Showing posts with label Fugitive Slaves. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fugitive Slaves. Show all posts

Saturday, March 9, 2024

Daniel Webster to Millard Fillmore, November 5, 1850

Boston, November 5, 1850,

MY DEAR SIR—I left New Hampshire yesterday, having be come free of disease, and well, except so far as this protracted catarrh has reduced me. I am quite aware how inconvenient my long absence is to you, and to the government, and some times feel, that as this illness is of annual recurrence, I ought to regard it as unfitting me for an office, the duties of which require constant attention; I must now go to Marshfield for a few days. When there a fortnight ago, I was hardly able to go out doors, and could do nothing about arranging my little affairs.

On public subjects things are here becoming quiet. The excitement caused by the Fugitive Slave Law is fast subsiding, and it is thought that there is now no probability of any resistance, if a fugitive should be arrested. Thousands of young men have tendered their services to the marshal at a moment's warning. There is an evident and a vast change of public opinion in this quarter since the adjournment of Congress.

There is much talk of a Union meeting, and a great desire to hold one. Very many persons have spoken to me on the subject, since my arrival yesterday. My opinion is, that such a meeting should be held, but that I should not attend it. My opinions are all known, and they may perhaps be topics of comment, before the meeting. Besides it is, I think, expedient to bring out new men. Mr. Gray, Mr. B. R. Curtis, &c., &c., and the people are also anxious to hear Mr. Choate's voice once more.

To avoid misconstruction, I think the meeting will not be holden till after our election, on Monday next.

I look upon the result of our election, so far as respects governor, as very doubtful.

Yours always, truly,
DAN'L WEBSTER.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 400-1

Daniel Webster to Mr. Colby, November 11, 1850

Marshfield, November 11, 1850.

DEAR SIR, I have received your letter of the 7th of this month.

Experience has long since taught me how useless it is to attempt to stop the allegations of political adversaries by denials of their statements.

For your sake, however, I will say, that my public speeches show my opinion to have been decidedly in favor of a proper, efficient, and well-guarded law, for the recovery of fugitive slaves; that while I was in the Senate, I proposed a bill, as is well known, with provisions different from those contained in the present law; that I was not a member of that body, when the present law passed; and that, if I had been, I should have moved, as a substitute for it, the bill proposed by myself.

I feel bound to add that, in my judgment, the present law is constitutional; and that all good citizens are bound to respect and obey it, just as freely and readily as if they had voted for it themselves. If experience shall show that, in its operation, the law inflicts wrong, or endangers the liberty of any whose liberty is secured by the Constitution, then Congress ought to be called on to amend or modify it. But, as I think, agitation on the subject ought to cease. We have had enough of strife on a single question, and that in a great measure merely theoretical. It is our duty, in my opinion, to attend to other great and practical questions, in which all parts of the country have an interest.

Yours, very respectfully,
DANIEL WEBSTER

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 402

Monday, October 23, 2023

Congressman Horace Mann, July 1, 1850

WASHINGTON, July 1, 1850.

Webster said there were only two parts of the Constitution which had any bearing on the subject of the trial by jury; and that the Constitution, neither in its letter nor in its spirit, required the trial by jury for a fugitive slave.

I proved in my letter that the article in the Constitution about courts did have a bearing, and a most important one, on the subject of jury trial; because, on the strength of it, Congress provided jury trials for more than nine-tenths of all the cases that ever arise in the courts. I showed, that, under this article about courts, Congress had power to make provision for juries.

On the second point, I showed that the spirit of the Constitution did clearly require, that, in legislating on the subject of fugitive slaves, Congress should provide the jury trial.

Now, some one who has written an article in the "Christian Register," which no man at once honest and sensible could write, takes the second position of Mr. Webster, and applies my first answer to it; that is, when Mr. Webster says the trial by jury is not demanded, he applies my answer to the part of Mr. Webster's positions, that there was no clause having any bearing on the subject, or conferring any power.

The Compromise Bill drags along with various prophecies about its success. How I shall hallelujah if it is defeated in the Senate!

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 305-6

Sunday, September 24, 2023

John J. Crittenden on the Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Bill, September 18, 1850

The provisions of the bill, commonly called the fugitive slave bill, and which Congress have submitted to the President for his approval and signature, are not in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution in relation to the writ of habeas corpus.

The expressions used in the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to "shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted, "by any process issued," etc., probably mean only what the act of 1793 meant by declaring a certificate under that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive; and do not mean a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

There is nothing in the act inconsistent with the Constitution, nor which is not necessary to redeem the pledge which it contains, that fugitive slaves shall be delivered upon the claim of their owners.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S Office,

September 18, 1850.

SIR, I have had the honor to receive your note of this date, informing me that the bill, commonly called the fugitive slave bill, having passed both houses of Congress, had been submitted to you for your consideration, approval, and signature, and requesting my opinion whether the sixth section of that act, and especially the last clause of that section, conflicts with that provision of the Constitution which declares that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

It is my clear conviction that there is nothing in the last clause, nor in any part of the sixth section, nor, indeed, in any of the provisions of the act, which suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or is in any manner in conflict with the Constitution.

The Constitution, in the second section of the fourth article, declares that "no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It is well known and admitted, historically and judicially, that this clause of the Constitution was made for the purpose of securing to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete ownership in their slaves, as property, in any and every State or Territory of the Union into which they might escape. (Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.) It devolved on the general government, as a solemn duty, to make that security effectual. Their power was not only clear and full, but, according to the opinion of the court in the above-cited case, it was exclusive, the States, severally, being under no obligation, and having no power to make laws or regulations in respect to the delivery of fugitives. Thus the whole power, and with it the whole duty, of carrying into effect this important provision of the Constitution, was with Congress. And, accordingly, soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the act of the 12th of February, 1793, was passed, and that proving unsatisfactory and inefficient, by reason (among other causes) of some minor errors in its details, Congress are now attempting by this bill to discharge a constitutional obligation, by securing more effectually the delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners. The sixth, and most material section, in substance declares that the claimant of the fugitive slave may arrest and carry him before any one of the officers named and described in the bill; and provides that those officers, and each of them, shall have judicial power and jurisdiction to hear, examine, and decide the case in a summary manner, that if, upon such hearing, the claimant, by the requisite proof, shall establish his claim to the satisfaction of the tribunal thus constituted, the said tribunal shall give him a certificate, stating therein the substantial facts of the case, and authorizing him, with such reasonable force as may be necessary, to take and carry said fugitive back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped,—and then, in conclusion, proceeds as follows: "The certificates in this and the first section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever."

There is nothing in all this that does not seem to me to be consistent with the Constitution, and necessary, indeed, to redeem the pledge which it contains, that such fugitives "shall be delivered up on claim" of their owners.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the owner, independent of any aid from State or national legislation, may, in virtue of the Constitution, and his own right of property, seize and recapture his fugitive slave in whatsoever State he may find him, and carry him back to the State or Territory from which he escaped. (Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.) This bill, therefore, confers no right on the owner of the fugitive slave. It only gives him an appointed and peaceable remedy in place of the more exposed and insecure, out not less lawful mode of self-redress; and as to the fugitive slave, he has no cause to complain of this bill,—it adds no coercion to that which his owner himself might, at his own will, rightfully exercise; and all the proceedings which it institutes are but so much of orderly, judicial authority interposed between him and his owner, and consequently of protection to him, and mitigation of the exercise directly by the owner himself of his personal authority. This is the constitutional and legal view of the subject, as sanctioned by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and to that I limit myself.

