Springfield, Illinois, December 24, 1860.
My dear Sir: I need a man of Democratic antecedents from New England. I cannot get a fair share of that element in without. This stands in the way of Mr. Adams. I think of Governor Banks, Mr. Welles, and Mr. Tuck. Which of them do the New England delegation prefer? Or shall I decide for myself?
SOURCES: Charles R. Corning, Amos Tuck, p. 90; Roy P. Basler, Editor, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, p. 161
[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
EXETER, Nov. 20,
1846.
TO REV. JAMES C.
BOSWELL, President, and SAMUEL A. HALEY, ESQ., Secretary, &c.
Gentlemen:—I have
received your letter of October 24th, in reference to the proceedings at the
Convention of Independent Democrats and Liberty men of the First Congressional
District, and I embrace the earliest opportunity which my engagements have
allowed to send you an answer.
I believe it to be
the object of those assembled at the above named convention, to re-affirm the
fundamental principles of republican liberty, and to act out with fearless
devotion the doctrines of human equality and universal justice. Entertaining
these views, I rejoice in their free expression, and am content to stand or
fall with the others in their defense.
Two causes have
contributed more than all others to effect the late change in the political
balance of parties. The first has been the despotism of party power, by which
generous impulses have been repressed and discouraged, the exercise of private
judgment made dangerous, and all individuality of character sought to be
extinguished, by compelling men to believe, or to profess, those sentiments
only which were suggested by a selfish and ever-shifting policy and sanctioned
by self-constituted party leaders. No tyranny is more galling than that which
would quench the free thoughts of free men; no tyrants are more despicable than
those who, "dressed in a little brief authority," would attempt in a
democracy to exercise the power and the prerogatives hereditary despots; no
engine of influence is more dangerous or more execrable than a hireling press,
speaking no words for truth or justice, but devoting all its energies to the
perpetration of human servitude. To free New Hampshire from such influences,
and to expose in their deformity those who had wielded them too long, was one
object in our organization, and this object, I rejoice in believing, has been
in a good degree accomplished.
The second and chief
cause of the late change has been the existence and progressing power of the
institution of slavery. The encroachments of the slave-holding interests, and
the subserviency of public men to its numerous exactions, have been so
exorbitant and so notorious as to have become just cause of alarm to every
friend of humanity and the country. The people, irrespective of party, have at
length turned their attention to the subject, and by unequivocal manifestations
are teaching their public servants that hereafter other things will be expected
of them than a base and servile homage to the dark spirit of slavery; that some
efforts will be demanded at their hands, more efficient than a “masterly
inactivity," or a halting opposition to an abstract idea; that it is time
for them to stand up like men, and, echoing the strong voice of a free people,
to say to the sweeping tide of oppression, "thus far and no farther."
The inquiry now is, what can be done, what can Congress do to free the master
and the slave and the nation from the sin and the retributions of slavery? Of
cowardly discussion about the extent of our powers we have had enough. The
exigency of the country as well as the spirit of the age require now the
performance of those acts whose constitutionality and propriety are beyond
reasonable doubt. They require that the shadow of slavery shall no longer
darken the District of Columbia, and that the trader in human beings shall no
longer be permitted to shelter himself from the scorn of the Christian world
beneath the wings of the national capitol. They require that no new slave
state, with a constitution recognizing slavery, shall hereafter be admitted to
the Union, and that no existing state, whether Texas or Florida, shall be
dismembered to subserve the slave holding interest. They require that the
domestic, inter-state slave trade, a traffic in no respect less infamous than
that foreign slave trade which has been branded by the civilized world as
piracy, shall, under the clause in the
Constitution which gives power to Congress, "to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several states," be utterly and forever
prohibited. They require that the labor and interest of the free states should
be respected, and that slavery be no longer permitted to give character to our
legislation.
Let the people of
the free states come now to the rescue of freedom and the Constitution, and
something may be done to perpetuate the Union,—let them be found wanting in
this trial of their integrity, and let the South for a few years more continue
unchecked her schemes in behalf of slavery, and no human power can prevent a
dissolution. For the sake then of the Union, let the people of the free states
be careful to discern and perform on this subject the duties of patriotism and
humanity.
One other subject claims
attention. The present war with Mexico cannot be lost sight of in any
discussion of the public interest. Originating in the unauthorized and
iniquitous scheme of the annexation of Texas, it is now prosecuted without that
public necessity which can justify us on the page of impartial history, and
with no prospect of “conquering a peace," or effecting an honorable
reconciliation. It has become a war of conquest, and as such is in violation of
every principle of a popular government, as well as of every precept of
Christianity. It is adding immense territory to the southern portion of the
country, and is thus threatening to destroy the balance of the states, and to
consign the nation more hopelessly to the control of slaveholders. It is waged
against a neighboring nation, a younger republic, which for years, in weakness
and distraction, endeavored to follow the example of our prospering nation; and
as such, the war is disgraceful and mean. It is carried on at the expense of
the blood of brave men, whose valor is worthy of a better cause, and has
already exhausted the treasury of the country, and involved the nation in a
heavy debt. Under these circumstances there can be no doubt that the honor and
best interests of the country demand a speedy end of the contest, and that all
matters in dispute be settled by arbitration or negotiation.
I have thus spoken
briefly of some of the topics suggested by your resolutions. It remains for me
simply to acknowledge my deep sense of the honor which your nomination has
conferred upon me. If it is thought that my acceptance of this nomination can
subserve the interests of the cause in which we are engaged, I shall not feel
at liberty to shrink from the position in which you have placed me; but shall
remain,
EXETER, SEPT. 28,
1853.
We deem it advisable
to hold an informal meeting composed of some of the principal members of the
parties at this place on the 12th of October (Wednesday), at Major Blake's
Hotel. One of the principal objects of this informal meeting is to fix on a
plan of harmonizing the different party organizations, whereby a more united co-operation
can be secured, and the four parties may pull together under one title of
organization. Hale, McFarland and Fogg will be present. We shall expect you and
Currier, of Auburn, to be present.
