes rise
up before us. This negotiation began, upon the record, in August
last. We had a minister in Mexico with whom we could communicate
every twenty days. Mexico had a minister here, with whom we could
communicate every hour in the day. Then why not consult Mexico
before the treaty? Why not speak to her during these eight months,
when in such hot haste to consult her afterwards, and so anxious to
stop our action on the treaty till she was heard from, and so ready
to volunteer millions to propitiate her wrath, or to conciliate her
consent? Why this haste after the treaty, when there was so much
time before? It was because the plan required the "_bomb_" to be
kept back till forty days before the Baltimore convention, and then
a storm to be excited.
The reason given for this great haste after so long delay, is that
the safety of the United States was at stake: that the British would
abolish slavery in Texas, and then in the United States, and so
destroy the Union. Giving to this imputed design, for the sake of
the argument, all the credit due to an uncontradicted scheme, and
still it is a preposterous excuse for not obtaining the previous
consent of Mexico. It turns upon the idea that this abolition of
slavery in Texas is to be sudden, irresistible, irretrievable! and
that not a minute was to be lost in averting the impending ruin!
But this is not the case. Admitting what is charged--that Great
Britain has adopted a policy, and made efforts to abolish slavery in
Texas, with a view to its abolition in the United States--yet this
is not to be done by force, or magic. The Duke of Wellington is not
to land at the head of some 100,000 men to set the slaves free. No
gunpowder plot, like that intended by Guy Fawkes, is to blow the
slaves out of the country. No magic wand is to be waved over the
land, and to convert it into the home of the free. No slips of magic
carpet in the Arabian Nights is to be slipped under the feet of the
negroes to send them all whizzing, by a wish, ten thousand miles
through the air. None of these sudden, irresistible, irretrievable
modes of operating is to be followed by Great Britain. She wishes
to see slavery abolished in Texas, as elsewhere; but this wish,
like all other human wishes, is wholly inoperative without works
to back it: and these Great Britain denies. She denies that she
will operate by works, only by words where acceptable. But admit
it. Admit that she has now done what she never did before--_denied
her design!_ admit all this, and you still have to confess that she
is a human power and has to work by human means, and in this case
to operate upon the minds of people and of nations--upon Mexico,
Texas, the United States, and slaves within the boundaries of these
two latter countries. She has to work by moral means; that is to
say, by operating on the mind and will. All this is a work of
time--a work of years--the work of a generation! Slavery is in the
constitution of Texas, and in the hearts, customs, and interests
of the people; and cannot be got out in many years, if at all. And
are we to be told that there was no time to consult Mexico? or,
in the vague language of the letter, that _circumstances_ did not
permit the consultation, and that without disclosing what these
circumstances were? It was last August that the negotiation began.
Was there fear that Mexico would liberate Texian slaves if she
found out the treaty before it was made? Alas! sir, she refused to
have any thing to do with the scheme! Great Britain proposed to her
to make emancipation of slaves the condition of acknowledging Texian
independence. She utterly refused it; and of this our government was
officially informed by the Earl of Aberdeen. No, sir, no! There is
no reason in the excuse. I profess to be a man that can understand
reason, and could comprehend the force of the circumstances which
would show that the danger of delay was so imminent that nothing
but _immediate_ annexation could save the United States from
destruction. But none such are named, or can be named; and the true
reason is, that the Baltimore convention was to sit on the 27th of
May.
Great Britain avows all she intends, and that is--a wish--TO
SEE--slavery abolished in Texas; and she declares all the means
which she means to use, and that is, advice where it is acceptable.
It will be a strange spectacle, in the nineteenth century, to
behold the United States at war with Mexico, because Great Britain
wishes--TO SEE--the abolition of slavery in Texas.
So far from being a just cause of war, I hold that the expression of
such a wish is not even censurable by us, since our naval alliance
with Great Britain for the suppression of the slave trade--since
our diplomatic alliance with her to close the markets of the world
against the slave trade--and since the large effusion of mawkish
sentimentality on the subject of slavery, in which our advocates of
the aforesaid diplomatic and naval alliance indulged themselves at
the time of its negotiation and conclusion. Since that time, I think
we have lost the right (if we ever possessed it) of fighting Mexico,
because Great Britain says she wishes--TO SEE--slavery abolished in
Texas, as elsewhere throughout the world.
The civilized world judges the causes of war, and discriminates
between motives and pretexts: the former are respected when true and
valid--the latter are always despised and exposed. Every Christian
nation owes it to itself, as well as to the family of Christian
nations, to examine well its grounds of war, before it begins one,
and to hold itself in a condition to justify its act in the eyes
of God and man. Not satisfied of either the truth or validity of
the cause for our war with Mexico, in the alleged interference of
Great Britain in Texian affairs, I feel myself bound to oppose it,
and not the less because it is deemed a small war. Our constitution
knows no difference between wars. The declaration of all wars is
given to Congress--not to the President and Senate--much less to
the President alone. Besides, a war is an ungovernable monster,
and there is no knowing into what proportions even a small one may
expand! especially when the interference of one large power may lead
to the interference of another.