The act of the 12th of February, 1793, before alluded to, so far as it respects any constitutional question that can arise out of this bill, is identical with it. It authorizes the like arrest of the fugitive slave, the like trial, the like judgment, the like certificate, with the like authority to the owner, by virtue of that certificate as his warrant, to remove him to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and the constitutionality of that act, in all those particulars, has been affirmed by the adjudications of State tribunals, and of the courts of the United States, without a single dissent, so far as I know. (Baldwin, C. C. R. 577, 579.)

I conclude, therefore, that so far as the act of the 12th of February, 1793, has been held to be constitutional, this bill must also be so regarded; and that the custody, restraint, and removal to which the fugitive slave may be subjected under the provisions of this bill, are all lawful, and that the certificate to be granted to the owner is to be regarded as the act and judgment of a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction.

With these remarks as to the constitutionality of the general provisions of the bill, and the consequent legality of the custody and confinement to which the fugitive slave may be subjected under it, I proceed to a brief consideration of the more particular question you have propounded in reference to the writ of habeas corpus, and of the last clause of the sixth section, above quoted, which gives rise to that question.

My opinion, as before expressed, is that there is nothing in that clause or section which conflicts with or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I think so because the bill says not one word about that writ; because, by the Constitution, Congress is expressly forbidden to suspend the privilege of this writ, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it;" and therefore such suspension by this act (there being neither rebellion nor invasion) would be a plain and palpable violation of the Constitution, and no intention to commit such a violation of the Constitution, of their duty and their oaths, ought to be imputed to them upon mere constructions and implications; and thirdly, because there is no incompatibility between these provisions of the bill and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in its utmost constitutional latitude.

Congress, in the case of fugitive slaves, as in all other cases within the scope of its constitutional authority, has the unquestionable right to ordain and prescribe for what causes, to what extent, and in what manner persons may be taken into custody, detained, or imprisoned. Without this power they could not fulfill their constitutional trust, nor perform the ordinary and necessary duties of government. It was never heard that the exercise of that legislative power was any encroachment upon or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is only by some confusion of ideas that such a conflict can be supposed to exist. It is not within the province or privilege of this great writ to loose those whom the law has bound. That would be to put a writ granted by the law in opposition to the law, to make one part of the law destructive of another. This writ follows the law and obeys the law. It is issued, upon proper complaint, to make inquiry into the causes of commitment or imprisonment, and its sole remedial power and purpose is to deliver the party from "all manner of illegal confinement." (3 Black. Com. 131.) If upon application to the court or judge for this writ, or if upon its return it shall appear that the confinement complained of was lawful, the writ, in the first instance, would be refused, and in the last the party would be remanded to his former lawful custody.

The condition of one in custody as a fugitive slave is, under this law, so far as respects the writ of habeas corpus, precisely the same as that of all other prisoners under the laws of the United States. The "privilege" of that writ remains alike to all of them, but to be judged of—granted or refused, discharged or enforced—by the proper tribunal, according to the circumstances of each case, and as the commitment and detention may appear to be legal or illegal.

The whole effect of the law may be thus briefly stated: Congress has constituted a tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to determine summarily and without appeal who are fugitives from service or labor under the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, and to whom such service or labor is due. The judgment of every tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction where no appeal lies, is, of necessity, conclusive upon every other tribunal; and therefore the judgment of the tribunal created by this act is conclusive upon all tribunals. Wherever this judgment is made to appear, it is conclusive of the right of the owner to retain in his custody the fugitive from his service, and to remove him back to the place or State from which he escaped. If it is shown upon the application of the fugitive for a writ of habeas corpus, it prevents the issuing of the writ; if upon the return, it discharges the writ and restores or maintains the custody.

This view of the law of this case is fully sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Tobias Watkins, where the court refused to discharge upon the ground that he was in custody under the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that that judgment was conclusive upon them. (3 Peters.)

The expressions used in the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to "shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted "by any process issued," etc., probably mean only what the act of 1793 meant by declaring a certificate under that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive, and certainly do not mean a suspension of the habeas corpus. I conclude by repeating my conviction that there is nothing in the bill in question which conflicts with the Constitution or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir,

Your obedient servant,
J. J. CRITTENDEN.
To the PRESIDENT.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 377-81

Thursday, September 21, 2023

Congressman Horace Mann to Samuel Downer, March 1850

MARCH, 1850.
To S. DOWNER.

MY DEAR FRIEND,—Mr. Webster astonished almost all Northern men here. We are recovering from the shock; but it was a severe one. It was as unexpected as it was astounding. It may seem egotistic in me; but I wish I had not spoken till after he did. I should have liked to ask him how he knows that God has Wilmot provisoed New Mexico. Has he had any new revelation since the North-west Territory needed provisoing, since Wisconsin needed it, since Oregon needed it? Indiana came near being a slave State, proviso and all; and would have been so, if Congress had not rejected her petition, John Randolph, of Virginia, making the report. Has God Wilmot-provisoed the whole belt of country from the eastern side of Delaware to the western side of Missouri, any more than he has New Mexico? and, if so, why has not his proviso taken effect? Is there not a vast region of those States that lies far north of the greater part of New Mexico? Has Mr. Webster any geological eyes by which he has discovered that there are no mines in New Mexico which could be profitably worked by slaves? If predial slavery cannot exist there, cannot menial? Does not slavery depend more on conscience than on climate? If individuals do not desire to carry slavery into New Mexico for personal profit, may not communities and States desire it for political aggrandizement?

As to fugitive slaves, I need say nothing. While Massachusetts citizens are imprisoned in Southern ports, I think fugitive slaves will be gentlemen at large in Massachusetts.

But the offer to give eighty millions received and a hundred and eighty millions expected to be received from the public lands to transport free negroes to Africa, and thereby to give increased value to slaves and increased security to slave property, is atrocious.

Now, would to God that you Free-soilers were not a separate organization! With what power such men as S. C. Phillips, G. Palfrey, William Jackson, and Sumner, could act upon the Whigs, if they were not alienated from them! For Heaven's sake, heal this breach, instead of widening it, and bring the whole force of the North to bear in favor of freedom!

With best love for your wife and your babes and yourself, I am very truly and sincerely yours,

H. MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 297-8

Sunday, July 23, 2023

Charles Sumner to William Jay, June 1, 1850

I am glad of your new appeal. Like everything from you, it is careful, logical, clear, and with a practical bearing on the times. I am inclined to believe with you that under the Constitution the duty of surrendering fugitive slaves is imposed upon the States; but there is great difficulty in assuming this point in the face of a solemn decision of the Supreme Court. If that decision were out of the way, I think it could be easily vindicated the States. Mr. Chase in his masterly speech has touched this point strongly.

You have doubtless read Webster's recent wicked letter.1 There is a diabolism in it beyond even that of his speech. He seeks to assimilate the cases of fugitives from justice and fugitive slaves under the Constitution; and because the former cannot claim the trial by jury where they are seized, “argal” slaves cannot ! But the Constitution, by its peculiar language, settles this point. Look at the express words of the two clauses. Here ex vi termini the question whether service or labor be due must be determined, as a condition precedent, before the person can be delivered up. Of course, this must be determined in the State where he is found, and not in that to which he may be transported.

