General William T. Sherman to Senator John Sherman, April 13, 1886

ST. LOUIS, April 13, 1886.

Dear Brother: Your letter was duly received, and the quotation from Corwin's speech will be all I want. I remember the fact that when General Taylor's army marched from Corpus Christi, Texas, to Matamoras, it was generally noted that what few people were encountered south of the Nueces were all Mexicans. Their (Mexican) maps made Texas cease at that line, and our only title to that part of the country was Texas' claim to the Rio Grande as the boundary, so that the army officers, notably General Taylor, always ridiculed the action of the President and Congress—“whereas American blood has been shed on American soil," etc., etc.

Nevertheless war did exist and did continue till we had acquired California, New Mexico, etc. Our payment to Mexico of $15,000,000 at the end of the war was an act of generosity, and made our title one of purchase rather than conquest. Mexico never could have developed California as we did, and without California we could not have filled up the intervening space. . . .

Affectionately,

W. T. SHERMAN.

SOURCE: Rachel Sherman Thorndike, Editor, The Sherman Letters: Correspondence Between General and Senator Sherman from 1837 to 1891, p. 372

James K. Polk* to Jefferson Davis, May 19, 1847

(From Vicksburg Weekly Whig, October 20, 1847.)

Washington City, May 19, 1847.

My Dear Sir:—The Secretary of War will transmit to you, a commission as Brigadier General of the United States Army. The Brigade which you will command, will consist of volunteers called out to serve during the war with Mexico. It gives me sincere pleasure to confer this important command upon you. Your distinguished gallantry and military skill while leading the noble regiment under your command, and especially in the battles of Monterey and Buena Vista, eminently entitle you to it. I hope that the severe wound which you received at the latter place, may soon be healed, and that your country may have the benefit of your valuable services, at the head of your new command.

I am very faithfully, your friend,

JAMES K. POLK.

To Brigadier-General Jefferson Davis, U. S. Army, in Mexico.

_______________

*Polk, James Knox (1795-1849), eleventh President of the United States, was born in Mecklenburg county, North Carolina, November 2, 1795, graduated from the University of North Carolina in 1818, removed to Tennessee, studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1820, and began practice in Columbia, Tenn. He served in the Tennessee House of Representatives 1823-1825; was a member of the national House of Representatives, 1825-1839; Speaker, 1835-1839; and Governor of Tennessee 1839-1841. He was President of the United States, 1845-1849. During his administration the annexation of Texas (1845) involved the country in aggressive war against Mexico (May, 1846-September, 1847) which resulted in the acquisition of California and other cessions from Mexico. A dispute with the British government about the boundary of Oregon was settled by the Treaty with Great Britain signed June 15, 1846. President Polk retired from office in March, and died at Nashville, Tenn., June 15, 1849.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 73

Senator Daniel S. Dickinson to Henry Orr, September 13, 1853

BINGHAMTON, N. Y., September 13, 1853.

MY DEAR SIR—I have this moment received your favor of the 10th, calling my attention to a communication in the Washington Union, charging me in substance with having favored and advocated the Wilmot Proviso in the Senate of the United States, in 1847, and presenting partial extracts of a speech I then made to prove it.

The "free-soil" journals of this State have recently made a similar discovery, probably aided by similar optics; but as these journals, because of this very speech, and the vote thereon, honored me with the distinction of stereotyping my name enclosed in black lines, at the head of their columns for months, and recommended that I be burned in effigy, and treated with personal indignities and violence, it gave me little concern to see them endeavoring to divert attention from their own position by assaulting me in an opposite direction. Nor, since the Washington Union has furnished its contribution, should I have thought the matter worth my notice. Those who are pursuing me in my retirement, whether as open and manly opponents or otherwise, have their service to perform and their parts assigned them, and I have no more disposition to disturb their vocation than I have to inquire as to the nature and amount of their wages, or question the manner in which they execute their work.

I was honored with a seat in the Senate of this State four years, and there introduced resolutions upon the subject of slavery, and spoke and voted thereon; was President of the same body two years, and was seven years a Senator in Congress—from the annexation of Texas until after the passage of the compromise measures. I have, too, for the last twenty years, often been a member of conventions—county, State and national; have presented resolutions, made speeches and proposed addresses; and if, in my whole political course, a speech, vote, or resolution can be found favoring the heresy of "freesoil," I will consent to occupy a position in the public judgment as degraded as the most malevolent of that faction, or its most convenient accomplice.

Near the close of the session of 1847, I returned to my seat in the Senate from a most painful and distressing domestic affliction, and found the Three Million bill under discussion, during which the Wilmot Proviso (so called) was offered, and my colleague, General Dix, presented resolutions from our Legislature, passed with great unanimity, instructing us to vote in favor of the proviso. General Dix advocated the adoption of the proviso, and voted for it. I spoke against its adoption and voted against it, and, in so doing, aroused against me free-soil and abolition malignity throughout the country.

The main subject under discussion was the propriety of placing a fund of three millions in the hands of the President for the purpose of negotiating a treaty of peace with Mexico by the purchase of territory. The proviso was an incidental question, and treated accordingly. Neither my frame of mind nor the exigencies of the occasion afforded me an adequate opportunity to consider or discuss the question; but the whole drift and spirit of what I did say upon the subject, although imperfectly reported, was against all slavery agitation, as will be seen by the following extracts:

“As though it were not enough to legislate for the government of such territory as may be procured under and by virtue of this appropriation, if any shall be made—which of course rests in uncertainty—this amendment, forsooth, provides for the domestic regulation of ‘any territory on the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired by or annexed to the United States, or in any other manner whatever.’ And thus this wholesome and pacific measure must be subjected to delay and the hazards of defeat, the war must be prosecuted afresh with all its engines of destruction, or abandoned by a craven and disgraceful retreat; one campaign after another be lost, while the wily and treacherous foe and his natural ally, the vomito, are preying upon the brave hearts of our patriotic soldiery; that we may legislate, not merely for the domestic government of Mexican territory in the expectation that we may hereafter obtain it, but that we may erect barriers to prevent the sugar manufacturer and cotton planter of the South from extending his plantation and his slavery towards the polar regions.

 

“If, then, the popular judgment shall commend that pioneer benevolence, which seeks to provide for the government of territory which, though its acquisition yet ‘sleeps in the wide abyss of possibility,’ may be acquired by this proposed negotiation; if the appropriation shall be made and a negotiation opened, and the President shall propose to accept for indemnity, and the Mexican government to cede a portion of territory, and terms shall be stipulated and a treaty be made between the two governments and ratified by both; and the territory be organized by the legislation of Congress; what adequate encomiums shall be lavished upon that more comprehensive philanthropy and profound statesmanship, which, in a bill designed to terminate a bloody and protracted war, raging in the heart of an enemy's country, casts into this discussion this apple of domestic discord under the pretence of extending the benevolent ægis of freedom over any territory which may at any time or in any manner, or upon any part of the continent, be acquired by the United States? It is no justification for the introduction of this element of strife and controversy at this time and upon this occasion, that it is abstractly just and proper, and that the Southern States should take no exception to its provisions. All knew the smouldering materials which the introduction of this topic would ignite—the sectional strife and local bitterness which would follow in its train; all had seen and read its fatal history at the last session, and knew too well what controversies, delays, and vexations must hang over it—what crimination and recrimination would attend upon its toilsome and precarious progress, and what hazard would wait upon the result—how it would array man against man, State against State, section against section, the South against the North, and the North against the South—and what must be, not only its effects and positive mischiefs, but how its disorganizing and pernicious influences must be extended to other measures necessary to sustain the arm of government.

 

“This bill not only suffered defeat at the last session, but has been subjected to the delays, hazards, and buffetings of this, by reason of this misplaced proviso. Upon it the very antipodes of agitation have met and mingled their discordant influences. This proviso, pretending to circumscribe the limits of slavery, is made the occasion for the presentation of declaratory resolves in its favor, and the bill becomes, as if by mutual appointment, the common battle ground of abstract antagonisms; each theoretic agitation is indebted to the other for existence, and each subsists alone upon the aliment provided ready to its hand by its hostile purveyor. The votaries of opposing systems seem to have drawn hither to kindle their respective altar-fires, and to vie with each other in their efforts to determine who shall cause the smoke of their incense to ascend the highest. Both are assailing the same edifice from different angles, and for alleged opposing reasons— both declare that their support of the bill depends upon the contingency of the amendment, and the efforts of both unite in a common result, and that is, procrastination and the hazard of defeat. The common enemy is overlooked and almost forgotten, that we may glare upon each other over a side issue and revive the slumbering elements of controversy, in proposing to prescribe domestic regulations for the government of territory which we have some expectation we may hereafter, possibly, acquire. This exciting and troublesome question has no necessary connection with this bill, and if, indeed, it can ever have any practical operation whatever, it would certainly be equally operative if passed separately.         *          *          *          *          *          *

 

“But suppose we do not, after all, as we well may not, obtain by negotiations any part of Mexican territory, what a sublime spectacle of legislation will a clause like this present to the world? It will stand upon the pages of the statute as an act of the American Congress designed to regulate the government of Mexican territory, but whose operation was suspended by the interposition of the Mexican veto; a chapter in our history to be employed by our enemies as evidence of rapacity, of weakness, and depraved morals; a target for the jeers and scoffs of the kingly governments of the earth, for the derision of Mexico herself, and the general contempt of mankind—a lapsed legacy to the memory of misplaced benevolence and abortive legislation.

