Senator John C. Calhoun to Thomas Clemson, July 23, 1848

Washington 23d July 1848

MY DEAR SIR, I received in the regular course of the Steamer yours of the 27th of June, and Anna's to her mother of the same date. I would have answered your's [sic] immediately, but was prevented by the pressure of my official engagements, as a member of the Committee, raised to settle the question of Slavery, as it relates to our recently acquired territory. After a laborious effort of more than a week, the Committee, consisting of 8 members, 4 from each party, and 2 from each division of the party, North and South, selected by their respective Sections, agreed on a bill, with scarcely a division, which is now under discussion in the Senate, with a fair prospect of passing by a large majority; and which I hope will permanently settle this vexed and dangerous question. The settlement is based on the principle of non interference, as laid down in my speech on the Oregon territorial bill, of which I send you a copy accompanying this. It was found, after trying every other, that it was the only one, on which there was the least chance of adjusting it. It is regarded here, as a great triumph on my part. A trial vote in the Senate yesterday, stood 37 in favour of the bill against 17 opposed. The opposition is mainly composed of the Supporters of Mr Van Beuren.

As to the Presidential election, it is very doubtful, and will probably remain so, to the last. There is no enthusiasm about it. There are great objections to both candidates.

The progress of events in Europe is very much such as I anticipated. There are too much error and misconception of a deep and dangerous character at the bottom of the movement to hope for much good. I have briefly touched one of the leading in the speech, that goes with this, at its close. There are others not less dangerous. . . .

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 759-60

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 Democratic Members of the New York Legislature, January 20, 1851

WASHINGTON, January 20, 1851.

GENTLEMEN—I thank you most sincerely for your esteemed favor of the 5th ultimo, which I had the pleasure to receive a few days since. Next to the pleasing consciousness of having sought with earnestness and fidelity to discharge a public trust, involving the dearest rights and interests of the country, and of an honored constituency, is the approval of those in whose friendship we confide, and whose opinions we respect.

You are pleased to speak of my public course in terms of gratifying commendation. The period of nearly seven years' service which has been allotted me in the United States Senate, is, in the importance of its events, without its parallel in the history of the government. Questions of the highest magnitude, and such as must affect for good or evil, through future generations, the destiny of our country and the institutions we hope to perpetuate, have pressed upon each other for consideration and action. In all this, I have endeavored to do nothing that should prejudice, disturb or mar our political or social structure, but to contribute, regardless of personal consequences, the best energies of my life, to preserve it erect and entire, in all the beauty of its proportions. Time and truth will show with what fidelity and what success. For the present, I can only say, that a careful review of my own share in the disposition of all the great questions which have engaged the public mind during my senatorial term, approves to my own judgment the conclusions I have adopted and the course I have pursued; and in all such cases, I would not, were the occasion to be repeated, cancel a single act or reverse a single position. But I am proud to declare that I would give to the same policy which has governed my public conduct such additional force as a more enlarged experience and a better acquaintance with public affairs would enable me to command.

I need not bring to your attention by historical detail the incidents and events and the legislation of the period to which I allude. They are familiar to you, and the country cannot be unmindful of them. They embrace, among others, the annexation of Texas, the settlement of the Oregon question, the war with Mexico, the acquisition of vast and valuable territory, and, finally, the great measures of adjustment, which happily, in my judgment, brought a long and angry controversy to a wise and patriotic conclusion, at the last session of Congress. The struggles by which they were decided, and the perseverance with which sectional animosities were fostered, will stand out hereafter upon the history of the country as a most signal proof of the inveteracy of partisan hatred, and the disregard of the welfare of the country, the integrity of the constitution, and the promptings of the democratic faith, with which personal aims or political resentments can be pursued. That the policy and measures so loudly decried have triumphed, and are daily gaining strength and approval in every section of the confederacy, is owing to the inherent patriotism and national attachments of the American people, and to the firmness and devotion of their representatives. If in some of the States such representatives have been visited with obloquy and denunciation by partisan vindictiveness, and been rewarded for their exertions by desertion and sacrifice through malign influences, sinister efforts, and questionable combinations, it should be remembered that it is not the first and probably will not be the last instance where such has been the fortune of those who have labored for the public good; but it should cause no regret to such as are conscious of having discharged with fearless alacrity the responsibilities of their station, for they know that time will rectify the error and impartial history vindicate the truth.

In our own State the progress of events has certainly been marked with features replete with instruction. The results of the late election, which placed the democratic party in the minority, to which you refer, were the legitimate fruits of an effort to harmonize by conventional arrangement hostile and conflicting elements, and should have been unexpected by no one. It is notorious that the arrangement, termed a union, between those who had steadfastly adhered to the principles and candidates, State and national, of the democratic party, and those who for years had separated from and assailed both, was carried out, as I had no doubt it would be, in most of the assembly districts where true democrats, supposed to coincide in my own avowed views upon the leading questions of the day, were in nomination, by deliberately defeating their election by open and declared opposition in some instances, disguised but not less active hostility in others, and by predetermination and concert in all. I regard all this as a flattering compliment to the integrity of my public course, for having early and uniformly advocated principles now admitted to be just by almost common consent and upheld by the patriotic of all parties, and for having resisted at all times and upon all occasions a dangerous element of agitation, with which the harmony and integrity of our country have been so seriously threatened; an agitation which, without having served a single worthy, just, or humane purpose, has prostrated the democratic party in our State and in the nation, has filled our land with contention and bitterness, and shaken the very foundation of the Union itself. The history of the late election furnishes an earnest of what is in reserve and may be expected from this harmonious political element by all who stand by the constitution and the Union, and refuse to subscribe to the modern dogma, and as illustrative of the beauties and benefits of attempting to mingle in harmonious concert the friends of constitutional democracy and the adherents of a spurious abolitionism.

