| January-June 1845 | July-December 1845 | January-June 1846 | July-December 1846 |
| January-June 1847 | July-December 1847 | January-June 1848 | July-December 1848 |
January 1845
RE45v41i77p1c1, January 3, 1845: Foreign
Intelligence, Later From Mexico and China
Mexicans started a revolution against Santa Anna and he was removed
from the government.
RE45v41i77p1c1,
January 3, 1845: Arrival of Mr. Crushing
Hon C. Crushing was on his way through Mexico when he was robbed of
almost all of his news letters. Mr. Fletcher Webster is to arrive from England.
Santa Anna was proclaimed dictator only to be reputed later that day.
RE45v41i77p2c5,
January 3, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
A letter from Mr. Bowden, a representative, states that he believes
in the annexation of Texas, even though most of the Virginians (who are Whigs
and Republicans) do not.
RE45v41i77p2c4,
January 3, 1845: Letter to the Editor
Mr. Bowden's letter from Mexico seems to imply that Santa Anna has
fallen from the political light.
RE45v41i77p2c2,
January 3, 1845: Missouri Right Side Up, Action Reversed - Col. Benton
Instructed by Legislature
[From the St. Louis Reporter, Dec. 23], House of Representatives
passed the resolution to annex Texas. The people of Missouri expressed their
hopes to annex Texas, despite their representative's, Colonel Benton, vote
against the resolution.
RE45v41i77p2c6,
January 3, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
RE45v41i78p1c3,
January 7, 1845: The Dangers of Procrastination - Again!
The article states that the Whig Party is slowing down legislation
because they will not sway their vote to annex Texas.
RE45v4178ip1c3,
January 7, 1845: Texas
Questions whether the U.S. should wait until relations with Britain
improve before the Congress decides to annex Texas.
RE45v41i78p1c1,
January 7, 1845: House of Representatives
A record of the motions made by representatives in the House.
RE45v41i78p2c3,
January 7, 1845: Resolutions of New Hampshire
The article argues that Texas has the right to join the United States
because it is considered independent from Mexico.
RE45v41i78p2c6, January 7, 1845: From Washington
It is believed that the annexation of Texas will pass in the House
by majority and the Senate with a small majority.
RE45v41i78p2c6, January 7, 1845: Extract from
the New Orleans Bulletin (Whig) of the 28th December
The article implies that the annexation of Texas will be peaceful.
RE45v41i78p2c1, January 7, 1845: Richmond
Grays
Information about the meeting held by the Richmond Grays to repair
the Military Hall.
RE45v41i78p3c1, January 7, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
RE45v41i78p3c1,
January 7, 1845: River & Kanawha Canal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.
RE45v41i79p1c3, January 10, 1845: Proceedings
on the Texas Question
The House of Representatives and Senate are to vote today. It is believed
that the House will pass the resolution to annex Texas. It is also thought
that the Senate will pass the annexation if some of the representatives
change their position on the matter.
RE45v41i79p1c5,
January 10, 1845: New Orleans, Dec. 13, Later From Texas
The schooner William Bryan, and Captain Moss arrived from Galveston
bringing news from Texas. General Houston writes of the "prosperous" lands
in Texas and President Jones expresses his opinions of the annexation.
RE45v41i79p1c6,
January 10, 1845: Revolution in Mexico
[From the N.O. Picayune, 29th Dec.] Intelligence reports state
"that Santa Anna's career is drawing to a tragic close."
RE45v41i79p1c6,
January 10, 1845: Important From Mexico
A resolution broke out on the 3rd in the city of Mexico
and Santa Anna has been removed.
RE45v41i79p1c7, January 10, 1845: House
of Delegates
A report of the motions of the House of Delegates.
RE45v41i79p2c5, January 10, 1845:
Military Convention
Meeting called to improve Virginia's Militia System throughout the
state.
RE45v41i79p2c4,
January 10, 1845: Signs From Texas
The Valedictory Address of General Houston and the Annual Message of
President Jones.
RE45v41i79p3c1,
January 10, 1845: Senate
A report of the motions of the Senate.
RE45v41i79p3c3,
January 10, 1845: Texas, Part of Louisiana
An article from the National Intelligencer argues that we voluntarily
set the line of the Sabine to form the state of Louisiana when we purchased
the land from France. The idea seems to imply that Texas already belonged
to the U.S.