 

“And what is more humiliating is, that the enemies of popular freedom throughout the world are scowling with malignant gratification to see this great nation unable to prosecute a war against a crippled and comparatively feeble enemy, without placing in the foreground of its measures this pregnant element of controversy, which the world sees and knows is the canker which gnaws at the root of our domestic peace; and when it is known that from this cause, especially, we have practically proved our inability to unite in the prosecution of a war, or to provide measures to establish peace, we shall be regarded as a fit object for contumely, and be laughed to scorn by the despicable government with which we are at strife, and which we have hesitated to strike because of her weakness and imbecility."

That part of the speech which, with more ingenuity than candor, has been clipped out to suit the necessities of my accusers and convict me of “free soil” sentiments, was my explanation of the general sentiment of the Northern people, in reply to a suggestion that all must be abolitionists, because the legislature instructed upon all questions relating to slavery with great unanimity. The following is the extract:

“So far as I am advised or believe, the great mass of the people at the North entertain but one opinion upon the subject, and that is the same entertained by many at the South. They regard the institution as a great moral and political evil, and would that it had no existence. They are not unaware of the difficulties which beset it, and do not intend to provoke sectional jealousies and hatred by ill-timed and misplaced discussions. They will not listen to the cry of the fanatic, or favor the design of the political schemer from the North or the South; nor will they ever disturb or trench upon the compromises of the constitution. They believe the institution to be local or domestic: to be established or abolished by the States themselves, and alone subject to their control; and that federal legislation can have very little influence over it. But being thus the institution of a local sovereignty, and a franchise peculiar to itself, they deny that such sovereignty or its people can justly claim the right to regard it as transitory and erect it in the Territories of the United States without the authority of Congress, and they believe that Congress may prohibit its introduction into the Territories while they remain such,” &c.

The legislative instructions were nearly unanimous, and the popular sentiment of the State was equally harmonious. Being a believer in and advocate for the doctrine of instruction (which up to that time had been only employed to uphold the principles of the constitution), and being anxious to represent and reflect, wherever I could, the true sentiment of my State, I indicated my willingness on a future and suitable occasion to vote as the legislature had instructed, without any repetition of its direction; but subsequent events and developments and further reflection admonished me, that I should best discharge my duty to the constitution and the Union by disregarding such instructions altogether; and although they were often afterwards repeated, and popular indignities threatened, I disregarded them accordingly.

And now, my dear sir, I leave this matter where, but for your kind letter, I should have permitted it to repose-upon the judgment of a people who have not yet forgotten, nor will they soon forget, who sustained and who assailed their country's constitution in the moment of its severest trial, the perversions of necessitous politicians to the contrary not withstanding. But it was perhaps due to confiding friends, that the sinister misrepresentation should be corrected; and I thank you for the attention which enabled me to do it.

Sincerely yours,

D. S. DICKINSON.

TO HENRY E. ORR, Esq., Washington, D. C.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 476-81

Jefferson Davis’ Remarks on the Bill Making Alterations in the Pay Department of the Army, May 30, 1846.

Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS said there were two positions taken in relation to the bill which he thought incorrect: first, that it became necessary from the war existing with Mexico; second, that it was designed to relieve the paymasters from oppressive duty. By referring to the report of the Paymaster General, which accompanied the President's Message at the commencement of this session of Congress, it will be found, that before this war commenced, and in reference to the then condition of the army, an increase of the paymasters was desired; and in the close of his report a convincing statement was made for the necessity of an Assistant Paymaster General—not, as has been assumed, to reside here, but to superintend payments in the military district of the Southwest; and this was enforced by the fact that he was then compelled to station a senior paymaster at headquarters of the army in Texas to discharge the duties of assistant to the Paymaster General. Sir, it is not to relieve the paymasters from fatigue, but to insure prompt and regular payments to the troops, that this increase was asked. If the number of paymasters be half of those required to make payments to the army at the regular periods, which is every two months, it follows that the payments will be delayed, and occur every four or every six months. The hardship would fall entirely on the troops to be paid, not on the disbursing officers who pay them. And as to the amount of service which the paymasters can be required to perform without destroying the efficiency of the department, I think gentlemen should allow the Paymaster General to be a better judge than ourselves. But to aid us in a conclusion, he has given the fact, that to pay at all the posts and arsenals as often as the law requires, would require travelling to exceed 100,000 miles per annum. This referred entirely to the state of things as they existed prior to a war with Mexico.

The second section of the bill changes the tenure, which is now an anomaly in the service, either land or naval. Quartermasters, commissaries, officers of the engineer department engaged in the construction of works, are charged with disbursements which cannot be so closely supervised as those of the pay department. It is the same case with pursers in the navy, yet all these hold their offices during the pleasure of the President; which, by practice, is considered equal to during good behavior.

This bill seeks to place paymasters on the same footing with other disbursing officers of the army; and I see no reason why they should be made an exception to the rule. Their attendance upon a marching army requires that their commissions should not expire during a campaign, as much as that a purser's commission should not expire on a voyage; and the tenure of their office should be fixed in reference to this, perhaps the most important, portion of their duties. The proposed change of tenure could not impair their efficiency or weaken their responsibility under ordinary circumstances, whilst it would adapt them to the extraordinary condition of war. The liability of all disbursing officers of the army to be removed by the President is constant; it is expected to follow immediately on a failure quarterly to account for funds placed in their hands, and with the amendments to require new bonds every four years, the present bill seems very free from well-founded objections.

The gentleman from South Carolina has so ably covered the whole ground that it is unnecessary to go further into it.

Mr. D. referred to remarks made yesterday by Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, which were particularly directed against himself. He said, among those to whom he had been long known no explanation could be necessary; but here, having been misunderstood, it seemed to be called for.

Once for all, then, he would say, that if he knew himself, he was incapable of wantonly wounding the feelings, or of making invidious reflections upon the origin or occupation of any man. He had, two days since, in a reply to the gentleman from Ohio, endeavored to correct this misunderstanding; it seemed, however, he had not succeeded. That gentleman [Mr. SAWYER] had, on a previous occasion, expressed his want of confidence in those officers of our army who had been cadets, and said, for the defence of the country we must look to the farmers and mechanics.

Mr. D. said, in answering that position he had referred to the service lately rendered by our army on the Rio Grande had pointed out the results of skill and military science, and asked if such achievements could have been expected from men who had not the advantage of a military education.

He named two of the trades of civil life, not because they were less useful or honorable than others, not that either one or the other could disqualify a man from acquiring the other. On a former occasion, and for a similar purpose, he had made an extended allusion to many trades and professions, to all he had not thought it necessary again to refer. His opinion, in all its bearings, was no more than this, that war, like other knowledge, must be acquired. A military education did not qualify for the civil pursuits of life, nor did preparation for any of the civil pursuits, in itself, qualify for the duties of a soldier.

Was it necessary for him to say that a citizen might acquire the knowledge of arms, might become a distinguished soldier? Surely no one can deny it. He referred to the commander-in-chief of our army in terms of high commendation as a scientific soldier; said he had once been a lawyer, but had ceased to be so, and his military fame since he had become a soldier had almost swallowed up the remembrance of his earlier profession.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 50-2

Jefferson Davis to the People of Mississippi, July 13, 1846

(From Vicksburg Sentinel, July 21, 1846.)

Fellow Citizens: I address you to explain the cause of my present absence from the seat of the federal government.

Those of our fellow-citizens who, in answer to a call of the President, had volunteered to serve the U. S. in the existing war with Mexico, have elected me for their Colonel, and the Governor has furnished to me a commission, in accordance with that election. Having received a military education and served a number of years in the line of the army, I felt that my services were due to the country, and believed my experience might be available in promoting the comfort, the safety and efficiency of the Mississippi Regiment in the campaign on which they were about to enter. Such considerations, united to the desire common to our people to engage in the military service of the country, decided me unhesitatingly to accept the command which was offered. The regiment was organized and waiting to be mustered into service preparatory to a departure for the army of operation. Under such circumstances, I could not delay until the close of the Congressional session, though then so proximate that it must occur before a successor could be chosen and reach the city of Washington.

It was my good fortune to see in none of the measures likely to be acted on at this session such hazard as would render a single vote important, except the bill to regulate anew the duties upon imports. The vote on this was to occur very soon (in two days) after the receipt of my commission as Colonel, and I have the satisfaction to announce to you that it passed the House the evening before I left Washington; and I entertain no doubt of its passing through the Senate and becoming the law of the land. An analysis of the votes upon this bill will show that its main support was derived from the agricultural and exporting States. To these in a pecuniary view it was the measure of highest importance. But whilst I rejoice in it for such considerations, because tending to advance the great staple interest of our State, and thus to promote the prosperity of all industry among us, I am not less gratified at it as a measure of political reform. In adopting the ad valorem rule and restricting its operation to the revenue limit, the great principle of taxing in proportion to the benefits conferred is more nearly approximated, and the power to lay duties is directed to the purpose of raising money, for which alone it was conferred in the constitution of our confederacy. Thus it was exercised by the fathers of our Republic in the first tariff enacted under the federal constitution; when for the benefit it would confer upon American producers and manufacturers they chose to raise revenue by imposts rather than direct taxation. Since then, as in the bill of 1842, (to be substituted by that lately passed through the House of Representatives,) the collection of revenue has been the subordinate; the benefit to particular classes, the main object of duties. And the extent to which this was pursued was concealed by specific duties and minima valuations-rendering the law unintelligible on its face, and in many cases wholly prohibitory in its operation-destroying revenue but leaving taxation. A tariff "for protection" must discriminate against the necessaries of life to favor manufactures in a rude or "infant" state; a tariff for revenue may, and generally would, impose its highest duties upon luxuries, for reasons so just and equalizing in their practical effects, that one could have no inducement to conceal the policy or shrink from its avowal.