I have never sought, or expected, or desired the support of those whose vocation is sectional agitation, and who live and move and have their being in assailing the rights and interests of any of the sovereign States of this confederacy. I have poured no libations to the Moloch of political abolitionism. I have offered no sacrifices upon its polluted altar. I neither enjoy nor covet the confidence of its votaries, either lineal or collateral, and feel more honored by their denunciations than I should by their encomiums. I have not united with them in planting, and am entitled to no share of their fruits. I am proud to enjoy, with other democrats avowing like opinions with myself, the hostility of all recusants who, finding themselves abandoned in their unprofitable experiment of secession and disunion, were anxious to avail themselves of the forms of union to seat themselves again with the democracy of the State, that they might control results for the benefit of their partisans where they could, and defeat democratic nominees where they could not.

The democratic party is essentially national in its organization, in the State as in the Union. The history of its triumphs bears no record of its treaties with those hostile to its own catholic creed, under any pretence however specious, or under any name however euphonious; nor has it consented to lay aside or conceal its own cherished principles, or adopt shades of such as it was wont to repudiate, that it might swell its train of followers and secure the spoils of office. In all its functions, attributes, and characteristics, it is co-extensive with the Union, and it should not be less in its action and in the views and aims of those who are admitted to its membership. It cannot be otherwise, without derogating from its true attitude, or departing from all the great principles by which, since the organization of the government, it has been guided. If it shall be made by those who temporarily govern its action in the State to minister by any act, or by any prudential omissions to discharge its whole duty to the constitution and to the cause it has upheld for half a century, that it may pander for votes to the morbid spirit of abolitionism and retain those in its organization who are hostile to all it holds most sacred, it will be degraded from its former elevation, and can no more secure the confidence of the honest masses than it will deserve it. For one, I will neither by word nor decd, or even by silence, contribute to any such course. If the democratic party is to be abolitionized in whole or in part, either in its doctrines or its associations; if it is to be so far demoralized that it may not declare its own principles, or must adopt sectional heresies; if acts passed in a benign and patriotic spirit to quiet agitation, the offspring of demagogues and fanatics, and to protect the Union itself from threatened invasion, must be repealed; if a law enacted not only in accordance with the spirit of the constitution, but to carry out one of its plainest provisions, is to be nullified so far as State legislation can nullify it, let who will favor or acquiesce in it, I will not; and it will be regarded by all true democrats as at war with every dictate of good government, the obligations of law, and the supremacy of the constitution.

I am deeply sensible of my obligations to the true democracy of the State. I acknowledge with pride the cordial support which they, companions in many campaigns, have afforded me, and you, my kind friends, in particular. To all such, in the State and beyond it, I tender my warmest thanks, and unite with them in sincere wishes for the welfare of our common Union. A few days will close my public service. Had it been my fortune to leave the Senate before the great questions which have so long and so deeply agitated the country had been fully, and, as I think, rightly passed upon, it would have occasioned me serious regret; but since I was permitted to bear a part in their adjustment, so far as it could be accomplished by legislation, and they now stand for decision before the tribunal of public opinion, I shall return to my private pursuits with far more gratification than I left them. As the Legislature is composed, there is no prospect whatever of the election of myself or any other democrat, and having no desire under such circumstances to be a candidate, I trust my friends will do me the favor not to present my name.

With kind consideration and regard for each of you, I am

Your sincere friend and fellow-citizen,

D. S. DICKINSON.

To the Hon. Messrs. MICHAEL DOUGHERTY, ALBERT A. THOMPSON, HENRY J. ALLEN, ELI PERRY, JAIRUS FRENCH, CHARLES ROBINSON, EGBERT T. SMITH, JACOB SICKLES, Wм. F. RUSSELL, MILTON BARNES, A. L. LAWYER, HENRY KINSLEY, WILLIAM BOWNE, WORTHINGRON Wright.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 459-64

Congressman Jefferson Davis on the War with Mexico, May 12, 1846

(From Port-Gibson Correspondent, June 3, 1846.)

Washington, May 12, 1846.

The Oregon controversy will scarcely be settled, by negotiation, and when the joint convention shall be abrogated conflicts with England will probably ensue. Before that time we ought to close all questions with Mexico, and have the ship overhauled for action on a larger scale. Let the treaty of peace be made at the city of Mexico, and by an Ambassador who cannot be refused a hearing—but who will speak with that which levels walls and opens gates—American cannon.

I signified to our friend John Willis that in the event of war I should like to command a Warren Regiment. My position here forces upon me the recollection of all which is due to those who sent me here. Yet I look to the movements of our forces on our Mexican border with a strong desire to be a part of them. My education and former practice would, I think, enable me to be of service to Mississippians who take the field. If they wish it, I will join them as soon as possible, wherever they may be.

JEFFERSON DAVIS.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 46

Remarks of Jefferson Davis on the Bill to Raise a Regiment of Mounted Riflemen, March 8, 1846.

Mr. J. DAVIS said, with no unfriendliness to the object of the gentleman from Virginia; (for he thought it was one of the great objects to be accomplished in connexion with Oregon—the establishment of a regular mail to that territory,) he must object to the gentleman's amendment, and he hoped no amendment would be incorporated into the bill. Immediate action was essentially necessary; any amendment which sent this bill back to the Senate, would produce such delay as would almost defeat the object of the bill.