The feeling against Webster among many of his old Whig partisans continues to hold out. At present it seems as if there must be another split in the Whig party here. The systematic efforts now making to suppress all discussion of this great question, the increasing malevolence towards the friends of freedom, and the treachery and apostasy of men, small as well as great, are in themselves most disheartening. Still, I know the cause is right, and as sure as God is God must prevail.
_______________

1 To Citizens of Newburyport, May 15, 1850.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 216

Monday, June 26, 2023

Review: Never Caught

By Erica Armstrong Dunbar

Nearly every American knows the basic outlines of United States’ favorite founding father and his wife, George and Martha Washington, the country’s first President and First Lady. From grade school to high school Americans are taught about the rise of George Washington from soldier to president, his trials on the battlefield and tribulations of the presidency. Martha lurks largely in her husband’s historical shadow, and further back in the shadows are the people of color whom the Washington’s enslaved.

One of the Washington’s enslaved emerges from the shadows of her owners and their fame in Erica Armstrong Dunbar’s book, “Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless pursuit of their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge.”

Upon the death of George Washington, Martha burned all of the correspondence between them, only a had full of letters survived, making details of their relationship and what they discussed vanish in a cloud of smoke. The Washingtons placed a couple of “Fugitive Slave” ads in newspapers, and Ona Judge herself gave a couple of very short newspaper interviews. That is the skeleton on which Ms. Dunbar hangs her narrative. What does survive is the Washington’s correspondence with the rest of the Washington & Custis families and those entrusted with the care of Mount Vernon, which gives muscle to the author’s narrative. Ms. Dunbar relies on educated speculation using phrases such as “possibly” or “could have” to clothe the corpse of her subject with skin. And lastly she breathes life into Ona Judge by placing her in the correct historical light, relating the various laws and social mores of the time in which she lived.

My only criticism is the books’ sensationalistic subtitle, “The Washingtons' Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge.” After Ona Judge gained her freedom in Pennsylvania, the Washingtons only made two serious and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to regain custody of their property and return her to Mount Vernon. I suspect this is at the hands of Ms. Dunbar’s publisher, 37 Ink, as a marketing ploy to sell more books.

“Never Caught” is meticulously researched and well written. At 272 pages it is a quick and easy read. It fills a void in the history of American slavery, the lives of George and Martha Washington, and of course Ona Judge herself.

ISBN 978-1501126390, 37 Ink, © 2017, Hardcover, 272 pages, Photograph & Illustrations, End Notes, Selected Bibliography & Index. Cover Price $26.00.  To purchase a copy of this book click HERE.

Saturday, June 3, 2023

Dr. Seth Rogers to his daughter Dolly, April 21, 1863

April 21.

I have today conversed with the extraordinary colored man, Peter Burns, who brought off one hundred and thirty-two persons with him from the main land, and who has, for a long time, been employed by General Hunter and. by General Saxton for a scout. He is a dark mulatto with face and form resembling John Brown. To hear his quaint expressions and Cromwellian talk is worth a journey from New England here. Too sleepy to repeat any of them to-night.

SOURCE: Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Volume 43, October, 1909—June, 1910: February 1910. p. 390

Dr. Seth Rogers to his daughter Dolly, May 10, 1863

May 10.

Capt. Rogers performed a deed on the 8th ins't for which he will always rejoice. The causeway at the Ferry extends out into the river within about 150 yards of the one on the opposite shore. There is no spot on the river so thoroughly picketed by both parties, yet he went across at noon in a little "dug-out" and brought over two men who beckoned from the rebel causeway. They were fugitive slaves, who had walked a hundred miles from the interior and had not been discovered by the rebels. They are intelligent fellows and take on liberty as if naturally fitted for it. There was no occasion to suppose that these men were not sent down there to decoy one to destruction, and I regard the crossing in the face of an enemy, who, according to all rules of war, should have been hidden behind the bushes, as an exceedingly daring thing to do. Had I been present, as was the Colonel, I should have protested against it. As usual I find myself the most cautious man in the regiment. Now that it is done I am profoundly thankful but there was not more than one chance in two hundred for him to escape death or capture.

The rebels told us at picket that Gen. Hooker was "driving everything before him" but I confess to a "heap" of incredulity which I hope will vanish before official dispatches.

SOURCE: Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Volume 43, October, 1909—June, 1910: February 1910. p. 392

Dr. Seth Rogers to his daughter Dolly, May 27, 1863

May 27.

We are being greatly washed in the rainy season. Fortunately our tents are all raised eighteen inches from the ground and pitched on solid floors of faced pine logs. It is not easy to procure boards here and these logs do just as well. The men cover the floor with pine needles and sleep after the same fashion that I do. The camp has a most picturesque look. Each row of tents has its long piazza roof of pine boughs under which the men sit more contentedly than would be possible for Yankees.

I am getting excessively proud of the physical condition of our regiment. Since we came out here we have enlisted nearly a hundred good, able-bodied men, and discharged about thirty from the service. General Hunter has just issued very good sanitary orders for encampments during the summer. We had anticipated the more important of them.

Yesterday Reb and I found shelter from a great rain, where I saw only an old, gray-headed woman whose name was Rose. I found that she and her old husband and sister were benevolently left for the Yankees, while the younger members were saved from us by the master. The old woman did not murmur at her fate, and when I said: "You must have found it easier to live in slavery with your children and grandchildren than living alone in freedom" she replied: "Yes, Marse, but we lub de freedom better dan dat, an' we rudder lib here all alone dan be in slavery. Dey can no mo' sell we." I never hear that word sell pronounced by these people without a thrill of horror.

I don't remember whether I have written about the wonderful persistency of these people when once fully determined to accomplish a thing. You all know what they have gone through to gain freedom, and can easily imagine some of them capable of equal pertinacity for less worthy objects. I have noticed that when one of them fully makes up his mind to get discharged from the service on the ground of disability, there are but two ways to act in the matter. If there be real ground for his complaint, give him papers at once, but if not, pile his falsehoods upon him so crushingly that he at once feels there is no possible hope of deceiving you. Such cases are rare, but they occur; and some of our best soldiers today are men who were put into the guardhouse for trying to deceive me. I only wonder that with the accursed teaching of their masters they do not oftener attempt this thing. If, under such circumstances, I am more severe with them than another would be, I never doubt the Lord will bear in mind that my heart is intent on full justice for them. I find my hatred of slop philanthropy deepened by living with these intensely human children. While I reverence them more and more, I am more and more convinced that Robert Sutton and Prince Rivers were in the right when they said at Alberti's Mills: "That man don't know what is good for him. You know that freedom is better dan slavery for him and you ought to force him to go away wid us." The most intelligent men in our regiment urge the policy of conscription on the same ground, and that it will give them a "chance to get sense." I said to Uncle York, just now, when he came into my den to see that the fire "keep blazin"; "Uncle, if you had not a wife in secesh I might want you to go home with me when the war is over." Then he told me that he had been twice back to Darien for his wife, once on a gun-boat and once at the imminent risk of losing his life, but that she each time had refused to come away, and that he would like to remain forever with me. She is a second wife and much younger than he. The last time he went for her he brought off several fugitives. He closed his narrative as follows: "So I got some sheepskin to muffle de oar, an de moon was berry shine an when at las' we done got by de danger, I whoop, an de master ob de gun boat Paul Jones say 'Come on,' an den I make de rowers raise a sing."