RE45v41i79p3c4,
January 10, 1845: Governor Briggs of Massachusetts
The new Governor Briggs opens the legislature of Massachusetts with
the statement that if we annex Texas we "will bring the barbarians to our
gates," like the fall of the Romans.
RE45v41i79p3c3,
January 10, 1845: Letter to the Editor, The Question of Annexation [written
by Mr. Dromgoole]
The article discusses Mr. Nile's bill to adopt a line of the Missouri
Compromise in order to annex Texas. Texas threatens to reject the offer
of annexation on such regulations. But there is still hope that a compromise
will be made.
RE45v41i79p3c5,
January 10, 1845: Washington City, Jan. 8, 1845
Mr. Dromgoole, the representative from the Petersburg District, presented
a simple plan for the admission of Texas to the Union.
RE45v41i79p4c1,
January 10, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
RE45v41i79p4c1,
January 10, 1845: James River & Kanawha Canal, Richmond, January 7,
1845
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.
RE45v41i80p1c3,
January 14, 1845: Monday Morning, January 13, 1845
The article states that the Whig Party misrepresented General Wallace
and unfairly attacked the proposed annexation of Texas under the Treaty
of Louisiana.
RE45v41i80p1c4,
January 14, 1845: Hermitage, January 1, 1845 [written by Andrew Jackson]
Jackson argues that there are too many joint resolutions to consider
and the Congress is just wasting time.
RE45v41i80p1c4,
January 14, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan.
10, 1845
The author warns that the annexation of Texas may spark a war with
Britain and France.
RE45v41i80p1c2,
January 14, 1845: House of Delegates, Saturday, Jan. 11
A report of the motions of the House of Delegates.
RE45v41i80p1c2,
January 14, 1845: House of Representatives
A report of the motions of the House of Representatives.
RE45v41i80p1c6,
January 14, 1845: A letter from a Correspondent
General Jackson warns Mr. Blair that Washington must act now or we
may lose the chance to annex Texas.
RE45v41i80p2c3,
January 14, 1845: "It Is My Thunder!"
Mr. J.P. Kennedy addressed the House of Representatives on Saturday
and presented his opposition to the annexation of Texas.
RE45v41i80p3c1,
January, 14, 1845: Debate on the Texas Question
An Account of the debate of Texas in the House of Representatives.
RE45v41i80p3c2,
January 14, 1845: New York Views of Annexation
The article accuses the New York Herald of focusing on "Northern principles"
and "Northern democracy".
RE45v41i80p4c3,
January 14, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
RE45v41i80p4c3, January 14, 1845: James
River & Kanawha Canal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.
RE45v41i81p1c1,
January 17, 1845: Political, Debate on the Texas Question
In the House of Representatives, Tuesday, Jan. 7; Committee of Foreign
Affairs presents a resolution to the annexation of Texas.
RE45v41i81p1c3,
January 17, 1845: House of Delegates, Tuesday, January 14, 1845
A report of the resolutions adopted by the House of Delegates.
RE45v41i81p2c3, January 17, 1845: Senatorial
Election! - Snap Judgement!
Congratulates the Senate of Virginia for passing the Texas resolutions.
RE45v41i81p3c1, January 17, 1845: Twenty-Eighth
Congress -2nd Ses. Wednesday, Jan. 15, 1845, In Senate
An account of the proceedings of Senate.
RE45v41i81p3c3, January 17, 1845: Plans
For Annexation
The article promotes Mr. Dromgoole's bill to annex Texas.
RE45v41i81p3c4,
January 17, 1845: House of Delegates, Thursday, January 16, 1845
The Senate changed the training camp for the officers of the 165th
Regiment of Virginia Militia.
RE45v41i81p3c5,
January 17, 1845: Another Voice from the Granite State!
Mr. Burke of New Hampshire presents another resolution to annex Texas
to the House of Representatives.
RE45v41i81p4c1,
January 17, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
RE45v41i81p3c1,
January 17, 1845: Congressional, Debate on the Texas Question
Mr. Yancey expresses his regret that the political parties can not
agree on a joint resolution to annex Texas.
RE45v41i81p3c7, January 17, 1845: House
of Representatives, Statistics of Texas
Mr. Pratt motioned that the Secretary of State report the amount of
debt Texas owed to the U.S.
RE45v41i83p1c3,
January 24, 1845: Later From Mexico
General Paredes' 8,000 troops turned on Santa Anna's 13,000 men. Santa
Anna being deserted by many of his forces, fled to Puebla where he was
defeated by Paredes.