Great Britain disavows (and that four times over) all the designs
upon Texas attributed to her. She disavows every thing. I believe
I am as jealous of the encroaching and domineering spirit of that
power, as any reasonable man ought to be; but these disavowals are
enough for me. That government is too proud to lie! too wise to
criminate its future conduct by admitting the culpability which the
disavowal implies. Its fault is on the other side of the account--in
its arrogance in avowing, and even overstating, its pretensions.
Copenhagen is her style! I repeat it, then, the disavowal of all
design to interfere with Texian Independence, or with the existence
of slavery in Texas, is enough for me. I shall believe in it until
I see it disproved by evidence, or otherwise falsified. Would to
God that our administration could get the same disavowal in all the
questions of real difference between the two countries! that we
could get it in the case of the Oregon--the claim of search--the
claim of visitation--the claim of impressment--the practice of
liberating our fugitive and criminal slaves--the repetition of the
Schlosser invasion of our territory and murder of our citizens--the
outrage of the Comet, Encomium, Enterprise, and Hermosa cases!
And here, without regard to the truth or falsehood of this imputed
design of British intentions to abolish slavery in Texas, a very
awkward circumstance crosses our path in relation to its validity,
if true: for, it so happens that we did that very thing ourselves!
By the Louisiana treaty of 1803, Texas, and all the country,
between the Red River and Arkansas, became ours, and was subject
to slavery: by the treaty of 1819, made, as Mr. Adams assures us,
by the majority of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, who were Southern men,
this Texas, and a hundred thousand square miles of other territory
between the Red River and Arkansas, were dismembered from our Union,
and added to Mexico, a non-slaveholding empire. By that treaty of
1819, slavery was actually abolished in all that region in which
we now only fear, contrary to the evidence, that there is a design
to abolish it! and the confines of a non-slaveholding empire were
then actually brought to the boundaries of Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Missouri! the exact places which we now so greatly fear to expose to
the contact of a non-slaveholding dominion. All this I exposed at
the time the treaty of 1819 was made, and pointed out as one of the
follies or crimes, of that unaccountable treaty; and now recur to it
in my place here to absolve Mr. Adams, the negotiator of the treaty
of 1819, from the blame which I then cast upon him. His responsible
statement on the floor of the House of Representatives has absolved
him from that blame, and transferred it to the shoulders of the
majority of Mr. Monroe's cabinet. On seeing the report of his speech
in the papers, I deemed it right to communicate with Mr. Adams,
through a senator from his State, now in my eye, and who hears
what I say (looking at Mr. BATES, of Massachusetts), and through
him received the confirmation of the reported speech, that he (Mr.
Adams) was the last of Mr. Monroe's cabinet to yield our true
boundaries in that quarter. [Here Mr. Bates nodded assent.] Southern
men deprived us of Texas, and made it non-slaveholding in 1819.
Our present Secretary of State was a member of that cabinet, and
counselled that treaty: our present President was a member of the
House, and sanctioned it in voting against Mr. Clay's condemnatory
resolution. They did a great mischief then: they should be cautious
not to err again in the _manner_ of getting it back.
I have shown you, Mr. President, that the ratification of this
treaty would be war with Mexico--that it would be unjust war,
unconstitutionally made--and made upon a weak and groundless
pretext. It is not my purpose to show for what object this war is
made--why these marching and sailing orders have been given--and why
our troops and ships, as squadrons and corps of observation, are
now in the Gulf of Mexico, watching Mexican cities; or on the Red
River, watching Mexican soldiers. I have not told the reasons for
this war, and warlike movements, nor is it necessary to do so. The
purpose of the whole is plain and obvious. It is in every body's
mouth. It is in the air, and we can see and feel it. Mr. Tyler wants
to be President; and, different from the perfumed fop of Shakspeare,
to whom the smell of gunpowder was so offensive, he not only wants
to smell that compound, but also to smell of it. He wants an odor
of the "_villanous compound_" upon him. He has become infected
with the modern notion that gunpowder popularity is the passport
to the presidency; and he wants that passport. He wants to play
Jackson; but let him have a care. From the sublime to the ridiculous
there is but a step; and, in heroic imitations, there is no middle
ground. The hero missed, the harlequin appears; and hisses salute
the ears which were itching for applause. Jackson was no candidate
for the presidency when he acted the real, not the mock hero. He
staked himself for his country--did nothing but what was just--and
eschewed intrigue. His elevation to the presidency was the act of
his fellow-citizens--not the machination of himself.