Commercial changes and the wants or superfluities of the treasury must require occasional modifications in the rates of duties upon imports; but a salutary check is held by the people so long as all modifications are made by changing the rate per cent. on enumerated articles, by which it is seen at once what tax is imposed upon consumption, and whether or not the limit of revenue is passed.

I trust we shall never again witness the spectacle, so revolting to every idea of self government, of a law in which, by specific duties and minima valuations, the purpose and effect is as absolutely concealed as in the edicts of the ancient tyrant, which were written in a hand so small and hung so high as to be illegible to those upon whom they were to operate.

During this session, as your Representative, I have acted upon all measures as seemed to me best to accord with the principles upon which I was elected, and most likely to correspond with the wishes and interests of the people of Mississippi. Thus my support was given to the law for the separation of the fiscal affairs of the general government from all connection with banks. The bill passed by the House of Representatives will, it is confidently expected, pass the Senate of the United States probably with an amendment extending the time at which it is to go into full effect. This is supposed to be necessary to prevent an injurious revulsion in the trade of the country, consequent upon the sudden contraction of the discounts of those banks, which have extended their accomodations upon the government deposits. Evils however positive, cannot always be immediately abated; and in this extension of the time it is only designed to make a temporary concession of policy, that by an easy, gradual change the prosperity of trade may be secured and monetary derangement be avoided. These two, the "tariff" and "Independent Treasury," are the measures which seem to me most deeply to involve the interests of Mississippi. Without mountain slopes, and mountain streams to furnish water power; without coal mines permanently to supply large amounts of cheap fuel at any locality, we cannot expect, in competition with those who enjoy either or both of these advantages, ever to become a manufacturing people. We must continue to rely, as at present, almost entirely upon our exports; and it requires no argument, under such circumstances, to maintain the position that the interest of our State will be most advanced by freeing commerce from all unnecessary burthens, and by measuring the value of our purchases by the standard used in our sales-the currency of the world.

By the active exertion of our Senator Speight, a bill was passed through the Senate, granting to the State of Mississippi alternate sections of land to aid in the construction of the proposed Mississippi and Alabama rail road. It is scarcely to be hoped that the House will act upon this measure at the present session, but placed upon the calendar of unfinished business, I think it will become a law at the next session of this Congress. I have also hoped that at the same session, a law would be passed to enable the Postmaster General to make contracts for a long term of years with rail roads under construction, by which the government would be secured from the exorbitant charges monopolies have it in their power to impose, and such certainty conferred upon the value of rail road stock as would greatly aid in the completion of an entire chain of railways from the Mississippi at Vicksburg to the Atlantic, and to the metropolis of our Union—a chain like a system of nerves to couple our remote members of the body politic to the centre of the Union, and rapidly to transmit sensation from one to the other; or like great sinews, uniting into concentrated action the power of the right hand and the left-the valley of the Mississippi and the coast of the Atlantic—when ever the necessities of one or the other shall require the action of both.

Much has been done during the past winter to adjust suspended and conflicting claims to land purchased from the U. S., and it is to be hoped that the action of this Congress will relieve our people from the uncertainty and harassing delays under which so many of them have labored for years past.

The bill to graduate and reduce the price of the public lands, will no doubt become a law; and we may expect from it an important increase to our population and State wealth; such as has been the result in the northern portion of our State, where under the Chickasaw treaty, a graduation system has been in operation, it is to be supposed, will be the result of a similar graduation in those districts where the public land has remained long unsold. The coast survey, now in progress along the Gulf of Mexico, cannot fail to have an important influence upon that portion of our State which borders on the Gulf, by giving correct charts of the channels and points of entrance safe for coasting vessels. Beyond this, I anticipate that the survey will establish as a fact that the best point west of Cape Florida for a navy yard to repair or construct vessels of the largest class, is the Harbor of Ship Island; and further, that it will lead to the speedy establishment of the necessary lights along the Coast and upon its adjacent Islands. The difficulty of obtaining appropriations for these has heretofore been greatly increased by the want of official information. The Legislature of our State memorialized Congress upon the propriety of re-opening the Pass Manchac. I was fully impressed with the propriety of the claim. Under more favorable circumstances, an appropriation for the purpose might have been obtained; and I yet hope that we shall get a survey and report for the contemplated work, in time for action at the next session of this Congress.

Since I took a seat as your Representative in Congress, the country has been disturbed; its political elements agitated and thrown into confusion; its peace with England seriously endangered by a question of boundary in what is known as the Oregon Territory. We have now satisfactory reason to believe that this question is amicably adjusted. The exact terms of the agreement have not transpired; but in general language it may be stated as settled on the basis of the 49th parallel of north latitude, with a temporary permission to the Hudson's Bay Company to navigate the Columbia River. That there should have been a desire among our people generally to hold the whole Territory was but natural, and this not merely from a wish to extend our territory, but also from a more creditable desire to reserve as far as we might, the North American Continent for republican institutions. As few will contend that this desire would have justified our Government in waging a war for territorial acquisition, the question was narrowed down to this: how far our rights clearly defined, and how shall we best secure what is clearly our own, and upon what terms shall we compromise for what is disputable? There were some who claimed for the parallel of 54° 40′ N. L. a talismanic merit-that it was the line to which patriotism required us to go, and short of which it was treasonable to stop. This opinion could only rest on the supposition that by purchase from Spain we acquired a perfect title. But this was to assume too much. The assumption carried with it the element of its own destruction. The Spanish claim extended as far as the 61st degree. If the boundary had been well defined, and the title perfect, then there was no power in our Government to surrender any part of it, and the Convention with Russia is void. But if, as must be generally admitted, the line of 54° 40′ was a compromise with Russia growing out of the fact that our title was imperfect and the boundary unsettled, then was 54° 40′ merely a line of expediency, as any other parallel would have been-good only as against Russia, and subject on the same principle to further adjustment with the other claimant in that territory.

The history of our past negotiations with Great Britain in relation to that territory gave little foundation for the expectation that we could get amicably, the whole country we have now secured south of the 49th parallel of latitude; and if the information I have derived from the officers who have explored different portions of that country be correct, a few years will satisfy our people that we have obtained nearly all which would have been valuable to us-a territory extending further north than the most northern point ever occupied by any portion of our people, and if the term "Oregon Territory" was properly applicable to the valley of the Columbia, or Oregon River, a territory far more valuable than could be claimed in the valley drained by that stream and all its tributaries.

In the south we had another question of boundary unsettled; and though all proper efforts were made to adjust it amicably, they proved abortive. The minister sent to Mexico under a previous understanding that diplomatic relations should be renewed, and invested with full powers to treat of all questions in dispute, was rejected, without even being allowed to present his credentials. It could not be permitted to our rival claimant thus to decide the question, and though the insult would have justified an immediate declaration of war, in spirit of forbearance, the administration refrained from recommending this measure, and merely moved forward our troops to take possession of the entire territory claimed as our own, when there was no longer a prospect of adjustment by negotiation. This led to such hostilities as rendered it necessary to recognize the existence of war. Our government made the declaration in the mode provided by the constitution; and proceeded steadily to supply the means for a vigorous prosecution of the war into which we have been so unexpectedly drawn. In this connection it is worthy of remark that before a declaration was made on our part, the President of Mexico had made a similar declaration, and the appointments of the Mexican army which crossed the Rio Grande to attack the forces of General Taylor clearly show that it had advanced on that frontier for the purpose of invading the State of Texas.

The zeal shown in every quarter of the Union to engage in the service of our common country—the masses who have voluntarily come forward in numbers far exceeding the necessities of the occasion-attest the military strength of our Republic, and furnish just cause for patriotic pride and gratulation. I regret the disappointment felt by so many of my fellow-citizens of Mississippi at not being called into service; and I have not failed to present the case fully to the Executive of the U. S. Your patriotic anxiety is well appreciated; nor is the propriety of your conduct in waiting until regularly called for, forgotten; and if the war should continue, as further supplies of troops be required, there is no doubt but that our State will be among the first looked to for new levies.

There are several subjects connected with the local interests of Mississippi upon which it would have been agreeable to me to have said something, but the great length to which this letter is already extended, induces me with a few remarks bearing more particularly upon myself, to terminate it.

Unless the government of Mexico shall very soon take such steps as to give full assurance of a speedy peace, so that I may resume my duties as your Representative at the beginning of the next session of Congress, my resignation will be offered at an early day, that full time may be allowed to select a successor. Grateful to the people for their confidence and honor bestowed upon me, I have labored as their representative industriously. Elected on avowed and established principles, the cardinal points to guide my course were always before me. How well that course has accorded with your wishes; how far it is improved by your judgment, it is not for me to anticipate; but I confidently rely on your generous allowance to give credit to my motives, and for the rest, as becomes a representative, I will cheerfully submit to your decision.

JEFF'N DAVIS.