RE45v41i83p2c3,
January 24, 1845: The Texas Question
The article states that the Whig Party will suffer in future elections
if they do not change their perception of the annexation of Texas.
RE45v41i83p2c4,
January 24, 1845: Editorial
The article discusses the line of the Missouri Compromise and Mr. Foster's
bill to annex Texas.
RE45v41i83p2c4,
January 24, 1845: Editorial "Annexation - Mr. Rives"
[From the Charlottesville Jeffersonian] The majority of Republicans now
support the annexation of Texas.
RE45v41i83p3c2,
January 24, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
RE45v41i83p4c1, January 24, 1845:
Congressional, Debate on the Annexation of Texas
Some representatives state that England "forced slavery upon us." Britain
wants Texas to become an abolitionist state if it is annexed. Southern representatives
believe that Britain only wants Texas to be annexed as a free state so the
U.S. can not profit from its annexation.
RE45v41i83p4c6, January 24, 1845: Plan
to defend Texas, and to divide The Republican Party of New York
An election between two senators in New York will be held today. Both
Republican candidates hold different views on the annexation of Texas. The
outcome of the election may end up dividing the Republican Party.
RE45v41i83p4c4,
January 24, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congressional, Thursday, Jan.16, 1845,
In Senate
A report of the proceeding of Senate.
RE45v41i83p4c6,
January 24, 1845: Texas
The article attacks the Whig newspaper, "The Tropic", for still encouraging
the public to oppose the annexation of Texas.
RE45v41i83p2c1,
January 24, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congressional -2nd Ses. Wednesday,
Jan. 22. In Senate
An account of the proceeding of Senate. Mr. Allen, from the Ohio General
Assembly, presented resolutions fro the U.S. to take over the Oregon
territory.
RE45v41i83p2c3,
January 24, 1845: Yesterday's Proceedings on Texas
The House of Delegates voted to annex Texas but they want time to look
over the resolutions before a definite decision can be made.
RE45v41i83p2c5,
January 24, 1845: Letter to the Editor, Washington City, Jan. 20, 1845
The letter questions whether the government had the right to annex
a foreign territory.
RE45v41i84p1c4, January 28, 1845: Letter
to the Editor, Washington City, Jan. 18, 1845
The author begins his letter with the comment, "God bless the Whigs!"
He argues whether or not the annexation is worth "consent of Mexico".
RE45v41i84p1c2, January 28, 1845: U.S.
Senators [from the Albany Argus of Monday.]
An update of the Senate's proceedings and an outline of the opinions
of a few representatives.
RE45v41i84p1c3,
January 28, 1845: Editorial
A Washington Correspondent of the Baltimore American writes that he
was disappointed with General Benton's address to the Senate. The editors
stand up for Colonel Benton even though they do not favor his bill to annex
Texas.
RE45v41i84p1c3,
January 28, 1845: Texas as a State of the Union
Congress consents to the new Texas state. The column outlines the articles
that Texas must follow in order to join the union.
RE45v41i84p1c6,
January 28, 1845: Glorious Result! The Annexation Resolutions passed
the House of Representatives!
Although most of the Whigs and all of the abolition members opposed
the annexation, the House of Representatives passed the resolutions.
RE45v41i84p2c1,
January 28, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan.
24, 1845
The author argues that the qualifications to become a representative
require a citizenship of 9 or at least 7 yrs. The letter states that there
can be no representatives from Texas as these requirements stand.
RE45v41i84p2c5,
January 28, 1845: All Aback!
The Whigs were overwhelmed to find that they do not have control of
the House of Representatives any longer.
RE45v41i84p2c6, January 28, 1845: Another
Example
The state of Louisiana has passed the resolutions to annex Texas in
the House of Representatives.
RE45v41i84p2c6,
January 28, 1845: A Feather in their Caps
The article warns that if the Whigs do not forget their loss in the
vote to annex Texas, than they will lose more seats at election time.
RE45v41i84p3c3, January 28, 1845: Marine
Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
RE45v41i84p4c1, January 28, 1845:
Editorial
The Madisonian quotes the "New Orleans Commercial Bulletin"
stating that the Louisiana legislature should pass the resolution to
annex Texas.
RE45v41i85p1c1, January 30, 1845: Twenty-Eighth
Congress-2d Ses. Monday, Jan. 20, 1845, In Senate
A report of the proceedings of Senate.