SOURCE: Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Volume 43, October, 1909—June, 1910: February 1910. p. 393-4

Monday, May 29, 2023

Congressman Amos Tuck’s Speech on the Reference of the President James K. Polk’s Message, January 19, 1848

[Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, January 19, 1848.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the convictions I entertain in regard to the importance of the questions now pending before the country, and the present critical condition of the nation, I am glad that the several attempts which have been made to stop discussion on the President's message have not yet been successful. I believe that more time may be profitably spent in examining into the policy of the Executive, the purposes which he has in view, the means by which it is proposed to accomplish those purposes, and the consequences of success. Let the designs, measures, and general policy of the Administration receive thorough examination, be laid open to the view of this House and the people, and then receive the condemnation or approval of the nation.

The gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. ROBINSON,) at the close of his defence of the President on yesterday, requested that the debate might now be closed. I consider this demand unreasonable, and especially when made by a gentleman who had said all in his power on one side, and taken up one-eighth of the whole time spent in the discussion. I will remind the gentleman, also, that though his defence was as able as any honest man deserved, yet he had entirely omitted to explain some things which we all desire to understand. I hope the debate will not close till the people are put in possession of the facts or explanations, by which the patriotism and foresight of the President can be vindicated, in granting leave to Santa Anna and his suit to pass our blockading squadron and enter Mexico. We have now been at war a long time, have spent a hundred millions of dollars, and sacrificed many thousands of our citizens, in attempting to overcome a force organized principally by this same Santa Anna, and the thirty or forty talented Mexicans who with him passed our lines by direction of the President. This is an astounding fact—too incredible to be believed had it not been confessed; and, upon those who profess to believe in the wisdom and patriotism of the Administration, we make an express demand for explanation.

The President, in a late message, accused a large portion of his fellow-citizens of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." This accusation was greedily seized by the rivals for executive favor; and we can now hear no speech in this Hall, or elsewhere, from the war party, nor read any of their newspapers, without encountering numberless repetitions of the same charge. There is a maxim, supposed to be of universal application, that those who are most ready to impeach the motives of others, are most liable to act from corrupt motives themselves. Let the people decide where the charge of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" rightfully belongs. I shall make no accusation against the President, but I shall remind him that his permission to Santa Anna and his suit to pass "the American lines," resembles another pass I have read about in history, given to one John Anderson, and signed by one Benedict Arnold.

It was said yesterday that the delay of this discussion gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Congress have already appropriated a million of dollars to supply the wants of the army, and can we not now take breath and deliberate? Is it required that we daily appropriate a million of the people's money, under the penalty of being accused of treason if we hesitate to yield to such exorbitant demands? I hope not. For one I am resolved, before contributing to involve the present generation in a heavy debt, and to draw a mortgage upon our posterity—before plunging into a course that will sacrifice many of our citizens, endanger our liberties, and incur fearful responsibilities before Heaven, to examine thoroughly the character of the unnatural war now raging between the two North American republics.

In submitting my views, to the extent permitted by my limited time, I shall begin by considering the remote causes of the war. I would not trouble the committee, by calling their attention to some events which are now history, and probably familiar to most of those whom I have the honor to address, did I not believe that it is important to recur to the past in order to form a correct judgment of the character of the struggle in which the nation is engaged.

The annexation of Texas to this Union was the remote cause of the Mexican war; that object was sought and accomplished by our Government, for the purpose of the protection and extension of slavery. And the same considerations and motives now constitute so material a portion of the designs of our Government in prosecuting our conquests, that without those motives the war would cease immediately.

I need not tell you, sir, that the subject of American slavery now attracts the attention of the whole country. In proceeding with my remarks, I shall be obliged to speak freely of this institution. Those who have created this necessity have no reason to complain. Southern gentlemen have thrust this matter upon us, and made it impossible to examine the causes and objects of the war, without also considering the subject of slavery. I will, however, state, that the anti-slavery spirit of the country, which now seems so terrific to many, is entirely defensive; it is an excitement created wholly by the encroachments which have been made upon freedom and the free States. So far as I understand it, it does not contemplate any thing of which the friends of constitutional liberty, and of immunities according to law, need have any apprehensions.

In laying before the Committee some proof of the motives and purposes of annexation, I seem to myself to be supporting a foregone conclusion. I cannot realize that the objects and motives which led to that measure can be a matter of doubt, when the archives of our Government contain the published announcement of those purposes, as set forth in the official negotiations preparatory to the same. But, knowing that many yet deny the designs of that measure, and believing that at the present crisis the truth should in this place be well understood, I invite your attention to a few considerations.

The old province or department of Texas was settled principally by emigrants from the United States, who went there with their slaves while Mexico was subject to Spain, and during the early days of her attempt to adopt the model of our Government. The men who achieved the Mexican independence were not insensible to the inconsistency of claiming liberty for themselves and denying it to others. In 1829, the President of that republic issued a decree abolishing slavery in all the Mexican dominions. This decree was obeyed in all the provinces except Texas, where it was set at defiance. This was the first stage of hostile relations, between the settlers in Texas (who were principally from the Southern States) and the authorities at Mexico. It was an explicit issue between freedom and slavery. There were difficulties at the seat of the central Government which delayed the contest that must eventually be decided.

In the mean time a new impulse was given to emigration from the Southern States; volunteer adventurers rallied for Texas, and the rebel "Patriots," receiving new hope, declared their independence. A conflict approached, and the battle of San Jacinto decided in favor of the Texans.

But the end was not yet; a state of war existed, and the Texans, constantly fearing an invasion by Santa Anna, and encouraged by the sympathy of a few of our own citizens, sent Gen. Hunt to this city in 1837, with a proposition of annexation. He made a written application to our Government, which was promptly considered, and as promptly answered, in accordance with the unanimous opinion of Mr. Van Buren and his cabinet. An extract from the reply of Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, to Gen. Hunt, dated August 25, 1837, is so explicit on interesting questions of national law, now very little regarded, and besides is in such dignified contrast to all other state papers that have issued from our Government on the subject of Texas, that I will read it to the committee; asking them, in the mean time, to consider what would have now been the happy state of his country, and our well-founded title to the respect of the world, had the policy of Mr. Forsyth not been abandoned by his successors. It is as follows:

"So long as Texas shall remain at war, while the United States are at peace with her adversary, the proposition of the Texan Minister Plenipotentiary necessarily involves the question of war with that adversary. The United States are bound to Mexico by a treaty of amity and commerce, which will be scrupulously observed on their part, so long as it can be reasonably hoped that Mexico will perform her duties and respect our rights under it. The United States might justly be suspected of a disregard of the friendly purposes of the compact, if the overture of Gen. Hunt were to be even reserved for future consideration, as this would imply a disposition on our part to espouse the quarrel of Texas with Mexico; a disposition wholly at variance with the spirit of the treaty, with the uniform policy, and the obvious welfare of the United States."

This letter, sir, was written by a Democrat who had some regard for the old landmarks of republicanism-by one who paid some attention to the forms of law, the spirit of the Constitution, the sanctity of treaties, and the opinions of the world. The warnings of Washington against intervention—the opinion of Jefferson, that the Constitution had made no provision for incorporating a foreign nation into the Union—had not then been forgotten. Such was the doctrine of the Van Buren democracy, approved by the unanimous voice of the country. It was the doctrine of the Democracy till the date of the Baltimore Convention, when it was reversed, and the whole party made to turn about; not only without reason, but against reason; against the deepest convictions of the conscience and understanding of the whole party. If the time shall ever come when common sense, common law, or common honesty, shall direct the authorities of this nation, this doctrine will again be recognised and practised; and the annexation of Texas, as perpetrated by the united energies of John Tyler and James K. Polk, will be acknowledged to have been in violation of our "treaty of amity and commerce," an espousal of the quarrel of Texas, and an act of war against Mexico.