Mr. HOPKINS (Mr. D. yielding for explanation) said, the amendment which he had sent to the Chair was not likely to delay the final action of Congress upon this subject. It was an amendment in direct conformity with the bill already reported to the Senate by the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads of that body, which was likely to meet with favorable consideration there. The bill of the Senate differed from this amendment only in this, that it proposed to give to the President of the United States the power to have this mail transported to Oregon by detachments from the army of the United States, while his amendment was specific in its provisions, and referred directly to the regiment they were about to raise by this bill a regiment assigned to this particular line. His amendment, therefore, had that peculiar merit over the bill of the Senate, and would doubtless be concurred in in that body without delay.

Mr. DAVIS resumed. The bill, as it was now before them, (he said,) had passed the Senate. To attach any amendment certainly would beget the delay of sending it back; if the Senate would act immediately upon it, it might not be so objectionable; but they were now so involved in the discussion which was now occupying their attention, and over-riding everything else, that there was no certainty when it would be reached, if sent back there again.

Again, he held that there could be no necessity of giving in the law authority to the President of the United States to direct that these troops shall escort the mail, since he had that authority now over every existing regiment in the army.

Mr. HOPKINS (Mr. D. again yielding for explanation) stated that, without this amendment, there was no law authorizing the establishment of a post office in Oregon; there was no law authorizing the President of the United States to send the mail of the United States to Oregon; and any mail sent there would have to be entrusted to somebody or other whose duty it was not made by law to distribute it, and it would be equal or worse than no mail at all. It would be better to put the whole line under the direction of the general post office law and the Postmaster General. And he understood that the President, though he had not conversed with him on the subject, was exceedingly anxious to have this provision incorporated in the bill, that he might send the mail to Oregon.

After some further conversation on this point between these two gentlemen,

Mr. DAVIS resumed. He attached much weight, (he said,) as a friend of the Administration, to its recommendations, when they came before Congress in a proper form; and he considered the providing facilities for the transportation of this mail highly important, but he considered this regiment still more important. By the 20th of next month, the emigration would commence. Then it was necessary that this regiment should be organized and ready for action, which could be accomplished alone by passing this bill into a law without delay. This was the only way of raising a proper military force for this service: let the officers of this regiment—the company officers—go into the western country to enlist the men to serve under them, where there are men competent to ride, hunt, and acquainted with the dangers and hardships of the service to be found; and with the state of feeling that now exists, let it be known that the regiment was intended expressly for this Oregon route, and there would be no difficulty whatever in finding sufficient recruits, which difficulty would exist, to some extent, in recruiting for the army generally.

As to taking for this service a portion of each company as it now exists, all must be aware that it could not be accomplished. A man would object to being transferred, if he was eminent in his regiment; and such men only would answer for this service.

Again: it would be extracting from every company the picked men of the company, and leaving the rest scarcely fit for the service in which they were now employed.

They had constantly heard about the ability of the President to mount a regiment for this particular service. The President had no such power, unless they gave it to him by law. There was no regiment of infantry not now employed; and we knew not how soon we might be called to increase our army now in Texas.

As to expense, he considered that it was usually much over estimated. While in service on this route, the men would nearly support themselves upon game, and their horses would subsist on the grass at their feet. It was only when they returned to garrison to be recruited, that the expenses for forage, &c., were incurred to any great extent.

He touched upon the question of nativeism [sic], opposing the amendment of Mr. LEVIN, and arguing while the West was principally to be relied on to furnish the men and officers, fitted by education and experience for this peculiar service, that the discretion should be left to select from among foreigners, as well as elsewhere, those who were best qualified. He spoke in high terms of the value and efficiency of service of many foreigners, and instanced the case of an Englishman, (of whom he gave some anecdote,) who was the best dragoon he had ever seen.

He concluded by appealing to his western friends, especially, who knew the necessity of this bill, and that the force proposed under it should be raised and ready for service by the 20th May, to reject amendments, which would embarrass the bill, and pass it without delay.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 36-8

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 Jefferson Davis in House on April 17, 1846 on the Oregon question.

Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS said, the closing remarks of the gentleman who had preceded him certainly invited a reply; but in consideration of the little time which remained of that allowed for this discussion and the number of gentlemen anxious to address the committee, he would only say, in answer to these remarks, that he repelled the assumption, that all who differed from the gentleman in his opinions upon Oregon, were so wanting in wisdom or patriotism as ignorantly or timidly to sacrifice American rights. Not always was it found that those who most readily entered into quarrel, bore themselves best after they were in. Sometimes the first to get into a row are the first who wish themselves out.

He declined to enter into the question of title. The ancient voyages of Spain—the ancient conventions in relation to the Northwest coast of America—seemed to him so little connected. with the subject before the committee, that he had listened to such speeches with the feelings of the Vicar of Wakefield, when he met the sharper of the fair in prison, and he commenced his recital on cosmogony. Stop! said the Vicar, sorry to interrupt so much learning, but I think I have heard all that before.

He would point out his most prominent objections to the bill, and before closing, would offer a substitute for its provisions. He said, the title of the bill met his entire approval. Our citizens in Oregon had a right to expect our protection. It was gratifying to him to witness the fact, that though they had gone beyond the exercise of our jurisdiction, they looked back and asked that the laws of their father-land might follow them; they invited the restraints of our legislation; thus giving the highest proof of their attachment, and paying the richest tribute to our institutions.