RE45v41i85p2c3,
January 30, 1845: The Empire Club of New York
During a meeting of the Empire Club, Mr. Rynders read General Jackson's
letter declaring that U.S. should annex Texas as soon as possible.
RE45v41i85p2c4,
January 30, 1845: Letter to the Editor, A Warning to the Whig Party!
A correspondent (Agricola) sent a letter, from the North of Germany,
warning the Whigs that they are threatening the principle of the United
States.
RE45v41i85p2c3,
January 30, 1845: (Correspondence) Huntington, Suffolk Co. 21st
Jan. 1845
The author considers the annexation the most important decision that
is being discussed. He also promotes the annexation of Texas.
RE45v41i85p2c4,
January 30, 1845: Editorial
It is believed that the House of Delegates will pass the Texas resolutions.
RE45v41i85p2c4, January 30, 1845:
Editorial
The article states that it is believed that Mr. Robinson submitted
an anti-Southern resolution to the House of Representatives. It is also
believed that he wrote to Albany telling them to send anti-Texas representatives
to the Senate.
RE45v41i85p4c3,
January 30, 1845: The Texas Resolutions in the House of Representatives
It is believed that the House of Representatives passed the resolution
submitted by Mr. Milton Brown, a Tennessee Whig.
RE45v41i85p4c4, January 30, 1845: Editorial
The article states that the annexation of Texas can only be good for
the United States.
RE45v41i85p4c5, January 30, 1845: To the
Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 27, 1845
There was some argument about the annexation of Texas in Virginia.
Virginians fear that Texas will bring the Union into debt.
RE41i85p3c1 January 30, 1845 Marine Journal
RE41i85p2c6 January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c6 Santa Anna a Prisoner.
February 1845
RE41v45n86p1c2 February 1, 1845, The Texas Debate.
REv45n87p2c1 February 4, 1845, Question of the Day. Issues concerning Texas.
REv45n87p4c4 February 4, 1845, Other States On Texas. Including Maine.
REv45n87p4c5 February 4, 1845, Texas, Mr. Kearny’s Quibble.
REv45n88p1c3 February 6, 1845, Oregon
REv45n88p2c3 February 6, 1845, Texas
REv45n88p4c7 February 6, 1845, Texas and Oregon
REv45n89p1c7 February 8, 1845, Proclamation From The President Of Texas
REv45n89p4c3 February 8, 1845, Latest From Vera Cruz. Information on Santa Anna
REv45n89p4c4 February 8, 1845, Another warning voice
REv41n91p2c6 February 13, 1845, Views From Texas
REv41n92p1c3 February 15, 1845, Interesting from Texas
REv41n92p4c3 February 15, 1845, Important From Mexico. Concerning Santa Ana
REv41n93p1c4 February 18, 1845, Friends of the Cause
REv41n93p2c4 February 18, 1845, Exact From Texas
REv41n94p2c5 February 22, 1845, Truth in a Nut Shell. Whig bashing.
REv41n94p4c3 February 22, 1845, Annexation of Texas
REv41n95p2c3 February 26, 1845, The Texas Question
REv41n95p4c7 February 26, 1845, Another Young Republic
REv41n96p2c3 February 28, 1845, Later From Mexico. Intelligence
REv41n96p2c6 February 28, 1845, The Question, Texas
REv41n96p4c2 February 28, 1845, Public Sentiment In Texas
REv41n96p2c3 February 28, 1845, Great meetings for Texas
MarchREv45i97p1c4,
March 4, 1845: Joy! Joy! The Last Stroke Struck!
House of Representatives make Texas annexation official.
RE45i97p1c4, March 4, 1845: The Inauguration
Thousands flocking to Washington to watch ceremonies of the Presidential
inauguration
RE45i97p1c4,
March 4, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
Victorious feeling of the senate on having Texas Annexation passed despite
the Whigs.
RE45i97p1c7, March 4, 1845: High Authority
Assessment of the Whig reaction to Texas Annexation
RE45i97p1c4, March 4, 1845: Twenty-seven
Guns were fired on Friday.
Guns fired in honor of Texas entering the union.
RE45i97p2c2, March 4, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congress-2d Ses.
RE45i97p2c3, March 4, 1845: The Annexation
of Texas
Annexation of Texas what Henry Clay predicted in 1820.
RE45i97p2c4, March 4, 1845: The Past
And The Present
In the Past the Whigs were sure of the Election of Henry Clay, the Democrats
were divided amongst various candidates. Henry Clay was in favor of
Texas. Now the opposite is true.