        Steamer Star Spangled Banner,
Mississippi River, July 13, 1846.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 52-8

Congressman Albert G. Brown to His Constituents, May 13, 1850

FELLOW-CITIZENS: I feel impelled, by a strong sense of duty, to address to you this communication. If it shall seem to you more appropriate that I should have delivered the sentiments which follow, in the form of a speech in the House of Representatives, I reply, that the difficulty of obtaining the floor interposes at all times serious obstacles to that mode of address. At this period of excitement, when events of the greatest consequence are pursuing each other in rapid succession, it appears to me neither wise nor safe to risk the doubtful chances of an early opportunity of addressing you through the ordinary medium of a congressional speech.

Events of the utmost magnitude are transpiring at the seat of the national government. In these events you have a deep interest, and I would not leave you a single day in ignorance of my views, or in doubt as to the manner in which I mean to discharge the high and important trusts which your partiality has devolved upon me.

It is well known to you, that the people in California, following the lead of General Riley, an officer of the United States army stationed in that country, took upon themselves, during the last summer, the responsible task of forming a state constitution, and setting up a state government in that territory.

This proceeding has been extensively criticised, and very generally condemned, as altogether anomalous and irregular. It is no part of my present purpose to follow up these criticisms. That the whole proceeding was irregular and in total disregard of the rights of the South, is beyond dispute. That it was basely fraudulent, I have ever believed, and do now believe. That the people in that country were prompted to the course pursued by them, by the secret spies and agents sent out from Washington, I have never doubted for a single moment. That they were induced to insert the "Wilmot proviso," in their so-called state constitution, by assurances held out to them that such a course would facilitate their admission into the Union of these states, I as religiously believe as I do in the existence of an overruling Providence.

Pursuing the idea that there had been illegitimate influences at work to produce particular results in California, I on two several occasions introduced into the House of Representatives resolutions directing a searching inquiry into all the facts. But the dominant power would give no countenance to my object.

I have seen it stated in a letter written in California, and published in the Republic newspaper in this city, "that it was everywhere understood in that country, that the President desired the people of California to settle the slavery question for themselves." I endeavored to bring the public mind to bear on this point, and in a card published in the Republic, I inquired "how it came to be everywhere thus understood?" but no response was ever made to the inquiry. The semi-official declaration, however, quickened my suspicions that some one had spoken as by authority for the President.

Thomas Butler King, Esq., one of the President's agents in California, has repeatedly declared that the California Convention was held under the sanction of President Polk and Secretaries Buchanan and Marcy; and that it was to these functionaries General Riley made allusion when he said to the people in that country that he was acting in compliance with the views of the President, and the Secretaries of War and of State. Mr. Polk is dead, and the two ex-secretaries positively deny the truth of Mr. King's declaration.

If General Riley stated officially to the people of California, on the 3d of June, 1849, the date of his proclamation, that THE President, THE Secretary of War, and THE Secretary of State approved his conduct meaning thereby Mr. Polk, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Marcy—it was a fraud upon the people of California. The statement could only have been made with a view to give the highest official sanction to his conduct, and he knew perfectly well that all three of the gentlemen alluded to, were private citizens at the date of his proclamation. When he said THE President, he meant to give the weight of presidential influence to his acts. He meant that the people should understand him as alluding to the man in power, and not to a retired gentleman and private citizen.

Mr. King undertakes to prove that he is right in his declaration, and asserts that the steamer which carried him to California was the first arrival in that country after General Taylor's inauguration, and "that she conveyed the first intelligence that Congress had failed to provide a government for that territory;" and by way of giving point to his declaration in this respect, he asserts that he landed for the first time at San Francisco, on the 4th day of June; that General Riley was then at Monterey, distant about one hundred and fifty miles, and that he (Mr. King) did not see him (Riley), or have any communication with him; and that the proclamation, calling the California Convention, bore date June 3d, 1849. Thus rendering it impossible, as he assumed, that said proclamation could have been based on information received from the present President and his Secretaries, through his (Mr. King's) arrival. Unfortunately for the accuracy of these statements and the legitimacy of the conclusions, General Riley commences his proclamation with the emphatic declaration "that Congress had failed to provide a government for California;" and the inquiry at once arises, how, if Mr. King landed at San Francisco on the 4th of June, 1849, with the first intelligence of this failure on the part of Congress, could General Riley have known and proclaimed the important fact at Monterey, distant one hundred and fifty miles, on the 3d of June of that year? We see at once that it could not be so.

President Polk and his cabinet could not have sent advice to California of this failure on the part of Congress; for it is historically true that the failure occurred in the very last hour of Mr. Polk's administration.

Through some channel General Riley was advised that Congress had failed to provide a government for California, and this after President Taylor came into power. I do not say that Mr. King was this channel, but I do say that from the same medium through which he derived the information that Congress had failed to provide a government, he may, and probably did, receive also the views of the President and his cabinet, and hence he was enabled to speak as he did with positive certainty of the one and of the other.

"You are fully possessed," says the Secretary of State, Mr. Clayton, to Mr. King, in a letter bearing date of April 3, 1849, “You are fully possessed of the President's views, and can with propriety suggest to the people of California the ADOPTION of measures best calculated to give them effect. These measures must, of course, originate solely with themselves." Mr. King, then, was informed that he could with propriety suggest the adoption of measures to carry out the President's views, he having been fully possessed of those views. But these measures must originate with the people! Beautiful! Mr. King is sent to California to suggest to the people the adoption of measures to carry out the President's views, but these measures must ORIGINATE with the people! And more beautiful still, Mr. King comes home, after disburdening himself of the views whereof he was "fully possessed," and gravely tells the country he did not go to California on a political mission, and had nothing to do with the local affairs of that country; and this, too, after he was denounced in the convention as the President's emissary. I suspect Mr. King could tell how it came to be "everywhere understood in California that the President wanted the people to settle the   question for themselves."

I have thought proper to present these facts and deductions, for the purpose of showing you that mine are no idle suspicions. When I say that, in my opinion, a great fraud has been perpetrated, I want you to understand that there is some foundation for my opinion.

The action of Congress, I am free to admit, may have had much to do in fixing the sentiment in the mind of the President and of the Californians, that no territorial government would be allowed which did not contain the Wilmot proviso; and judging from the temper constantly displayed in urging this odious measure at all times and in all seasons, it was, I grant, a rational conclusion that no government asked for or established by the people would be tolerated unless slavery was prohibited; but was this a sufficient reason why the President or his agents, or even the people of California, should trample under foot the rights of the South? We had our rights in that country, and they ought to have been respected; I risk nothing in saying that they would have been, had we been the stronger party. Our fault consisted in our weakness, and for this we were sacrificed.

It is said, I know, that California is not suited to slave labor-that the soil, climate, the very elements themselves, are opposed to it. Slave labor is never more profitably employed than in mining; and you may judge whether slaves could be advantageously introduced into that country, when I inform you, on the authority of the debates of their convention, that an able-bodied negro is worth in California from two to six thousand dollars per annum.

I pass over the studied and systematic resistance which the California. admissionists have constantly and steadily interposed against all investigation, with this single remark—"that the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

Immediately after the assembling of the present Congress, it became apparent that the admission of California into the Union as a state was to become the great question of the session; and it was palpable from the beginning, that there was a large majority in favor of it. The President was not slow in taking his position. He brought the subject to the favorable notice of Congress in his annual message, and very soon after, in a special communication, he earnestly recommended it to our favorable consideration. The fearful odds of the President, the Cabinet, and a congressional majority, was arrayed against us; but, nothing daunted, a few of us, relying on the justice of our cause, and placing our trust in the intelligence, virtue, patriotism, and indomitable firmness and courage of our constituents, resolved to resist it.

To lay before you the grounds of that resistance, and to lay bare the sophistry and double-dealing of the friends of this measure, are among the chief aims of this letter.

A large class of those who advocate the immediate introduction of California into the Union, place their advocacy on the ground that the people have a right in all cases to govern themselves, and to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way. It becomes important to understand the meaning of declarations like these, and to ascertain the extent to which such doctrines may be rightfully extended.

I admit the right of self-government; I admit that every people may regulate their domestic affairs in their own way; I freely and fully admit the doctrine that a people finding themselves in a country without laws, may make laws for themselves, and to suit themselves. But in doing this they must take care not to infringe the rights of the owners and proprietors of the soil. If, for example, one hundred or one thousand American citizens should find themselves thrown on an island belonging to Great Britain, uninhabited and without laws, such citizens, from the very necessity of their position, would have a right to make laws for themselves. But in doing this, they would have no right to say to her Majesty's subjects in Scotland, you may come to this island with your property, and to her Irish subjects, you shall not come with your property. They would have no right to set the proprietors at defiance, or to make insulting discriminations between proprietors holding one species of property and those owning another species of property. No such power would be at all necessary to their self-government, and any attempt to exercise it would justly be regarded as an impertinent attempt to assume the supreme power, when in fact they were mere tenants at will.

If the people of California, who had been left, by the unwise and grossly unjust NON-ACTION of Congress, without law and without government, had confined themselves to making their own laws and regulating their own domestic affairs in their own way, I certainly never should have raised my voice against their acts. But when they go further, and assume the right to say what shall be the privileges of the owners and proprietors of the soil-when they take upon themselves to say to the fifteen Northern States, your citizens may come here with their property, and to the fifteen Southern States, your citizens shall not come here with their property, they assume, in my judgment, a power which does not belong to them, and perform an act to which the South, if she would maintain her rights, ought not to submit.