What were the pressing objects of national interest, not to say necessity, which could force our democratic Government to abandon its integrity, after this public confession of our relations and duties, to a distracted sister republic? What motives have led us to a line of policy that humbles every American heart, robs of national pride every intelligent citizen, and threatens, with imminent danger, our most sacred privileges? The answer is found in the archives of this Capitol, and may be read by all. It was not to "extend the area of freedom," but to enlarge the borders of slavery; it was to build up and establish—to render permanent and perpetual an institution repugnant alike to every principle of freedom, every sentiment of republicanism, every feeling of humanity—an institution which casts a dark shade over our country's history, and which, if cherished, will ultimately number us with the republics which are now no more.

When John Tyler had made the treaty of annexation in 1844, and laid the same before the Senate for approval, that body called upon him to produce the correspondence in regard to that measure, showing the motives which had induced him to enter into it. The information was given under an injunction of secrecy, afterwards removed, and is contained in Senate document No. 341, of the first session of the 28th Congress. In that document is contained an explicit, unequivocal, and often repeated declaration of the only objects of our Government designed to be accomplished by the treaty. These reasons, stated by those who were authorized to speak for the nation, are now of record; and, without any contradictory proof whatever, announce to the world, and will announce to posterity, the true motives which led the United States to that disastrous act. I will give a few extracts, as specimens of the whole correspondence; averring to the committee that the character is the same throughout, and that the one object of continuing and extending slavery in Texas, and protecting it in the United States, is boldly avowed, and made the foundation of every step in the progress of the negotiation. The letter which first announces the incipient scheme, and spreads out the apprehensions of the Tyler Cabinet, on account of the prospects in Texas, was written by Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State under Mr. Tyler, to Mr. Murphy, our chargé at Texas, and bears date August 8th, 1843. The letter is long, and the Secretary begins by informing Mr. Murphy that a plan for the abolition of slavery in Texas had been made known to this Government; that it was understood the same was to be accomplished by the purchase of all the slaves; and that a company in England were to furnish a portion or the whole of the necessary funds. After urging Mr. Murphy to inquire immediately into the designs of Texas in regard to slavery, and its prospects in that country, he recurs to the rumored plan of abolition, and says:

“A movement of this sort cannot be contemplated by us in silence.”

Again, he says:

“It cannot be permitted to succeed, without the most strenuous efforts on our part to arrest a calamity so serious to every part of the country.”

Becoming more particular in stating the causes of alarm, and in order to impress more deeply the importance of the subject, he further says:

“The establishment, in the very midst of our slaveholding States, of an independent government, forbidding the existence of slavery, and by a people born, for the most part, among us, reared up in our habits, and speaking our language, could not fail to produce the most unhappy effects upon both parties. If Texas were in that condition, her territory would afford a ready refuge for the fugitive slaves of Louisiana and Arkansas, and would hold out to them an encouragement to run away, which no municipal regulations of those States could possibly counteract.”

The whole letter is of the same character with the parts I have read, and I will not trouble the committee with reading any more of it. The communication had the desired effect upon the gentleman to whom it was directed, and immediately aroused all the energy of his peculiar patriotism. He adopts all Mr. Upshur's opinions, entertains all his anxieties, and promptly replies under date of Sept. 25th, 1843. He compliments the talent of the Secretary, after the manner of a politician, when writing to his superior in office, and speaking of the designs of England says:

“England is anxious to get rid of the constitution of Texas, because it secures in the most nervous and clear language the rights of the master to his slave, and it also prohibits the introduction of slaves into Texas from any other nation or quarter than the United States."

Again:

"The constitution of Texas secures to the master the perpetual right to his slave, and prohibits the introduction of slaves into Texas from any other quarter than the United States.”

Again:

"If the United States preserves and secures to Texas the possession of her constitution and present form of Government, then we have gained all that we can desire, and also all that Texas asks or wishes."

Again:

“Seeing that this surrender of sovereignty by Texas to Mexico at once liberates all the slaves in Texas, and that England thereby gains all she wants, and more than she ever expected, can the Government of the United States longer doubt what to do?"

Three days after, he again writes to Mr. Upshur, and, echoing the sentiments of the latter, remarks:

"The States in which slavery exists would have good reason to apprehend the worst consequences from the establishment of a foreign non-slaveholding State upon their immediate borders."

Telling the Secretary of "the eloquent manner in which he has pourtrayed those evils," his zeal overflows in the following language:

"I feel a whirlwind of emotion in my bosom which I will not attempt to describe. Let the Government of the United States take some immediate quick step on this subject. You have in this correspondence enough to justify immediate and prompt action.

 

"Pardon me if I am solicitous on this subject. I feel the deep interest at stake. Our whole Southern interests are involved in this negotiation, and with it the interests of the Union itself. The great blow to our civil institutions is to be struck here, and it will be a fatal blow if not timely arrested."

This pretence of enthusiasm, exhibited in the cause of slavery by an obscure pensioner on the Tyler administration, should have been treated with contempt; and his impudent recommendation to our Government to "take some immediate quick step," ought to have received a severe rebuke. Instead of this, we find the whole cabinet caught the contagion, and exerted the whole power of their station and patronage to second the views of this obscure adventurer, residing in Texas. In a subsequent letter, Mr. Murphy writes to the Government on the subject of annexation, and says, that without it "slavery cannot exist ten years in Texas, and probably not half that time." There is any amount of similar proof in the book I hold in my hand, and I might take up all my time in reading the evidence at length. But I need not do this; I have before me democratic proof that the objects of the "Texan iniquity” were not only such as I have represented them to be, but that those objects were understood, exposed, and condemned by the Democratic party in the Northern States, up to the time of the Baltimore Convention.

I ask the self-complacent Democracy, who are so free with their charges of treason, and Mexican federalism, to listen to the following passages from the three newspapers in New Hampshire, which are the mouth-pieces of the unchangeable Democracy, and which are now the pillars of support in the Granite State, to this slavery propagating administration.

The Nashua Gazette, of date Nov. 16th, 1843, contains the following editorial:

"The evils that will be entailed upon the North by the admission of Texas into the Union are incalculable, great, vast—beyond all human calculation.

 

"The object and design throughout is black as ink—as bitter as hell. No other reason on earth can be assigned for this southern movement than a determination to perpetuate that accursed institution, which, as a matter of compromise, was acceded to by the North at the time of the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. If the South persist in forcing Texas upon us, the result is evident to all. The consequences are multifarious, to say nothing of their ruin. May Providence avert this calamity, and save our Republic from disunion, misery, and destruction."

The Portsmouth (N. H.) Mercury, in the fall of 1843, says:

"It is a matter of deep regret that our Southern friends intend to agitate, in the next Congress, the question of the annexation of Texas to our Union. It is understood that this is a favorite project with Mr. Calhoun. But as its accomplishment might prove fatal to our free institutions, it will be a solemn duty of the Northern Democracy to oppose it."

The New Hampshire Patriot, May, 1844, has the following:

"Slavery and the defence of slavery form the controlling considerations urged in favor of the treaty [of annexation] by those who have been engaged in its negotiation. To these doctrines we can never subscribe, and whenever they are offensively urged upon the free States, they deserve to be pointedly rebuked."