RE45i97p2c5, March 4, 1845: Will
the Whigs keep their word to-day?
The Whigs of the Howard Grove ceremony will meet again after deluding
themselves into the belief that Henry Clay would be chosen president at their
last meeting.
RE45i97p2c4, March 4, 1845: Clinging to
the Last Straw!
Before Texas Resolutions passed, the National Intelligencer indulged
a visionary hope, that the Whigs of the House of Representatives might still
defeat the measure.
RE45i97p1c4,
March 4, 1845: Mr. Merrick meets with no mercy or charity.
Mocking the Whig treatment of Mr. Merrick
RE45i97p2c5, March 4, 1845: Extract
of a letter from a young and ardent friend.
Describing excitement around Washington that Texas will join the Union.
Dated Feb, 28.
RE45i97p2c6,
March 4, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
Letter dated Feb, 28 describing events at the Senate surrounding the
passing of the Texas Resolutions.
RE45i97p2c6, March 4, 1845: To the Editors
of the Enquirer
Letter dated March 1. Author of the previous letter was rushed
in describing the events at the Senate. This letter elaborates on the
passing of the Texas resolutions.
RE45i98p1c7, March 7, 1845:
Commend the Poisoned Chalice to their own Lips!
Whig predictions of what would happen if Polk were elected appear incorrect.
RE45i98p2c4,
March 7, 1845: THE CABINET
The new cabinet members as reported from Wednesday's Globe. James
Buchanan must superintend the final settlement of Texas.
RE45i98p4c6, March 7, 1845: ANTI-TEXAS
WHIGS
The Whig presses of New York are taken all aback by the news of the annexation
of Texas. "it appears to egg on Great Britain to war with us, on account
of Texas"
RE45i98p4c7,
March 7, 1845: For the Enquirer, signed Zen--
Commentary on two articles in the Richmond Whig, in reference to the
correspondence between Dr. John R. Taylor and Col. Billups.
RE45i98p4c5,
March 7, 1845: The Oregon Negotiation
Copied from the New York Courier and Enquirer of Thursday last.
Reports of ongoing negotiations with Great Britain concerning Oregon.
RE45i98p4c5, March 7, 1845:
Dispatches to Texas
The joint Resolution for the admission of Texas inot the union will e
delivered to Maj. Donelson at Nashville to be taken to Texas.
RE45i98p4c6,
March 7, 1845: Ho! For Texas!
One hundred guns fired in Baltimore in honor of admission of Texas into
the Union
RE45i99p1c5,
March 11, 1845: Mr. Baptist's speech
Note from the Enquirer that because of all the resent events of Texas,
Mr. Baptist's speech on the election of the senator will be printed at a
later date.
RE45i99p2c5,
March 11, 1845: Mr. Merrick of Maryland
Defense of Mr. Merrick of Maryland who has been denounced by the Whig
press as a traitor.
RE45i99p4c4, March 11, 1845: The
Mexican Minister
From Phil. Spirit of the Times. "Signor Almonte, it is said, will
demand his passports the moment the Texas Bill is signed, and Mexico will
declare war."
RE45i99p4c4,
March 11, 1845: Amusing
From Philadelphia Ledger. Whigs who had previously been
against the veto power now think it is too conservative.
RE45i100p1c4,
March 14, 1845: For the Enquirer. To Robert J. Walker, Esq,
Letter suggesting the secretary of Treasury dedicate as much time towards
disposing the Tariff as annexing Texas.
RE45i100p1c3,
March 14, 1845: Mr. Calhoun
Description of Mr. Calhoun's visit to Richmond.
RE45i100p2c3,
March 14, 1845: New Orleans, March 5. From Mexico
Santa Anna still in Prison, and is planning on send his defence in writing.
RE45i100p2c5,
March 14, 1845: To the Senior Editor
Signed, A Friend. Quotes a letter addressed June 13, 1836 describing
a conversation with Santa Anna on the future of Texas.
RE45i100p4c5,
March 14, 1845: The Danger Averted!
Letters surfaced by the Texas National Register indicated that Great
Britain had tried to persuade Texas against agreeing to annexation.
RE45i100p4c6,
March 14, 1845: Mr. Elliott, British Envoy, to Mr. Jones, Secretary
of State. Dated March 22d, 1844.
That Annexation would not be in the best interests of Texas, Mexico,
France, or Great Britain.