There is sufficient unanimity as to the propriety of extending our laws over American citizens in Oregon, to justify me in omitting that branch of the subject, and proceeding at once to inquire by what mode this may be effected. By the bill under discussion, it is proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the supreme court of Iowa, and the laws of said Territory, as far as applicable to that portion of the territory of the United States which lies west of the Rocky Mountains, and also over a belt of country east of those mountains and west of the Missouri river, and lying between the fortieth and forty-third parallel of north latitude.

Who here knows what the laws of Iowa are, still less what they may be; but this much we all may know, that from the difference in the condition and wants of the two countries, the one must be very poorly calculated to legislate for the other, and great confusion must ensue in the attempt to apply the wants of one to the other. He referred to the mining character of Iowa, which gave to her people and local legislation a character peculiar and inapplicable to Oregon. He denied the propriety of extending the laws of Iowa over the Indian country, considered such extension a violation of the principles which had heretofore controlled our intercourse with the Indian tribes, the principle which had been characteristic of our Government, contradistinguishing it from those of Europe, who had had intercourse with the aborigines of America. Our Government had always recognised the usufruct of the Indians of the territory possessed by them. Our jurisdiction over Indian country has heretofore been confined to regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and serving process upon our own citizens within the Indian territory. This is to give force to the laws of Iowa over all the Indian country therein described; to wrest, without the just and liberal compensation we have heretofore paid for the extinguishment of Indian title, a belt of country on this side of the mountains, from the tribes who possess it, and, by the strong hand, to seize all which lies beyond.

He said, gentleman had frequently addressed us upon the rights of Great Britain and the conflicting claims of that Government and ours in the Oregon territory. By the conventions of 1818 and 1827, the title as between these two Governments was in abeyance. Let us strictly regard all our treaty stipulations with that rival claimant; but most especially let us respect the rights of the more helpless occupant, and more rightful possessor—the savage who originally held the country.

To this end, he said, he had drawn up, and would submit a substitute for the bill, violative of the rights of no one, in strict accordance with the usage of this Government, and, as he believed, most effective to preserve peace and order, and extend to our citizens in Oregon the benefits of our republican laws and institutions. It was the application, so far as suited to the circumstances, of the ordinance of 1787, for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio river, and of the law of 1789, to render it more effectual. Under these, our citizens in the various territories of the northwest had passed from the condition of Indian country to the second grade of government. No question could arise in their application which had not been already adjudicated; and, therefore, in adopting this plan, we could distinctly see, and accurately judge, of the results it would produce. In view of the peculiar condition of the Oregon territory, he expected, by a proviso, that portion of the ordinance which refers to a general assembly; also substituted for the freehold qualification of officers required by that instrument the qualifications prescribed in the territory of Iowa, where no freehold is necessary, and had added a section securing to the British subjects in Oregon all the rights and privileges they derive from existing treaties, so long as those treaties shall continue. By this substitute it is proposed to provide for the appointment of a Governor, who should be ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs, and three judges. These officers appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, are to receive the same compensation as officers of a like grade in the Territory of Iowa. They are to be authorized to adopt such laws from the statutes of the different States of our Union as may be applicable to the condition of that country, the whole to be subject to the revision and approval of Congress.

Thus, sir, we shall be guarded against the dangers of extending the laws of a territory existing, and hereafter to be enacted without our knowledge, and above our control, likewise from any improper legislation which might result from a representative assembly in a mixed and unsettled colony. The officers of the Government thus constituted are authorized by proclamation to define the limits of the settlements of our citizens in Oregon, to which the Indian title has been, or may be extinguished, and within such settlement to locate the seat of government for the territory. Until the Indian title has been legally extinguished in some portion of the territory, it is a violation of the policy we have heretofore observed, and which stands upon our history a proud monument of humanity and justice, to locate our courts, and assume territorial jurisdiction in that country.

Having a point upon which to rest our territorial government, its process can thence extend into the Indian country around it to persons found therein, and subject to our jurisdiction. Now, by the act of 1834, a criminal might be arrested in the territory of Oregon, brought over to our courts in Missouri or Iowa for trial, as they are frequently arrested, and brought to trial from the Indian country east of the mountains.

From the various instances of erecting a territorial government in the manner proposed, he would detain the committee by a reference to but one—that of Wisconsin.

The United States held free from Indian title the small tract of land at Green Bay. Upon this they located their territorial officers; here the laws were administered: and hence a process issued into the remainder of the territory occupied by Indians.

The only difference between Wisconsin and Oregon, if any difference exists to vary our practice on this point, must arise from the joint-occupancy convention between England and the United States. To my mind this offers no obstacle.

Our settlements in Oregon are entirely within the limits within which we have actual, legal possession—our possession recognised by the Government of Great Britain before the joint convention was formed which is now said to impose upon us limitations.

Pending the negotiation of 1827, Mr. Gallatin informs us the American Plenipotentiary declined to agree to any convention containing an express provision against the exercise of any exclusive sovereignty over the territory. He says, in his letter dated January 22, 1846, referring to the negotiations of 1827, in relation to the territory west of the Stony Mountains, "The probability that it might become necessary for the United States to establish a territorial, or some sort of a government, over their own citizens, was explicitly avowed." Great Britain, through her mercantile corporation, the Hudson Bay Company, extends her laws over Oregon. We have none other than political corporations, through which to effect the same object on the part of the United States. The proposition he submitted was through a governor and judges, as the head of a territorial incorporation, to transmit the laws of the United States to her citizens residing beyond the practical extension of her organized jurisdiction.