Attempts have been made to draw a parallel between the conduct of our revolutionary fathers, who claimed the right to legislate independent of the British crown, and that of the Californians, who have assumed to set up an independent government of their own. When our fathers set up an independent government, they called it revolution; and if the people in California set up a like government, I know of no reason why their conduct shall not in like manner be denominated revolutionary. Our fathers revolted and took the consequences; California has a right to do the same thing; but that she has any other than a revolutionary right, I utterly deny.

Very distinguished men have assumed the position, that the rights of sovereignty over the territory reside in the people of the territory, even during their territorial existence. Let us test the soundness of this theory by a few practical applications. The expression "the people of a territory" is one of very uncertain signification as to numbers. It may mean one hundred thousand, or it may mean one thousand or one hundred. The question naturally presents itself, when does this right of sovereignty commence? Is it with the first man who reaches the territory? May he prescribe rules and regulations for those who come after him? or must there be a thousand or fifty thousand, or a greater or a less number, before the rights of sovereignty attach?

Perhaps we are told that the sovereignty begins when the people assemble to make laws. Very well; let us put this theory into practical operation. Ten thousand French emigrants have settled, let us suppose, at the base of the Rocky Mountains, without the limits of any organized state or territory of the United States, and they are without government or laws. They make laws for themselves, and you acquiesce; they set up a government for themselves, and you admit their right; they claim the sovereignty over the territory and set up an independent state government, and you admit their power to do so. You expect them to ask admission into the Union, but the new sovereignty says no, we prefer independence, or we prefer to become an integral part of the French republic. What will you do under such circumstances? Can you force her to abandon her acknowledged independence? Can you force her into the Union against her will? What! require a sovereign to pursue your will and not her own? This would indeed be revolution.

If California is in fact, as she is admitted by some to be in theory, an independent sovereignty, I see nothing which is to prevent her remaining out of the Union if she elects to do so. I see nothing which may prevent her, if she chooses, allying herself to any other nation or country. I know of no right by which this government may take from her the independence, the sovereignty which she now possesses, if indeed she be a state without the Union.

The tenure by which we hold our territorial possession is indeed most fragile, if this doctrine of territorial sovereignty can be maintained. We may expend millions of treasure, and pour out rivers of our purest and best blood in the acquisition of territories, only to see them taken possession of, and ourselves turned out, by the first interloper who may chance to plant his foot upon them.

I am always glad of an opportunity to do the fullest justice to a political opponent, and in this spirit I beg leave to say, that, in my judgment, Mr. Clay, in a late speech in the Senate, took the true ground on this subject. He denied that California was a state, or that she could become so out of the Union. He maintained the right of the people to self-government, but denied the validity or binding force of their written constitution, until the state should be admitted into the Union. Will the reader recollect this, as I shall have occasion to use it in another connection.

Let us pause for a moment to consider the honesty and sincerity of purpose with which the lofty pretension has been set up in certain quarters, that the people have a right to regulate, arrange, and mould their institutions to suit themselves. In the early part of last year, the people inhabiting a large portion of our unoccupied possessions in what was then known as New Mexico and California, met in convention and framed a state constitution, giving the name of DESERET to their country. They defined their boundaries, and included within their limits a large extent of Pacific coast. Their constitution was in every element essentially republican. They sent their agent to Washington, with a modest request that the constitution thus formed should be accepted, and the state of Deseret admitted into the Union. How this application was treated we shall presently see. Later in the same year, the people of New Mexico formed a territorial government, and sent their delegate to Washington to present their wishes, and, if permitted, to represent their interests. In the summer of the same year, and several months after the Deseret convention, the Californians held their convention. They extended their boundaries so as to monopolize the whole Pacific coast, in total disregard of the prior action of Deseret. And then, in contempt of the modest example of her two neighbors, she sends, not an agent or a delegate to Washington, with a civil request, but she sends up two senators and two representatives, with a bold demand for instantaneous admission into the Union.

What followed? The President made two earnest appeals to Congress to admit California, and he told us plainly to leave the others to their fate. Not only does he fail to give them a friendly salutation, but he in truth turns from them in scorn. Not a word does he utter in their behalf, or in defence of their independent conduct. Their modesty failed to commend them to his paternal notice.

In Congress, and throughout the country, a general outcry is now heard in favor of California. Everywhere throughout the length and breadth of the land, the cry of California, glorious California, is heard. It comes to us from the east and from the west, from the north and (I am pained to say) in some instances from the south. If any man has dared to interpose the slightest objection to the immediate admission of California—if any one has hesitated about yielding to California all that she so boldly demands, he has been denounced, black-balled, hooted at, and almost driven from society. Meantime no voice has been heard in defence of the rights of New Mexico and Deseret. They, too, assume to settle their own affairs in their own way. Yet no whisper of encouragement and hope greets their modest agent and delegate at Washington. The great national voice is engaged to sing and shout for California. Why has this been so? Why this marked distinction between these several parties? The people, we are told, have a right to act for themselves. California acted for herself, Deseret for herself, and New Mexico for herself; and yet, amid the din and clamor in favor of California, we have lost sight of her more retiring and modest sisters. Why is this? I'll tell you, fellow-citizens. Deseret and New Mexico did not insult the South by excluding slavery. With a becoming modesty they were silent on this subject. California, influenced by unwise counsels, flung defiance in your teeth, scoffed at your rights, and boldly threw herself into the arms of the North. Here is the secret of all this boiling and bubbling in favor of California, and here, too, may be found the end of the great doctrine that the people may settle the slavery question for themselves. If they settle it against the South it is well, and if they do not it is no settlement at all.

Ah! but we are told there is a vast difference between these territories; New Mexico and Utah have but few inhabitants, and California has many thousand—some say one hundred thousand and some say two hundred thousand. I do not understand that because a people are fewer in number, that therefore they have no political rights, whilst a greater number may have every right. But how stands the case in regard to these hundreds of thousands of people in California? We all know that the emigration to that country has been confined to hardy male adults, robust men. In most cases their families and friends have been left in the states, to which, in four cases out of five, they themselves have intended to return. At the elections last summer they voted about twelve thousand, and later in the fall, on the important question of adopting a state constitution, with the ballot box wide open and free for every vote, they polled less than thirteen thousand. I should like to know where the balance of this two hundred thousand were. At least one hundred and fifty thousand of them, I suspect, were never in the country, and the rest regarded the whole thing as a ridiculous farce, with which they had nothing to do. And this is the state and these the people who have excluded slavery, and sent two senators and two representatives to Washington.

You will have no difficulty in determining in your own minds that I am opposed to allowing the people of the territories to settle this question, either for us or against us. It is a matter with which they have no concern. The states are equals and have equal rights, and whatever tends to impair or break down that equality, always has and always shall encounter my stern and inflexible opposition.

My position in reference to congressional action on this subject is easily explained. I am for non-intervention—total, entire, unqualified non-intervention. Leave the people of all the states free to go with their property of whatever kind, to the territories, without let and without hindrance, and I am satisfied. But this I must say, that whenever Congress undertakes to give protection to property in the territories, on the high seas, or anywhere else, there must be no insulting discrimination between slave property and any other species of property. To say that Congress may protect the northern man's goods in California, but that Congress shall not protect the southern man's slaves, is intervention. It is intervening for the worst ends, and in the most insulting

manner.

We have been told, fellow-citizens, that we once said the people of a territory, when they come to make a state constitution, might settle the slave question for themselves, and that we have now abandoned that ground. Not so-I speak for myself. I have always maintained, and I maintain to-day, that the people of a territory, when duly authorized to form a state constitution, may settle this and all other questions for themselves and according to their own inclinations. But was California duly authorized? Where did she get her authority? We have been told that she got it from the Almighty. This is very well if it is so. But it would be more satisfactory to me to know that she got it from the proprietors of the soil, and that her action had been subordinate to the Federal Constitution.

I have no inclination to discuss this point at length. Whenever it can be shown that California has been subjected to the same ordeal through which Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, and other slaveholding states have been compelled to pass, I will, if in Congress, vote for her admission into the Union, without a why or wherefore, as concerns slavery. But it is asking of me a little too much to expect that I shall vote for her admission, under all the remarkable circumstances attending her application, until she has passed this ordeal.

If it shall be shown that I am getting a fair equivalent for surrendering your rights in California, you may reasonably expect me, in your name, to favor a compromise. The great national mind wants repose, and I for one am ready for any arrangement which may afford a reasonable augury of a happy adjustment of our differences. This brings me to a brief review of Mr. Clay's so called compromise scheme.

The leading bill presented by Mr. Clay from "the Committee of Thirteen" contains three distinct and substantive propositions: First, the admission of California. In this, as in every other scheme of settlement tendered to the South, California, in all her length and breadth, stands first. Secondly, we are offered territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah (Deseret that was), without the Wilmot proviso; and thirdly, we have a proposition to dismember Texas, by cutting off enough of her northern possessions to make four states as large as Mississippi, and for the privilege of doing this we are to pay millions of dollars. The suggestions for filling this blank have varied from five to fifteen millions of dollars.