I lay the above extracts before the Southern branch of the Democracy, hoping that they will understand the true character of their Northern allies. The same men who, uttered the above sentiments as matters of principle from which they could never swerve, in less than three months denied, utterly reprobated, the faith they had professed; and have ever since employed their time in abusing the men who would not sacrifice their principles at the same time. The Democratic leaders of New Hampshire at the present time are the men who have made this somerset in their confession of faith; who cry out "moral cowards," "enemies of their country," and "Mexican Federalists," while they know in their hearts that they are the most arrant moral cowards alive, and that there is no principle in any creed which they would not sacrifice for a reward. They have been called Northern men with Southern principles, but this is an imputation on the South to which I will not subscribe. They are Northern men with no principles at all. Had they been men of Southern principles, or of any principle whatever, they would not have made such an humiliating exhibition. I will not say that these men would not rather be right than wrong; indeed I think they would have chosen to follow the Van Buren democracy, which they expected would prevail. But the virtue which they possess is not at all adapted to a state of temptation. When the Baltimore Convention sacrificed Mr. Van Buren, and adopted an unknown candidate, and a new creed of faith; and when Mr. Ritchie published the significant fact that "they who did not go for annexation need expect nothing from the new administration," the trial was too strong for them. They hailed the new nomination as "the very best that could be made;" and, in respect to Texas, fulfilled to the letter the prophecy of the eccentric statesman of Roanoke, when, in 1820, he addressed just such a class of men on the floor of this House.

Turning to the representatives who had betrayed the North in the Missouri compromise, Mr. Randolph, pointing to each one separately, said, "you Northern dough-faces! we have bought you once, and when we want you we will buy you again, dog-cheap."

But, sir, I am happy to say that this class of politicians is small in the North, and is daily becoming less. The people, though confiding too long in their leaders, are beginning to understand them, and cast them off. The people may be deceived, but cannot be corrupted.

I will now call the attention of the committee to a new and most important construction of the Constitution, which was first announced in this Texan correspondence, and which may well challenge the attention of the country, both at the North and South. We have seen the purpose for which annexation was sought, and at the first view we are surprised at the official conduct of those who figured in the scheme, and, on examining the correspondence, we discover occasion for serious alarm. We see a construction of the national compact, which declares it to be the function and solemn duty of the General Government to protect and support the institution of slavery.

In the same letter, last quoted from Mr. Upshur, he says:

“Although those non-slaveholding States are as much opposed to the institution, [slavery] as England herself, yet the Constitution of the United States lays them under obligations in regard to it which, if duly respected, would secure the rights of the slaveholder."

Mr. Calhoun, as Secretary of State, takes the same ground. In a letter to Mr. Packenham, dated April 18, 1844, he vindicates the Texan treaty, and, after giving his views of the effect upon the United States of abolishing slavery in Texas, says, in reference to this last object:

"It is felt to be the imperious duty of the Federal Government, the common representative and protector of the States of this Union, to adopt in self-defence the most effectual measures to defeat it,"

Now, sir, before this Government makes any further progress, before we take one more step in our onward march, the people of the United States demand to know if this construction of our national compact is well founded? This point must be settled. It has heretofore been proclaimed by legislative resolutions, reaffirmed by numerous public meetings at the South, that the General Government had nothing to do with slavery. But annexation has destroyed old landmarks, reversed old principles, and introduced a new policy and a new code of morals into the country, which we are anxious to understand. If we live under a Constitution that compels us to support and defend slavery, we want to know it, and we want to know it now. We are at a crisis in the Government when it is important to understand our rights, and also to understand our duties. For, let me inform gentlemen, that this new doctrine will bring with it responsibilities and solemn duties, as well as heavy and disagreeable burdens. If the General Government have a jurisdiction over the subject of slavery to support and defend it, they have also a jurisdiction and a duty to limit, control, and restrain it. Let gentlemen consider the course they are taking, and understand the consequences of this new doctrine. If they take a construction liberal for the purposes of slavery, they must take one liberal also for the purpose of liberty; but they can not have a construction free as regards slavery, but strict as regards liberty.

We discard this novel construction, and pronounce it an infraction and an outrage upon the rights of the free States. The Constitution neither requires nor authorizes the General Government to wield its powers in defence of slavery. Such a representation of the nature of the compact between the States of this Union, made by our Secretary of State to the representative of the English nation, was a slander upon our country, and an indignity upon the memory of our fathers. Their lives, characters, and circumstances, as well as the letter and spirit of the Constitution, prove that they formed no agreement to sustain oppression. When they assembled to form a Constitution, those from the North came with undisguised abhorrence of slavery, which their habits, principles, and religious education taught them to be morally wrong. They were not the men to compromise their principles by involving themselves in guilt. They were crowned with laurels from the revolutionary conflict, and had just written with their blood the truth, that "all men are born free and equal;" and that "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," is "inalienable." They had no belief that the natural rights of a colored man were different from those of the white man: their sentiment was—

"We know no crime in color'd skin,

Nor think the God above

Could fix the brand of slave upon

The children of his love."

Such was the sentiment of the men of the North, who had periled their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, in defence of the principles of universal liberty, and of the doctrine that liberty is the gift of God, and not of any government or potentate. With such sentiments they went to the work of forming a constitution. They believed that when the child first breathed, he was furnished with a charter from God, which secured to him life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This sentiment had been their inspiring faith during every stage of the Revolution, and it never entered into their hearts to sacrifice it for any earthly consideration whatever.

The South had also fought bravely in defence of the same declaration of rights. A disinterested patriotism, a self-sacrificing devotion, had characterized her statesmen and her heroes, and endeared them to the whole country. But they were connnected with slavery, unfortunately thought it necessary to their prosperity, and wished to have the institution preserved to them under the national compact. With the difficulties and dangers attending this difference of opinion the convention labored for many days without any progress. At length, however, it was arranged to the acquiescence of both parties. It was agreed to leave the subject just where it remained under the confederation, that is, with the States where it existed. To make this still plainer, article tenth of the amendments was adopted, by which it was declared that the powers not expressly delegated were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Such was the foundation on which the compact was based; and, in the first sentence, it is by them most appropriately declared, that "we ordain and establish this Constitution to secure the blessings of liberty."

This doctrine has been held by the Supreme Court, in sundry cases settling the point, that slavery is an institution sustained only by the positive law of the district where it exists; that beyond those limits the law which makes one man the property of another has no prescriptive, inferential, or other existence; that the alleged slave, having passed into a free State, may rightfully defend himself; and if he have the physical force to resist his masters, may maintain his freedom there, or go to a place of refuge. It cannot be denied, sir, that the people of the free States hold the blessings of personal liberty as sacredly as the Southern States do the privileges of slavery. The construction of the Constitution promulgated by the authors of the Texan plot, and acted upon by this Administration, is abominable, and must be repudiated. The encroachments upon our rights from the early days of the Goverment have been quite insupportable, but by this new construction all past trespasses are legalized, and it is henceforth proclaimed "a solemn duty" of the General Government to sustain slavery! Sir, this will never be tolerated The free States delegated no more power to the Federal Government to involve them in slavery, than the slave States did to involve them in its abolition. If Virginia claims the right to sustain slavery, New Hampshire claims the right to be exempt from it. The people of the free States claim, a right to be exempt from the sin, the shame, the expenses, and the retributions of this fearful wrong. To shed one drop of our blood, or to pay one cent of our money, for its aid, comfort, protection, or support, is an exaction to which we never can submit. This exemption is our legal, constitutional right, and being sustained by the literature, the moral sentiment, and the religious convictions of every civilized and christian nation, we shall not recede. We shall stand firm and immovable—

“——— constant as the Northern Star,

Of whose true, fixed, and resting quality

There is no fellow in the firmament.”