This, he contended, we had a right to do under the existing convention with Great Britain; this was our duty to our own citizens, to the Indian inhabitants of that territory, and, as he believed, essential to the preservation of order, and the maintenance of our treaty obligations. This policy was unconnected with the termination of the convention of the joint occupancy with Great Britain, and should have been adopted long ago. It was necessary to limit the British act of 1821, which has found an excuse, in the absence of all other law, or "civil government," for an extension invasive of our rights, and injurious to our people.

With this brief explanation, and relying on the familiarity of the committee with the subject-matter it contained, he submitted his substitute to their consideration.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 40-4

Substitute bill on the Oregon question offered by Jefferson Davis in the House of Representatives, April 22, 1846.

The bill having now been gone through with,

Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS proposed the following as a substitute therefor:

That from and after the fourth day of July next, the territory of the United States, lying west of the Stony Mountains, shall, for the purposes of temporary government, constitute a separate territory, by the name of Oregon.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That there shall be established, within the said territory, a government in all respects similar to that provided by the ordinance of Congress, passed on the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, and by an act passed on the seventh day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, entitled “An act to provide for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio;” and the inhabitants thereof shall be entitled to, and enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, and advantages granted and secured to the people of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio by the said ordinance: Provided, That a legislative assembly shall not be organized in said territory of Oregon, until the same shall be authorized by an act of Congress.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the officers for said territory, who, by virtue of this act, shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall respectively exercise the same powers, perform the same duties, and receive for their services the same compensation, as by the laws of the United States have been provided and established for similar officers in Iowa Territory; and the duties and emoluments of Superintendent of Indian Affairs shall be united with those of Governor: Provided, That the qualifications for office shall be the same as in Iowa Territory.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Governor and judges of said territory shall, by proclamation, define the limits of the settlements of American citizens in said territory to which the Indian title has been or may be extinguished; and the seat of government of said territory shall be located at such point within the limits of said settlements as the Governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall select.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That provision shall hereafter be made by law to secure and grant to every white person, male or female, over the age of eighteen years, three hundred and twenty acres of land; and to every white person, male or female, under the age of eighteen years, one hundred and sixty acres of land, who shall have resided in the said territory described in the first section of this act for five consecutive years, to commence within three years from the passage of this act.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That nothing contained in this act shall be construed to deprive the subjects of Great Britain of any of the rights and privileges secured to them by existing treaty stipulations during the continuance thereof.

Which substitute amendment was rejected.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 44-5

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

John H. McHenry* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, February 21, 1850

HARTFORD, KY., 21st February, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR: Perhaps you may almost have forgotten the individual who now addresses you, and who retains a vivid recollection of the many meetings and pleasant greetings he had with you when he had the honor of being an humble member of the committee of which you were chairman in the 29th Con[gress].

At the risk however of being entirely forgotten I have concluded to drop you a line if it be only to ascertain the fact.

Since we separated you have been busily engaged in the Senate of the U[nited] S[tates] aiding in the councils of our Nation, while I have been mostly engaged in the practice of the law riding over hills and vallies, swamps and waters as duty or necessity might require. Last year I was elected a delegate and took a part, an humble part, in forming a new constitution for my own native state. Except this I have been wholly disengaged from politics. I have been looking with deep solicitude at the course of events since I left Congress and have seen nothing to change the opinion which I expressed to you in a conversation during the pending of the three million bill or just before I do not now recollect which, "that the Mexican War was gotten up by the abolition raving of the then Cabinet to get a large scope of territory to make free States out of and to surround the slave States entirely to get back what they were pleased to term the balance of power which they said they had lost by giving up half of Oregon,” and advised you if possible to put a stop to the war before the rank and file got into the secret for if you did not the devil himself could not do it, that even Giddings and Culver would come in if they found out what it was for. You told me that you and your immediate friends were doing your best but were powerless, but if I would only keep Garrett Davis from throwing in his d----d resolutions of warning, which were calculated though not intended to bind the party together, that you thought you could possibly do something. I have often thought of this conversation and wondered if you had any recollection of it. Things that have occurred since have indelibly impressed it upon my memory.

In looking about for the causes of the Mexican war, I believed those assigned by the particular friends of the president were some of them insufficient and some of them unfounded and therefore I looked round for some reason to satisfy my own mind, and could find none but that. I named it to several of my friends and colleagues but could find none to agree with me. I formed the opinion first from reading Morey's instructions for raising Stephensons regiment. I thought the intention was to settle that regiment on the southern border of whatever land we might acquire and thus form the nucleus for a settlement from the free states immediately on our southern border and thus prevent a settlement from the slave states, by slave holders at least, within the bounds of the newly acquired territory. Upon due consideration of all that has happened since that time do you not now think that I at least guessed well if I did not form a correct opinion? In my canvass for delegate last summer I had to encounter emancipation in all its forms and triumphed over it. The leading men in this country are with the south but they are also for the Union and do not look to disunion as a remedy for any evil. They will "fight for slavery but die by the Union." As to the boys up the hollows and in the brush who form a considerable portion of our country they are not to [be] relied on in any contest against the Union. In a contest about the Union they would be willing to have the motto of the first soldiers of the revolution "Liberty or death"—but in a contest about slavery they would be a good deal like one Barney Decker who was about to have a soldiers badge and motto made and when the lady who made the badge asked him if he would have the same motto hesitated and then replied "You may put ‘liberty or be crippled.’” I am afraid the boys will say "slavery or be crippled." For God's sake try and settle all these questions of slavery if possible and let us not dissolve the Union.