I have already suggested some reasons why the admission of California, as an independent proposition, ought not, in my judgment, to receive your sanction. I now propose to inquire whether the union of these three measures in one bill makes the whole, as a unit, more worthy of your consideration and support. All the objections to the admission of California stand out in the same force and vigor in Mr. Clay's bill as in all former propositions for her admission. We are asked to make the same sacrifice of feeling and of principle which we have so often and so long protested we would not make—unless indeed it shall be shown that we are getting a fair equivalent for these sacrifices. Mr. Clay has himself told us, in effect, that we were making these sacrifices. He has told us, as I remarked to you in another place, that California was not a state, and could not become so out of the Union. That, in truth, her constitution had no binding force, as a constitution, until the state was admitted into the Union. The constitution of California contains the anti-slavery clause, the "Wilmot proviso." But the constitution is a dead letter, so far as we are concerned. It has no vitality, no binding effect until the state is admitted. Congress admits her, and by the act of admission puts the proviso in force—gives it activity and life. Who, then, but Congress is responsible for the active, operative "proviso"—for that proviso which excludes you from the country? Congress and Congress alone is responsible. You can now understand more fully what I meant, when I signed a letter to his excellency the governor, saying, "that the admission of California was equivalent to the adoption of the Wilmot proviso." The northern people understand this, and to a man they are for her admission.

The question now is, are we offered any adequate consideration for making this sacrifice of feeling and of principle? This is a question worthy of the most serious and critical examination.

By the terms of the resolutions, annexing Texas to the United States, it is expressly provided "that such states as may be formed out of that portion of her territory lying south of the parallel of 36° 30′ north latitude, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire." And it is as expressly stipulated, that "in such STATE or STATES as may be formed out of said territory lying north of that line slavery shall be prohibited." In pursuance of these resolutions Texas came into the Union. The South consented to this arrangement, and to-day, as at all former periods, I am ready to abide by it.

Examine these resolutions, and what do we find? A clear and distinct recognition of the title of Texas to the country up to 36° 30′, as slave territory, for it is stipulated that the people may determine for themselves, at a proper time, whether slavery shall or shall not exist in all the country below that line. Nay more, the rights of Texas above this line are admitted; for it is expressly provided that in the STATE or states to be formed out of the territory north of 36° 30', slavery shall be prohibited, but not until such state or states ask admission into the Union. We have, then, the clearest possible recognition of the title of Texas up to 36 ½° as slave territory, and to sufficient territory above that line to make one or more states.

Now, what do we hear from the North? That Texas never had any just claim to any part of this territory; that it always did, and does now belong to New Mexico. But, as Texas is a young sister, and one with whom we should not deal harshly, we will give her —— millions of dollars for her imaginary claim. Mr. Benton, in the exuberance of his liberality, offers fifteen millions of dollars; and other gentlemen, less ardent, propose smaller sums. But our present dealing is with Mr. Clay's plan for a compromise.

If the reader has a map, I beg that he will first trace the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, north latitude; and then fix his eye on the north-eastern boundary of Texas at the point where the one-hundredth parallel of longitude crosses the Red River; and, from this point, run a direct line to a point twenty miles above El Paso, on the Rio Grande; and between these two lines, he will have the slave territory which Mr. Clay's compromise proposes to sell out. It will be seen, on comparison, that this territory is nearly twice as large as the state of Mississippi. Whether five or fifteen millions of dollars are given for it, it is needless to say we shall have to pay more than our due proportion of the money.

To me, it is not a pleasant thing to sell out slave territory, and pay for it myself; and I confess that this much of the proposed bargain has not made the admission of California a whit more palatable to me.

I say nothing of Texas above 36° 30'; that country was virtually surrendered to abolition by the terms of the Texas annexation. If Texas thinks proper to give it or sell it to the Free-Soilers, in advance of the time appointed for its surrender, I make no objection. But all the South has a direct political interest in Texas below this line of 36° 30'; and I do not mean to surrender your interest without a fair equivalent.

What is to be the destiny of this territory, if it is thus sold out, and what its institutions? It is to become an integral part of New Mexico, and I risk nothing in saying it will be dedicated to free soil. Its institutions will be anti-slavery. If the character of the country was not to undergo a radical change in this respect, or if this change was not confidently anticipated, we all know that the northern motive for making this purchase would lose its existence. As the country now stands, it is protected by the annexation resolutions against all congressional interference with the question of slavery. Transfer it to New Mexico, and we expose it to the dangerous intermeddling which has so long unhappily afflicted that and all our territorial possessions.

This brings me to the only remaining proposition in Mr. Clay's compromise bill—that to establish territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah, without the "Wilmot proviso." If this were an independent proposition, tendered in good faith, and accepted by the North with a fixed purpose to abide by it, I have no hesitation in saying it would receive my cordial support. I repeat what I have often said, that whilst I shall resist the exclusion of slavery by congressional action, I have no purpose or design to force or fasten it upon any country through the agency of Congress. Whilst I demand that Congress shall not oppose our entrance into the territories with our slaves, I do not ask it to assist us in going there. All I ask is, that we may be treated as equals—that no insulting discrimination shall be drawn between southern and northern people—between southern property and northern property.

How is this proposition regarded by the northern men to whom it is tendered, and by whom it may be accepted? The spirit in which it is accepted is a part of the res gesta; and I therefore press the inquiry, in what light is the proposition regarded ?—in what spirit will it be accepted, if it is accepted at all, by northern men? When we shall have answered this inquiry, it will be seen whether there is leaven enough in this little lump to leaven the whole loaf.

Mr. Webster is positive that we can never introduce slaves into the territory. "The laws of God," he thinks, will for ever forbid it. He, and those who go with him, will not vote for the "proviso," because it is unnecessary. They are opposed, uncompromisingly opposed, to the introduction of slaves into the territories; and they are ready to do anything that may be found necessary to keep them out. It is easy to see what they will do, if we commence introducing our slaves. They will at once say, "the laws of God" having failed us, we must try what virtue there is in the "Wilmot proviso." Mr. Clay and those who follow him are quite certain that "we are already excluded by the laws of Mexico." They, too, are opposed to the introduction of slavery into the territories, and stand ready to see it excluded. The northern men who stand out against the compromise, insist, and will continue to insist, on the Wilmot proviso, as the only certain guarantee that slavery will be permanently excluded. All, all are opposed to our going in with our slaves, and all are ready to employ whatever means may be necessary to keep us out. I assert the fact distinctly and emphatically, that we are told every day that if we attempt to introduce our slaves at any time into New Mexico or Utah, there will be an immediate application of the "Wilmot proviso," to keep us out. Mark you, the proposition is to give territorial governments to New Mexico and Utah. These are but congressional acts, and may be altered, amended, explained, or repealed, at pleasure.

No one here understands that we are entering into a compact, and no northern man votes for this compromise, with the expectation or understanding that we are to take our slaves into the territories. Whatever additional legislation may be found necessary hereafter to effect our perfect exclusion, we are given distinctly to understand will be resorted to. But there is yet another difficulty to be overcome, a more serious obstacle than either "the laws of God," as Mr. Webster understands them, or "the laws of Mexico," as understood by Mr. Clay. In regard to the first, I think Mr. Webster is wholly mistaken, and if he is not, I am willing to submit; and in regard to the second, I take the ground, that when we conquered the Mexican people, we conquered their laws. But Mr. Clay's bill contains a provision as prohibitory as the "proviso" itself. The territorial legislature is denied the right to legislate at all in respect to African slavery. If a master's slave absconds, no law can be passed by which he may recover him. If he is maimed, he can have no damages for the injury. If he is decoyed from his service, or harbored by a vicious neighbor, he is without remedy. A community of slaveholders may desire to make laws adapted to their peculiar wants in this respect, but Congress, by this compromise of Mr. Clay's, denies them the right to do so. They shall not legislate in regard to African slavery. What now becomes of the hypocritical cant about the right of the people to regulate their own affairs in their own way?

With these facts before us, it becomes us to inquire how much we give and how much we take, in voting for Mr. Clay's bill. We admit California, and, being once in, the question is settled so far as she is concerned. We can never get her out by any process short of a dissolution of the Union. We give up a part of pro-slavery Texas, and we give it beyond redemption and for ever. Our part of the bargain is binding. Our follies may rise up and mock us in after times, but we can never escape their effects. This much we give; now what do we take? We get a government for New Mexico and Utah, without the Wilmot proviso, but with a declaration that we are excluded already "by the laws of God and the Mexican nation," or get it with a prohibition against territorial legislation on the subject of slavery, and with a distinct threat constantly hanging over us, that if we attempt to introduce slaves against these prohibitions, the "Wilmot proviso" will be instantly applied for our more effectual exclusion.

Such is the compromise. Such is the proposed bargain. Can you, fellow-citizens, expect me to vote for it? Will you demand of your representative to assist in binding you hand and foot, and turning you over to the tender mercies of the Free-Soilers?

It is said, we can get nothing better than this. But is that any sufficient reason why we should vote for it ourselves? If I am beset with robbers, who are resolved on assassination, must I needs lay violent hands on myself? or if my friend is in extremis, must I strangle him? We can get nothing better, forsooth! In God's name, can we get anything worse? It is said that if we reject this, they will pass the "Wilmot proviso." Let them pass it; it will not be more galling than this. If the proviso fails to challenge our respect, it at least rises above our contempt. If it ever passes, it will be the Act of the American Congress of men learned in the law, and familiar with the abstruse readings of the Constitution. It will be done deliberately, and after full reflection. It will not be done by adventurers on the shores of the Pacific, who seem to know but little of our Constitution or laws, and to care less for our rights.