We say to the South, take to yourselves the full measure of good and evil. connected with this subject. We can have nothing to do with it; we can neither touch nor handle, cherish nor protect it. We leave it where our fathers left it; and though we regard it as the sum of all evils, we shall yet overstep no law in our desire to see it exterminated.

“We ask not ye shall snap the links

That bind you to your dreadful slaves;

Hug, if you will, a corpse that stinks,

And bear it with you to your graves:

But that you may go, coupled thus,

You never shall make slaves of us.”

Are gentlemen surprised at the anti-slavery excitement in this country? If there were no excitement, it would be proof that the spirit of liberty is dead. There not only is excitement, but that excitement will continue and increase, till the free States, under the guaranties of the Constitution, can enjoy exemption from slavery. I cannot promise quiet to the slave States even then; never, till they get rid of their peculiar institution, which is derogatory to man, and in violation of the laws of God. The compensations of Providence are inevitable, and the South cannot escape reaping the fruits of their institutions.

I have said that the anti-slavery spirit of the country is wholly defensive. This assertion cannot be doubted by any who are acquainted with the history of our Government, and particularly if the history, purposes, and consequences of the annexation of Texas be at all considered.

It has been represented by the public press, and in numerous speeches made in Congress, and elsewhere, that the distracting element in the Republic is the fanatical spirit of Northern and Western abolitionists. Most especially have they been made to bear the blame of introducing fanaticism and disunion into the halls of Congress, of disturbing the compromises of the Constitution, and by petitions, remonstrances, and memorials, endangering the perpetuity of our free institutions.

But, sir, no greater error, no more unfounded belief, could be impressed on the public mind. I grant that it is fanaticism that disturbs the harmony of the Government, and has shaken the whole fabric from centre to circumference; but then it is the fanaticism of the propagandists of slavery, the one idea-ism of those men who believe it to be their mission on earth to propagate bondage.

This is the element which has disturbed the nation, discarded well settled principles of policy and law, violated treaties, provoked the indignation of civilized nations, robbed us of our national pride, broken down the Constitution, and involved us in an aggressive, unnecessary, and wicked war. This is the fanaticism which has thrust upon the nation delicate and exciting questions, and demanded of the people to embrace, to honor, and support the peculiar institution. Had Northern men with Northern principles entered the slave States with banners, and proclaimed liberty to the captive and freedom to the bound, they would not have more palpably violated the compromises of the Constitution, than has the slave spirit perpetrated in every period of our history. Let the millions paid by free people to support and extend slavery, to recover runaway slaves, to prevent emancipation, to carry on pro-slavery wars, rebuke the charge and brand with falsehood the assertion that abolitionism, or any thing but the fell spirit of slavery, has introduced discord and danger into the councils of the nation. Let us expose this hypocritical cry against agitation and fanaticism by men who, by their annexations, wars, conquests, and aggressions, are picking our pockets, gagging our mouths, and at the same time raising a hue and cry against us, because we will not stand still and quietly be robbed.

I come now to consider the immediate cause of the war, which was the order of the President to march our army from Corpus Christi, and occupy the country up to the east bank of the Rio Grande, and to inquire whether that order was necessary or justifiable. The supporters of the President say that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Texas, and therefore we had a right to take possession up to that line. I deny both the premises and the conclusion of this answer. That river was not the boundary of Texas, and if it had been we had no right forcibly to occupy that line, while Mexico was in possession of a portion of the territory claiming it as her own. If, as has been said, Texas were an independent nation at the time of annexation, her territory and her boundaries were limited by her actual possession. She had no title but that of the sword, and gained from Mexico only what she had forcibly seized and held. All the country which was occupied by Texan citizens, and all that from which the Mexicans had been expelled, might be claimed as having been gained by the revolution; but any new conquests or acquisitions could not be vindicated, except by treaty, or by new hostilities, and another war. Had, then, the Texans seized the country to the Rio Grande? There is no pretence of it. The great desert lying between the valley of that river and the valley of the Nueces had never been crossed by Texans. Brazos Santiago, and Santa Fe, lie between these rivers, and in the territory seized by our army. At both of these cities Mexico had custom-houses, where our merchants had for years paid duties to the Mexican government. And we had at the same time a consul, with a commission under the sign manual of the President of the United States, residing at Santa Fe, in an acknowledged foreign country. At the session of Congress at which annexation was effected, a law was passed in regard to drawbacks, in which Santa Fe is expressly named as a city belonging to the Mexican Republic. The inhabitants all spoke the Mexican language, and, according to General Taylor's account, abandoned their houses on the approach of our army. No Texan forces, or Texan inhabitants, had occupied any land within a hundred miles of Matamoras. In one of the despatches of the President to General Taylor, prior to hostilities, he says:

"Mexico has some military establishments on the east side of the Rio Grande, which are, and for some time have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops."

With this evidence, and these admissions, I say that the Rio Grande was not the western boundary of Texas; and if the President understood his own acts, he himself knew that such was not the boundary.

But, supposing our title by annexation to have been good to the Rio Grande, yet, as the Mexicans claimed the valley of that river, and were in possession of it, the President could not expel them from the disputed territory without committing an act of war. The recollections of Oregon, and the northeastern boundary, are too fresh to allow this law to be questioned, unless one rule is to be applied to England and another to Mexico.

I confidently assert, then, that the allegation of the President that "Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory, and shed American blood on American soil, "is untrue; and that the preamble to an act of the last Congress, which states that "war exists by the act of Mexico," is justly denominated "the lying preamble."

The President ordered our army to take forcible possession of territory which, if not Mexican, was in dispute, and in the occupancy of Mexican subjects. This was an act of war.

He caused our army, before hostilities commenced, to blockade the mouth of the Rio Grande, through which the Mexican forces at Matamoras received their supplies, and thus commenced starving their army while stationed on their own ground. This was an act of war.

Weeks before hostilities commenced, he caused a battery to be built on this side of the river, opposite to Matamoras, supplied it with cannon pointing into the heart of the city, and manned it with a force capable at any moment of hurling destruction upon the Mexicans. This was an act of war.

Finally, he consummated war by measures which led to an attack by Capt. Thornton, an officer of our army, upon a party of Mexicans who resisted, and sixteen men were killed and wounded. This was the first blood that was spilt, and was war by the act of the President of the United States.

To such conclusions am I inevitably brought by examining this subject. I am forced, also, to observe that the order of the President which involved these disastrous consequences was made while Congress was in session, to which body the Constitution gives the war-making power. The barriers of the Constitution have availed nothing for the purposes of peace or freedom, since the blood-thirsty appetite for conquest and slavery propagation seized upon the nation.

Entertaining the views I have expressed of the immediate causes of the war, I lately voted for the amendment offered to a resolution by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. ASHMUN,) stating that the war was "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President." This has been taken up in the newspapers and pronounced to be "treasonable." I, then, have sinned deeply, for I confess and aver that I never gave a vote more cordially, and have seldom enjoyed more satisfaction than in the success of that amendment, and the indication which it wafted on the wings of the wind to my constituents and the country. In common with millions of patriotic citizens, I thank the gentleman for that timely amendment. It was most appropriately offered by one of the "immortal fourteen," who refused to vote in the 29th Congress for "the lying preamble.”