But if we have to write like Francis the 1st to his mother, "Madam all's lost but honor" let us do it with this and we will have the approval of our own conscience without which a man is nothing.

_______________

* A Representative in Congress from Kentucky, 1845-1847.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 104-6

John H. Lumpkin* to Howell Cobb, November 13, 1846

Rome [ga.], 13th Nov., 1846.

Dear Cobb, Your letter of the 10th inst. was received by last night's mail. I agree with you that the Southern democracy have not redeemed their pledges to their Northern allies; that while we have contended for and obtained the whole of Texas, we have sacrificed and given up one half of our claim to Oregon — and this of itself is enough to account for the defeats that our friends have met with in Pa., N. Y., and other Northern and Northwestern States. But is this the cause of our disasters? I think not entirely. Indeed I incline to the opinion that our Northern allies are not prepared to support some of the cardinal measures of the Democratic party. With the Southern' portion of our party a tariff for revenue only is a cardinal principle, and we cannot consent to compromise this principle, even for success itself. But in Pennsylvania and in New York and some other states North and East this doctrine is repudiated by those who claim to be associated with us in principles. I need not inform you that such Democrats received no encouragement or countenance in the legislation of the last session of Congress. I am not surprised therefore that these men have been repudiated at home. In fact I rejoice that Whigs have superseded such Democrats as Dr. Leib, Yost, Black etc. etc., and for my part I had rather be in the minority than to be in the majority controlled by such men. The bill making appropriations for rivers and harbours caused a similar division among our own friends in different sections of the Union, and has likely contributed in some degree to these disastrous results. But shall we give up our opposition to protective tariff and to these extravagant appropriations on this account? By no means. Let us commence the contest anew and have nothing to do with any man or set of men who combine for our destruction; and if we have not the power to accomplish positive good, we may have power to prevent harm and prevent our destruction. Some of our warm and influential Democrats in this section of the State are disposed to censure the President and his Cabinet and attribute these results to the want of management in our Executive. I disagree with all such. I do not believe that Genl. Washington, or Genl. Jackson in his prime, could have directed the ship of state with more ability. Indeed, no man living or dead could have produced harmony and ensured success with such conflicting and discordant materials. I am amazed when I see what was accomplished at the last session, and can never censure the President for any of these disastrous results. I differ with the President in one point only, and that is purely a question of policies, and that is in regard to appointing men to office who do not agree with him in principle. I do not mean such as are politically opposed to him alone, but such as do not sustain the great, leading measures of his administration that are nominally identified with the Democratic party. More of this when we meet. I shall be with you in Augusta on the first. Mrs. L. unites with me in regards to Mrs. Cobb.

_______________     

*A leading Democrat of northwestern Georgia, Member of Congress, 1843-1849 and 1855-1857; judge of the superior court of Georgia (Cherokee circuit), 1849-1850; a close friend and voluminous correspondent of Howell Cobb.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 86-7

James F. Cooper* to Howell Cobb, July 8, 1846

Dahlonega, Ga., July 8,1846.

My Dear Sir: Since I wrote you last I have not heard a syllable further relative to Wofford's pretensions . . . Since we published the call for our meeting on the 4th, I have conversed freely with the rank and file of the Democracy on the subject, and find that they are entirely undivided in your favor, showing that there has been no tampering with them as yet. They have heard of no other claims, and of course I did not mention them. It were a pity to destroy such a blessed unanimity. On the 4th we clinched the thing in Lumpkin.¹ A great many people were here to attend a muster and there was no dissenting voice. You will glide in again without, I think, the slightest opposition. The Whigs are doing nothing that I hear of.

If those disaffected Buckeyes and Hooziers sacrifice McKay's Bill on the altar of Oregon, it will be ruinous to us at the next general election — say the governor's. We cannot elect a governor unless you reduce the tariff. We shall moreover lose all the closely contested congressional districts — Jones's, Towns's, etc. Stephens and Toombs will be immovable in their places.

I am now keeping house at the mint, and when you visit Lumpkin this fall we will be glad to see you and your family with us. You might make this a depot of your family from which you could branch off to Union, Habersham, etc.

_______________

* Superintendent of the United States branch mint at Dahlonega, Ga.

¹ Lumpkin County, whose county seat was Dahlonega.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 85-6

Howell Cobb to Mary Ann Cobb Lamar Howell, June 14, 1846

Washington City, 14th June, 1846.

My Dear Wife, . . . Most unexpectedly to me I received a note on Sunday morning from Genl. Harden¹ announcing his arrival in the city. The General is in good health and fine spirits. He is determined to have an office if one is to be had, and I am determined to render him all the aid in my power to carry out his wishes. Mr. Polk's feelings are of the kindest character towards him, and [he] has expressed to me his determination to provide for him at the very earliest time when an appointment shall offer itself. I do hope that our efforts may be successful. Certainly no applicant for office stands in greater need than our old friend in whose cause my feelings are so deeply enlisted.

Today in the House we succeeded in taking up the tariff bill by a majority of about thirty, and shall be engaged in its discussion for the next two weeks or more. As I have been honored with the chair during this debate I shall not have the same time to devote to my letters and business as heretofore. As you know, much of my writing was done at my desk in the House. So you must not complain if my letters should not reach you as punctually as heretofore.