I have heard it said that it will be dangerous to reject the application of California for admission into the Union. Already she is threatening to set up for herself, and if we reject her, she will withdraw her application and establish herself as an independent republic on the Pacific. Let her try it. We have been told that if the South refuse to submit to the galling insults and outrageous wrongs of the North, the President will call out the naval and military power of the nation, and reduce us to submission. When California asserts her independence, and sets up her republic on the Pacific, we shall see how quick the President will be to use this same military and naval force, in bringing her back to her allegiance. These threats have no terrors for me.

As I could respect the reckless and bold robber who, unmasked, presents his pistol and demands my money or my life, above the petty but expert pickpocket, who looks complaisantly in my face while he steals my purse,—so can I respect the dashing and dare-devil impudence of the Wilmot proviso, which robs the South, and takes the responsibility, above the little, low, cunning, sleight-of-hand scheme, which robs us just as effectually, and leaves us wondering how the trick was performed.

So long as I remain in your service, fellow-citizens, I will represent you faithfully, according to my best judgment. In great emergencies like this, I feel the need of your counsel and support. It would give me pain, if any important vote of mine should fail to meet your approbation. Whilst I shall never follow blindly any man's lead, nor suffer myself to be awed by any general outcry, I confess myself not insensible to the applause of my countrymen. In a great crisis like the present, men must act, responsibility must be taken, and he is not fit to be trusted who stops in the discharge of his high duties to count his personal costs.

I cannot vote for Mr. Clay's compromise bill. With very essential changes and modifications, I might be reconciled to its support. These I have no hope of obtaining, and I therefore expect to vote against it. Like the fatal Missouri compromise, it gives up everything and obtains nothing; and like that and all other compromises with the North, it will be observed, and its provisions maintained, just so long as it suits the views of northern men to observe and maintain them, and then they will be unscrupulously abandoned.

It will give me great pleasure to find myself sustained by my constituents, in the votes I intend to give. My head, my heart, my every thought and impulse admonish me that I am right, and I cannot doubt or hesitate.

Your fellow-citizen,

A. G. BROWN.

WASHINGTON CITY, May 13, 1850.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 178-90

Remarks of Jefferson Davis on the Bill to Raise Two Regiments of Riflemen delivered in the House of Representatives, March 27, 1846.

Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS said he did not intend to enter into a wide discussion with reference to the tariff, to Oregon, to Texas, or to the improvement of the rivers and harbors of the country. The House had under consideration a proposition to raise two regiments of riflemen. The only questions to be determined were: first, the necessity of the increase; and, second, the mode in which it should be made. There were two great propositions imbodying different modes: one to increase the army by increasing the number of regiments; the other, to add to the rank and file of the existing regiments. Our organization under a peace establishment is designed only to be the skeleton of an army; we organize our regiments not so much with a view to their present efficiency as on the arising of an emergency which shall require them to enable us to fill them up and render us the greatest service. We who were literally the rifle people of the world, who were emphatically skilled in the use of the rifle, were now falling behind France, England, and other nations, who were paying attention to it, and now actually had no rifle regiment. For this reason, if there were no other, he would vote to raise a rifle regiment to perfect our organization, and add the wanting bone to the skeleton of our army.

Another reason in behalf of this bill was, that it was recommended by the President of the United States. [Mr. D. read that part of the Message recommending the establishment of stockade forts on the route to Oregon, &c.] It did not depend upon the notice, upon future emigration, but was necessary to protect the emigration now passing to Oregon. He pointed out the dangers from the attacks of nomadic hostile Indians, to which the traveller across the prairies is exposed, the necessity of mounted riflemen for their protection, and the superiority in very many respects of mounted to unmounted riflemen for this service. He agreed with the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. BOYD,] who, in his amendment, proposed to make it discretionary with the President whenever, in his opinion, the public interests shall require, to mount such portions of these regiments as he may deem necessary. He (Mr. D.) hoped that at least half of them would be mounted; for it was perfectly idle to send infantry to guard emigrants against Indians who live on horseback, who rob all companies not sufficiently strong to resist them, and fly with their booty as on the wings of the wind.

He denied the correctness of the position of Mr. RATHBUN, that this bill was intended for raising troops to transport our men, women, and children to a territory over which we dared not assert our rights; and said that the President had recommended mounted riflemen to protect the emigration which is now going on; we needed it before emigration commenced, and emigration has only increased its necessity. He urged the importance of this measure, and the advantages and facilities which would be extended to emigrants to Oregon, by the erection of a line of stockade forts on their route. In further reply to Mr. R., he vindicated the qualifications of western men for this particular kind of service, acknowledging that they would be loth to submit to military punishment, but assigning their habitual subordination to the laws of the country, and their patriotic and gallant devotion to its interests, as the means by which they would avoid subjecting themselves to it. In the course of his remarks, he adverted to the necessity of the Military Academy in reference to the attacks from time to time made upon it, maintaining the unquestionable necessity of a military education to prepare a man for command in the army; which education, he said, was only to be obtained at a military academy, or piece by piece to be picked up, at the hazard of loss of property and life, by the officer, after he was commissioned and under heavy pay. Mr. D. also touched briefly upon one or two other points.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 39-40

Speech of Congressman Jefferson Davis, February 6, 1846

Speech of Jefferson Davis delivered in the House Feb. 6, 1846, on the Oregon question.

Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS addressed the committee during the hour. He knew not (he said) whether he more regretted the time at which this discussion has been introduced, or the manner in which it has been conducted. We were engaged in delicate and highly important negotiations with Mexico, the end of which we had hoped would be an adjustment of our boundary on terms the vast advantage of which it would be difficult to estimate. If, sir, (said Mr. D.,) by this exciting discussion we shall hereafter find that we have lost the key to the commerce of the Pacific, none who hears me will live long enough to cease from his regrets for the injury our country has sustained. Again, sir; a long peace has served to extend the bonds of commerce throughout the civilized world, drawing nations from remote quarters of the globe into friendly alliance and that mutual dependence which promised a lasting peace and unshackled commerce. In the East, there appeared a rainbow which promised that the waters of national jealousy and proscription were about to recede from the face of the earth, and the spirit of free trade to move over the face thereof. But this, sir, is a hope not so universally cherished in this House as I could desire. We have even been told that one of the advantages to result from war will be emancipation from the manufacturers of Manchester and Birmingham.

I hope, sir, the day is far distant when measures of peace or war will be prompted by sectional or class interests. War, sir, is a dread alternative, and should be the last resort; but when demanded for the maintenance of the honor of the country, or for the security and protection of our citizens against outrage by other Governments, I trust we shall not sit here for weeks to discuss the propriety, to dwell upon the losses, or paint the horrors of war.

Mr. Chairman, it has been asserted that the people demand action, and we must advance. Whilst, sir, I admit the propriety of looking to and reflecting public opinion, especially upon a question which is viewed as deciding between peace or war, I cannot respond to the opinion, nor consent to govern my conduct by the idea, that the public man who attempts to stem the current of a war excitement must be borne down, sacrificed on the altar of public indignation. Sir, may the day never come when there will be so little of public virtue and patriotic devotion among the representatives of the people, that any demagogue who chooses to make violent and unfounded appeals to raise a war clamor in the country will be allowed, unopposed, to mislead the people as to the true questions at issue, and to rule their representatives through their love of place and political timidity.

Mr. Chairman, I have been struck with surprise, only exceeded by mortification, at the freedom with which disgrace and dishonor have been mingled with the name of our country. Upon one side, to give notice, and involve the country in a war, is disgrace; upon the other side, not to give notice, to rest in our present position, is dishonor. And my colleague [MR. THOMPSON] says "notice" is the only way to avoid war; that to extend our laws over our people in Oregon is war—a war of disgrace. Sir, whence comes this decision, this new light upon the Oregon question? The leaders in the Oregon movement, in other times, held different views. And, sir, the discussions upon Oregon, at former periods, would certainly not suffer by a comparison with ours; nor, sir, did the commissioners who negotiated the convention of joint occupancy, either English or American, so understand it.

Mr. Gallatin has recently called public attention to the fact, that in 1827, our plenipotentiary refused to agree to any express provision that, in extending the convention of 1818, neither party should exercise any exclusive sovereignty over the territory. The probability that it might become necessary for the United States to establish a territorial or some sort of government over their own citizens was explicitly avowed. Sir, by discovery, exploration, and possession, we claimed exclusive sovereignty over the valley of the Columbia, and our exclusive possession as against England was admitted by the restoration of our posts in Oregon—the formal, actual surrender of Astoria. The convention for joint right to trade in Oregon did not destroy our exclusive possession of a part, nor limit the rights or powers we might exercise within their former bounds; and that this is the British construction, is sufficiently apparent by the assertion of rights as derived from the Nootka convention over the same territory.

Nothing can be more demonstrable than the unfitness of joint-occupation rights to an agricultural people. It was not designed so to operate, but was designed for a country in the hands of hunters, trappers, and Indian traders.