This is not only an "unnecessary and unconstitutional" war, in its commencement, and therefore wicked, but the controlling motives of its present prosecution are identical with those which led to annexation. This is proved by the fact that, when the Wilmot Proviso, in the last Congress, was attached to a bill of supplies, the personal advisers of the President immediately exerted all their influence to defeat the bill. Why was this the case, unless there was a determination to make slavery co-extensive with our southwestern border? This is apparent, also, from a clause in a late letter from the Chairman of Military Affairs of the Senate, (Gov. CASS,) which he has published in order to show his recantation of faith in the Wilmot Proviso.

The third reason he gives for abandoning the provision that slavery be prohibited in any territory to be acquired from Mexico, is in the following language:

"3. Because I believe in the general conviction, that should such proposition succeed, it would lead to an immediate withholding of the supplies, and thus to a dishonorable termination of the war. I think no dispassionate observer at the seat of Government can doubt this result."

I ask why such a proposition would result in "withholding supplies," unless those supplies are wanted for the purpose, chiefly, of acquiring new slave territory? Gentlemen may affect to scorn the idea that slavery can make progress into Mexico. But, sir, the design of the war is to get as much of that country as possible, and then to admit it by States into the Union as fast as slavery obtains over it a predominant influence. However much or little be obtained, mark the fact, no part of it will ever be admitted, unless with a constitution recognising slavery.

This is a war conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity; and, in its objects and progress, is more characteristic of the 19th century before, than the 19th century after Christ. The people are heart-sick of it, and demand that it cease. They see that we have abandoned the mission on which our nation gloriously embarked; and, forgetting the political precepts of our fathers, and the moral admonitions of our holy religion, we are precipitating a sorrowful failure of the great republican experiment.

I regret that my time will not allow me to examine the array of fearful apprehensions that our circumstances unavoidably bring before me. Look at the plains of Mexico, covered with the slain thousands of our own citizens, and the slain tens of thousands of our sister republic—look at the multitudes in mourning throughout the land-and tell me, whether we are not treasuring up for ourselves "wrath against the day of wrath!" There are other evils besides sacrifice of life. War reverses the order of society; it raises those who should be low, and depresses those who should be high; it exalts without merit, and casts down without fault. Military renown has been the affliction of the nation for 25 years. Hero worship has been the order of the day, and opinions have had less currency on account of their correctness, than on account of their origin. The multiplication of slaves, the multiplication of military heroes, (scarcely less calamitous,) a standing army, a Mexican pro-consulate, an intolerable executive patronage, (now almost too much for liberty,) and the eventual dissolution of our present Government, with the inevitable retributions of Him who rules in Heaven and on earth, are seen in the distance. Let us pause before it is too late.

I avow my position in regard to supplies, which is, to grant them only for the purpose of bringing the army home by the shortest route. Being found in a wrong, let us restore the nation status ante bellum. We have spoken our sentiments about the necessity of the war, let us not take a course which will oblige us to say it too;

"We know the right, and we approve

We know the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.”

Let the same vote that declared the war unnecessary and unconstitutional, starve it to death by withholding supplies.

On the subject of the acquisition of territory, it is my belief that, whatever we may acquire, will not make us any the richer, more powerful, or happy, And, I understand, that what we now have south of 36° 30’, produces more annual cost than revenue to the Government. But, as those who talk about our "destiny" are determined to have territory, I go by all means for the re-enactment of the ordinance of 1787; otherwise, for the Wilmot Proviso.

I know what denunciations are hurled against those who express the sentiments I have avowed. But I cannot regard them; my convictions are deep, and my course is plain. I trust I shall never betray myself, or my country, by giving "aid and comfort" to a war which I believe is wrong, dishonorable, and dangerous. Burke, Barre, and Chatham stood by their country in the time of our revolution, and gave advice, remonstrance, and solemn warning, which, if followed, would have saved to England her colonies. In the belief that even the humblest member of this House has the opportunity to imitate their glorious example, I shall denounce the Mexican war, expose the reckless ambition of its authors, and, to the extent of my ability, warn the people against its consequences. If this be treason, my revilers may make the most of it.

SOURCE: Amos Tuck, Speech of Mr. Tuck, of New Hampshire, on the Reference of the President's Message, Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U S., January 19, 1848. p. 3-15

Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Richard K. Crallé to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 23, 1850

March 23, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR: Since we parted I have run the subject of our conversation through my mind, with some anxiety to reach a just conclusion. I said, perhaps the word should be, prophesied when you first took your seat in the Legislature, and before I knew you personally, that you were destined to become the most influential man in the State. This, I have repeated a thousand times since in public; and no man likes to be proved a false Prophet. So that, as the matter concerns me particularly, you will excuse my freedom of speech.

As to the general line of your proposed argument I feel no difficulty. The constitution, the just rights, and the honor of Virginia mark this deeply and broadly. We cannot surrender an inch South of 36 degrees. It would amount to absolute submission.

The rank and file of neither of the two great Parties in the State are prepared for this; and if they were, no high-minded man can concur with them. Next to this, we must hold the States responsible for the delivery of our fugitive slaves. The compact was made with them, Congress is only their joint agent. For this we must hold them bound in the first place, and for two reasons. Such is the compact, and substitute of Congress must be unavailing, without their concurrence. No act, whatever be its provisions, can be carried into execution against the popular consent; and the effort will but "film the ulcerous sore." This contest must be between the States themselves; and it ought to be waged with zeal and determination. I care not to rule in the aid of Congress, it must be ineffectual, and can only serve to postpone the issues which must finally come to be tried between the States themselves. What power has Congress to enforce the execution of its acts in this respect? None whatever.

Next, we have a right to demand that this agitation shall cease in the Common Halls of Legislation. This is the cancer that is eating into our vitals. We are daily paying for abolition appeals out of the common treasury. Take strong grounds against this. The right of petition, has nothing to do with the subject; and they who urge it know it well.

These are the main points. I have urged them years ago, and time only confirms me in the belief that we cannot safely yield an inch on them. I have spoken to no man on the subject. They are the oft printed conclusions of my own judgment.

As to the general tone of your argument, it cannot well be too high, so that it be announced in moderate but firm language. The present is a peculiar juncture; and its certain results will be to make or mar many fortunes. A truly great mind cannot fail to make itself to be felt. The issue is clearly submission or a stern maintenance of right, and in this instance right involves security. All temporary expedients must fail, and their failure will involve the ruin of many. My well considered opinion is, that, on the points mentioned we cannot yield any ground, no, not an inch. As to Mr. C[alhoun]'s view in respect to an amendment of the Constitution, that might be passed over. It goes rather to the philosophy of our system, than to its present practical operation which has thrown up the present issues. These last are the urgent issues; and we must deal with them as they are, and by themselves.

As to the matters, which may be regarded as extraneous, yet bearing strongly on the issues themselves, it is, in my view of the highest importance to sustain the Southern Convention, as a means of preserving the Union. In this view it has not been sufficiently pressed. Such only can be its legitimate purpose, and in that view no Southern man ought to object to it. As a deliberative, a consultation body, its expediency is called for by the highest consideration.

In respect to the matter we discussed in the Committee room on yesterday, would it not be advisable for you or Mr. D. casually to speak to the gentleman we referred to? Something useful might come out of it, while no evil can so far as I see. Keep the name of the gentleman South entirely to yourself.

It is after midnight, and I will tire your patience no further. I write in great haste, and conclude with this admonition, "Stand up for old Virginia at all hazards, whose cause is just, and leave the consequences to God."

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 106-8