What will be done with this vexed question of the tariff I am not able to say. Many indulge a strong hope and belief that we shall be able to pass such a bill as will give satisfaction to the country. I am not so sanguine myself. The course pursued by the Southern democracy about Oregon has had the effect of alienating the good feelings of many of our northern and western democrats and thereby rendering the harmonious and united action of the party more difficult than it would have been had all the South stood square up upon that great question as some of us did. I fear the effect that is likely to be produced in the success of the democratic party by the unfortunate collisions which have arisen during the present session. Conscious of having fully and faithfully performed my own duty, I have no personal responsibility resting upon my shoulders which I am not willing and prepared fully to shoulder . . .

I have been engaged pretty much during today in getting letters for Mr. Gardner of the Constitutionalist, who has involved himself in a quarrel with his neighbours of [the] Chronicle and Sentinel² about the charge of Mr. Wise pulling Mr. Polk's nose. All an infamous lie; but at the same time, as Gardner seemed to attach some importance to the proof, I have promised it for him; and if the editors of the Chronicle and Sentinel have any sense of shame left they will blush upon its perusal.

_______________

¹ Edward J. Harden. See footnote 1, p. 87 infra.

² The Constitutionalist and the Chronicle and Sentinel were the two leading newspapers of Augusta, Ga.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 81-2

Howell Cobb To Mary Ann Lamar Cobb, June 4, 1846

Washington City, 4th June, 1846.

My Dear Wife, . . . The prospect of winning much glory in the battle field is growing extremely unpromising. The news from Mexico indicates that the war there is fast drawing to a close, and it is now anticipated with much certainty that in a very short time our peaceful relations will be restored with that ill fated people. With England too the bow of peace spans our horizon. The last accounts from Great Britain have quieted all fears of a rupture with her about Oregon. So much so that in both countries the opinion is generally indulged and freely expressed that the Oregon dispute may be considered as approaching its final and peaceful adjustment. It is reported here that Mr. Pakenham has received instructions from his government to offer a settlement on the basis of 49° and the [mutual?] free navigation of the Columbia river. If this be true, we shall soon see a treaty to that effect made and ratified by the Senate, much to the disappointment of us 54.40 men, though in the end we shall be benefited by the result so far as popularity and public confidence is concerned . . .

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 79-80

William Hope Hull* to Congressman Howell Cobb, May 22, 1846

Athens [ga.], May 22,1846.

Dear Howell, We are pretty quiet here in the midst of the general war fever. I believe there will be an effort made to raise a company for Texas, but I doubt its success. Clarke county is too much under the influence of Whiggery to have much enthusiasm in the matter. By the way, speaking of the Texas question, I am afraid the Democratic party is about to take untenable ground about the boundary there. The Rio de Norte is the western boundary, but not for its whole course. No possible logic can prove that Santa Fe and the other towns on the east side of the river on its upper streams, were ever a portion of Texas. The true line would leave the river somewhere above Mier, and follow the mountains north, leaving a large section between the line and the upper parts of the river. You may think all this very superfluous on my part, but I have not yet seen the distinction drawn by any one in Congress, nor by Ritchie, and you may depend upon it is a serious consideration and worthy of attention. I think you seem a little “riled” that your friends here have not taken up the cudgels on your behalf on the 54.40 question. We acted, as we thought, for the best, not only for you but for the party. If an attempt had been made to rally the party upon the “whole of Oregon” I do verily believe it would have split us in fragments, and for aught I can see would have given the Whigs and “moderate men” a majority. But by letting the thing be quiet and not fanning the embers of opposition, I think that all disaffection will die away and produce no unpleasant consequences. The same way we reason about a convention. I have no question that there is opposition to you in the breasts of some professed Democrats, but it has taken no open and distinct form, and if no fuss is made it will die of itself; but if we called a convention, though (I beg you to observe) I have no doubt as to the issue and am not at all afraid but that you would break down your opponents and be nominated and elected in spite of them, — still feelings might be engendered and factions started which might do us very serious injury hereafter. For this reason we thought it best to say nothing until towards August or thereabouts, when our papers will put up your name as a matter of course; and I presume there will be no opposition. In the meantime, however, if a call is made for a convention by your enemies, we shall not object, but shall go into it confident of a decided majority for you. I have given you with perfect candor my views on the subject, in which I concur with the most of your friends in Athens. Mr. Calhoun has killed himself about here as far as Democratic support goes. I have not heard the first Democrat sustain his course on the War bill. If he intended to quit us he could not have chosen a time nor a topic on which he could do us less harm in Georgia. . . . You speak in yours of the prospect of a settlement of the Oregon dispute. I am unable to see the signs of it in anything that has come to my knowledge. I wish you would let me into the secret in your next. . . .

_______________

*A neighbor and warm personal and political friend of Cobb.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 78-9

Albon Chase* To CongressmanHowell Cobb, May 20, 1846

Athens [ga.], May 20, 1846.

Dear Sir: I have at length mustered sufficient resolution to commence a letter to you; but as through approaching age these tasks are becoming arduous, I know not how I shall get through it. Though for some time silent, I have not been unmindful of your favors, and most sincerely do I thank you for the letters you have written me; and I would be especially obliged, whenever any thing of interest occurs in Congress on a Thursday that you would let me know by that night's mail. It will enable me sometimes to gain a week in publishing news.