The Hudson Bay Company, so often represented as colonizing Oregon, has interests directly opposed to agricultural settlements. The fur-trappers have been (if my information is correct) aided in establishing themselves on the south side of Oregon. Fur-trading companies usually require their discharged hands to leave the country, and resist, instead of promoting, colonization of necessity destructive to their trade. The Puget Sound Company is agricultural, and its settlements are in violation of our convention with England; and the notice required is to forbid such infraction of the treaty. That no right to plant colonies can be deduced from the conventions of 1818 and 1827 is too plain to admit of argument. The claim, if any, must be drawn from the convention between England and Spain, called the Nootka convention. If that convention be still in force, it must be because it was the declaration of rights, not the grant of advantages; and thus, for the sake of argument, I will consider it.

That Spain had the exclusive right of occupation on the northwest coast of America, as far as her discoveries extended, was not denied; but the question was, Had she, without having occupied the country, an exclusive sovereignty over it? Denying this pretension of Spain, Great Britain demanded indemnification for the seizure of British vessels at Nootka sound by the Spanish authorities. This led to the agreement upon which Great Britain has built her claim to territory in the Oregon country. Before entering upon the consideration of the terms of the convention itself, I will refer to the events that led to it.

Long before the voyage of Meares, the port of Nootka sound was known to the Spanish navigators. It was the usual resort of the trading vessels in the north Pacific. Meares, in 1788, visited it, and built a vessel there. For the use of his men, he erected a hut on the shore, by permission of the Indian king, and threw some defences around it, enclosing (according to Vancouver) about an acre of land. Meares, in return for the kindness of the Indian, (Maquinna,) gave him a pair of pistols. In his narrative, he gives a detailed account of the transaction, but does not call it a purchase; that was an after-thought, and first figured in his memorial. Sir, if there had been nothing beyond the narrative of Meares, the temporary character of his location would be fully established. There it appears that when about to sail, leaving a part of his men behind him, he bribed the Indian king, by offering him the reversion of the hut and chattels on shore, to permit his men to remain in peace, and complete the building of the vessel they had commenced.

To show the character of Meares, the purpose of his voyages in the north Pacific, and the country along which Great Britain claimed the right to trade, I will refer to the work of an Englishman, contemporary with Meares, and one of the most enterprising of the navigators of the north Pacific. It is "Dixon's Voyage around the World." Thus it appears that Meares was a furtrader, and of poor character for his calling; and more important still, it appears that the coast, from Cook's river to King George's sound, was the extent of the region in which British cruisers traded. This, taken in connexion with the 5th article of the Nootka convention, serves to fix the latitude in which joint settlement would be permitted.

The message of the King of Great Britain, communicating the transaction at Nootka, refers only to the seizure of vessels; not a word about lands of which British subjects had been dispossessed.

And when the proposition to vote an address of thanks to his Majesty for the conduct and successful termination of the negotiation, neither in the House of Lords or Commons did any one claim an acquisition of territory; and to the bitter irony and severe assaults of Mr. Fox upon the position in which the territorial pretensions of England had been left, his great rival, Mr. Pitt, then minister, made no reply, but pressed the commercial advantages gained by England.

The only link remaining to be supplied, and which completes the claim of construction, is the examination and final action of Quadra and Vancouver, when sent as commissioners to carry out the first article of the convention.

If, then, no tracts of land could be found which had been purchased by Meares; if no buildings of which he had been dispossessed, and the Spanish flag was never struck to that of Great Britain, Spain still maintaining her settlement at Nootka; the parallel north of which the joint right of settlement exists must be drawn through the northern extremity of Quadra and Vancouver's island; the established rule of nations being, that settlement on an island is held to extend to the whole of the island.

Oregon territory, then, is divided into a portion where we have possession above the treaty, and over which we can exercise all the rights not inconsistent with the trade permitted to England; another portion, in which, admitting the Nootka convention to be still in force, we have, with England, a joint right of trade and settlement; this being limited to the south by a line down through the head of the Quadra and Vancouver island. Between these portions, if there be any territory, it is in the condition of a joint right in England and the United States to occupy for fur trade, and the agricultural settlements are in violation of the spirit of the treaty.

Whenever the joint right by convention ceases, we must at once assert our exclusive right, or thenceforward possession matures into right on the part of Great Britain. During the continuance of the convention the title remains unimpaired; we are in possession; can establish over the undisputed part of the territory whatever regulations may be necessary to promote good order, and encourage emigration of agriculturists. Between England and the United States, the party having bread in Oregon must triumph.

No army can be sustained there for any considerable time by either country if the food must be transported from abroad to support it.

Never had man better right to cry "save me from my friends" than the President of the United States on this occasion. His positive recommendation has been made subordinate to his suggestion. He has urged to extend protection to our citizens in Oregon, but advised that notice be given to terminate the treaty of joint occupancy for reasons given. All this has been reversed, and the positive, unqualified declaration of a perfect title to the whole of Oregon up to 54° 40' comes strangely from those who claim to support an Administration that has offered nearly the same compromise line which had been time and again proposed by his predecessors. Sir, for the honor of my country, I hope that we have not been for thirty years negotiating when there was no conflicting claim; and for past as for the present Executive, I utterly deny that they have ever proposed to cede away a part of the territory, when our title was complete, to appease the voracious demands of England. It was a difficult and doubtful question; it was the adjustment of an undefined boundary. If the President should find himself compelled to close this question in twelve months, without any appropriation, without any preparation, he will be constrained to choose between compromise or war measures with the country unprepared. This will be the result of our action; and if he should effect a treaty by such a boundary as will not compromise the honor of the country, I for one-much, sir, as I wish to retain the whole territory—will give my full support as heretofore, and prepare for my share of whatever responsibility attaches. Sir, why has the South been assailed in this discussion? Has it been with the hope of sowing dissension between us and our western friends? Thus far, I think it has failed. Why the frequent reference to the conduct of the South on the Texas question? Sir, those who have made reflections on the South, as having sustained Texas annexation from sectional views, have been of those who opposed that great measure, and are most eager for this. The suspicion is but natural in them. But, sir, let me tell them that this doctrine of the political balance between different portions of the Union is no southern doctrine. We, sir, advocated the annexation of Texas from high national considerations; it was not a mere southern question; it lay coterminous to the Western States, and extended as far north as 42d degree of latitude; nor, sir, do we wish to divide the territory of Oregon; we would preserve it all for the extension of our Union. We would not arrest the onward progress of our pioneers. We would not, as has been done in this debate, ask why our citizens have left the repose of civil government and gone to Oregon? We find in it but that energy which has heretofore been characteristic of our people, and which has developed much that has illustrated our history. It is the onward progress of our people towards the Pacific, which alone can arrest their westward march; and on the banks of which, to use the idea of our lamented Linn, the pioneer will sit down to weep that there are no more forests to subdue. Sir, the gentleman from Missouri has, in claiming credit to different States for services in time past, wandered round Mississippi, and passed over it unnoticed. I wish not to eulogize my State, but, thus drawn to my notice, let me tell him that at Pensacola, at Bowyer, in the Creek campaigns, and on the field to which he specially alluded, (New Orleans,) the people of Mississippi have performed services that give earnest for the future, and relieve her sons of the necessity of offering pledges for her. It was Mississippi dragoons, led by her gallant Hinds, that received from the commanding general the high commendation of having been the admiration of one army and the wonder of the other.

It is as the representative of a high-spirited and patriotic people that I am called on to resist this war clamor. My constituents need no such excitements to prepare their hearts for all that patriotism demands. Whenever the honor of the country demands redress, whenever its territory is invaded, if then it shall be sought to intimidate by the fiery cross of St. George—if then we are threatened with the unfolding of English banners, if we resent or resist—from the gulf shore to the banks of that great river—throughout the length and breadth, Mississippi will come. And whether the question be one of northern or southern, of eastern or western aggression, we will not stop to count the cost, but act as becomes the descendants of those who, in the war of the Revolution, engaged in unequal strife to aid our brethren of the North in redressing their injuries.

Sir, we are the exposed portion of the Union, and nothing has been done by this Government adequate to our protection. Yet, sir, in the language of our patriotic Governor on a recent occasion, if "war comes, though it bring blight and desolation, yet we are ready for the crisis." We despise malign predictions, such as the member from Ohio who spoke early in these debates, made, and turn to such sentiments as those of another member from that State, the gentleman near me. In these was recognised the feelings of our western brethren, who, we doubt not, whenever the demand shall exist, will give proof of such valor as on former occasions they have shown; and if our plains should be invaded, they will come down to the foe like a stream from the rock.

Sir, when ignorance and fanatic hatred assail our domestic institutions, we try to forgive them for the sake of the righteous among the wicked—our natural allies, the Democracy of the North. We turn from present hostility to former friendship from recent defection, to the time when Massachusetts and Virginia, the stronger brothers of our family, stood foremost and united to defend our common rights. From sire to son has descended the love of our Union in our hearts, as in our history are mingled the names of Concord and Camden, of Yorktown and Saratoga, of Moultrie and Plattsburg, of Chippewa and Erie, of Bowyer and Guilford, and New Orleans and Bunker Hill. Grouped together, they form a monument to the common glory of our common country. And where is the southern man who would wish that monument were less by one of the northern names that constitute the mass? Who, standing on the ground made sacred by the blood of Warren, could allow sectional feeling to curb his enthusiasm as he looked upon that obelisk which rises a monument to freedom's and his country's triumph, and stands a type of the time, the men, and the event that it commemorates, built of material that mocks the waves of time, without niche or moulding for parasite or creeping thing to rest on, and pointing like a finger to the sky to raise man's thought to philanthropic and noble deeds.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 29-35