I perceive by your late letters to myself and others that you are in no very amiable humor with some of us for our want of zeal and interest in some things which you have much at heart. But you must recollect that while you are in a whirl of excitement, we are but lookers-on and keep quite cool. I am not disposed to argue any point connected with the Oregon or Texas controversy. I am ranked here as a 54° 40' man, though I do not hesitate to avow that I would yield much for the sake of peace. I would take 49 if England offered it, to avoid a greater evil than the failure to obtain possession of our territory north of that line. And in this I, at least, am not inconsistent with myself; for if while at peace, Mexico had entered into a negotiation relative to boundary, I would not insist upon the whole country east of the Rio Grande for the whole length of that river. I would have been gratified at a compromise with her even, for the sake of peace. But it is too late now, and it may ere long be too late in regard to Oregon.

You seem to think I have not defended you as I ought. I certainly have not condemned your course, and I have defended all the positions you have taken in Congress. This no other editor in Georgia has done. I really have no fault to find with any of your votes, though I think I should have given mine for the notice as it finally passed, when I found nothing better could be gotten. That I have not defended you, is simply because you have not been attacked so far as I have seen. I have no fancy for making a fuss when there is no occasion for it.

And now in reference to another subject. Hope Hull showed me your letter in reply to one from him, and he requests me to give some reasons for the course which I suppose he suggested. Your friends here have not thought it best to make any movement towards a nomination at present, for various reasons. The Whigs are making no public effort to get up opposition to you, but are evidently waiting to see if some disaffection may not be excited, with a view to take up any of our men who can get a little Democratic support and who will consent to be run by them. If we hold a convention they will secretly operate upon the selection of delegates; they will find agents to present other names besides yours before the convention; they will endeavor to get up some feeling, especially on the Oregon question (and a great many Democrats disagree with you there), and they will strain every nerve to induce one of the defeated candidates to run against you. By a convention we shall show where our disaffection is, if there is any. It will concentrate and give vitality to that disaffection and I fear produce unpleasant results hereafter. We have no doubt that you are the choice of the district and that you could be triumphantly nominated; but we think our permanent harmony would be best maintained by considering you the candidate of course, unless some movement adverse to this view should be made. If any county holds a meeting and suggests any other name, or calls for a convention, of course we must hold it; but I think if we can, we had better let every thing remain quiet. You need feel no delicacy on the subject, or any doubt as to your position. Any very small opposition to you, having the faintest hope of success, would make itself known. If such should appear, we will promptly call a convention to say who is our choice; but if none manifests itself, you should be flattered at the fact that while you are in the field your constituents are satisfied and no one disputes your claim.

Mr. Calhoun, I see, is getting farther and farther off. Who will go with him? Can you tell? I think I shall have to read him out before long. Please let me hear from you, and I will endeavor to be more punctual hereafter.

_______________

* Editor of the Southern Banner, Athens, Ga.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 77-8

Thomas R. R. Cobb * to Howell Cobb, May 12, 1846

Athens, Ga., May 12, 1846.

My Dear Brother, . . . Toombs misrepresented me on the Oregon question. The Senate's Resolutions as amended by Owen met my hearty approbation. I preferred that there should be embodied in the resolutions a willingness to negotiate during the 12 mos.

Nobody talks of Oregon now. It is Mexico and War. I never saw the people more excited. A volunteer company could be raised in every county in Georgia. Our government has permitted itself to be insulted long enough. The blood of her citizens has been spilt on her own soil. It appeals to us for vengeance. Can we hesitate to deal out a just retribution? It is the general opinion here that England is pulling the wires. The quicker we know it the better. Let Congress act and that quickly. . . .

_______________

* Brother of Howell Cobb, a lawyer and author of a digest of the laws of Georgia, 1851, and of a legal treatise on slavery, 1858. He was not active In politics until the secession crisis In 1860-61. He became a brigadier-general in the Confederate army, and was killed in the battle of Fredericksburg.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 76-7

John P. King* to Congressman Howell Cobb, May 7, 1846

Augusta, Ga., May 7, 1846.

. . . P. S. — Exciting news from Mexico this morning; this only could be reasonably expected. I have (entre nous) never seen any reasons of expediency for sending Taylor to the Rio Grande. Why insultingly beard this poor feeble distracted people? They have been hardly dealt with, and why not give them some decent chance to cover up their humiliation, which they certainly would have done by negociation ere long if our cannon had been kept out of their sight. I should not be much surprised if we were on the eve of a long and distracting war with all the attendant evils of debts, taxes, tariff, and the finale of all ambitious Republics — a military despotism. I hope to God that we may not yet have cause to wish that both Texas and Oregon had been ingulphed before they were heard of by the people of the United States.

_______________

* United States Senator from Georgia, 1833-1837, president of the Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 1841-1878.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 75

Congressman Howell Cobb to Mary Ann Lamar Cobb, April 3, 1846

Washington City, 3rd April, 1846.

My Dear Wife, . . . On the day that you left, Genl. Cass made a great speech on Oregon. Up to 54.40 was his position, and the general opinion is expressed that it is the ablest and most effective effort that has been made on the subject. It will add greatly to the number of 54.40 men with the masses, whose honest impulses will teach them to sympathise with the views he has put forth. On the next day Col. Benton made a regular attack upon Cass, which has led to the most exciting and animating debate that I have ever witnessed in Congress. You will see it reported in the papers and [it] will afford you a faithful picture of the grappling of great intellects. Upon the whole, Cass seems to be victor in the fight, and the effort of Benton to paralyze the effort of Cass's speech will be foiled . . .

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 75