RE45i101p1c3,
March 18, 1845: PRO AND CON!
The Enquirer allows the Whig Mr. Willoughby Newton to respond to recent
accusations against him concerning his actions in the Senate concerning
Texas.
RE45i101p1c5,
March 18, 1845: The Scene of the 4th at Washington
Commentary on the behavior of Henry Clay at the Inauguration James Polk.
RE45i101p2c1, March 18, 1845:
Political. From the Globe. THE RIVAL NATIONS.
England's attempts to confine the United States
RE45i101p2c1, March 18, 1845:
Important Disclosure
NY Journal of Commerce has published a letter declaring that at the time
of Santa Anna's fall, a treaty was in progress, and nearly consummated,
for the entire cession of California and New Mexico, to Great Britain.
RE45i101p2c1, March 18, 1845:
From the New Orleans Courier, March 8. Mexico
Santa Anna still in Prision, and reports from Gazette of Tampico.
RE45i101p2c5,
March 18, 1845: MORE STRAWS!
The Baltimore American still clings to hope of defeating Texas Annexation
by publishing the same letter of Mr. Elliot that the Enquirer published
last week to show the danger the Whigs have incurred.
RE45i101p2c5, March 18, 1845:
Still Catching at the Straw!
Commentary on numerous Whig headlines that insinuate Texas Annexation
is still in doubt.
RE45i101p2c5, March 18, 1845:
THE TONE OF THE WHIG PRESS!
Article on certain 'free state' newspapers that consider the free states
betrayed by the south.
RE45i101p4c6, March 18, 1845:
THE TEXAS QUESTION IN INDIANA
Extract from a letter, dated Indianapolis, March 6. What a Hoosier
thinks of 'a southern man who would go against annexation.'
RE45i101p4c7, March 18, 1845: FROM
TEXAS
Proclamation by Anson Jones, president of Texas, declaring that no vessel
will be allowed to wage hostilities against Mexico.
RE45i102p1c4, March 21, 1845:
WHIG TROUBLES
Mr. Newton, a whig, suffereing from attack by both the Whig papers and
the Enquirer
RE45i102p1c5, March 21, 1845:
THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS
Its National-Sectional-and Party Aspects.
RE45i102p2c3, March 21, 1845:
THE WHIGS STILL AGAINST ANNEXATION
Actions by Whigs in congress against annexation
RE45i102p2c3, March 21, 1845:
ORGANIZATION-UNION-ACTION
Enquirer printing remarks from "Augusta Democrat" on upcoming elections
RE45i102p2c4, March 21, 1845:
To the Editors of the Enquirer: Goochland, March 17
Debate between Mr. Botts and Mr. Seddon campaigning for election to congress.
RE45i102p1c4, March 21, 1845:
From Another Correspondent, For the Enquirer,
Debate between Mr. Botts and Mr. Seddon campaigning for election to congress.
RE45i102p1c5, March 21, 1845: To the
Editors of the Enquirer, THE 8th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Response to Mr.Newton's remarks against republicans
RE45i102p2c7, March 21, 1845:
For the Enquirer. TO THE DEMOCRATS OF THE ALBEMARLE DISTRICT.
Encouraging Democrats to support Shelton F. Leake for congress.
Signed, Rapid Ann
RE45i102p4c3, March 21, 1845:
SPRING ELECTIONS
In the future the Enquirer will be printing the Democratic Central Committee's
address.
RE45i102p4c3, March 21, 1845:
OUR RELATIONS WITH MEXICO
Commentary on a letter published in the New York Herald by Caleb Cushing
about his views on the present position of the Unite States and Mexico.
RE45i103p1c4, March 25, 1845:
ANNEXATION
Response to Whig reports on annexation.
RE45i103p1c4, March 25, 1845:
TO THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS
From the N.O. Bulletin. Advising Texans to vote in favor
of Annexation
RE45i103p1c5, March 25,
1845: IMPORTANT MOVEMENTS IN ENGLAND
United States Government should eliminate Tariff
RE45i103p1c7, March 25, 1845:
European Correspondence dated February 28.
Comments upon Sir Robert Peells predictions in 1842 on relations between
the United States and England. Signed Agricola
RE45i103p1c6, March 25, 1845:
America Rivalling France!
Comparing France to Whigs
RE45i103p2c3, March 25, 1845:
Which is the true version?
Commentary on Whig quotes about the effect of Annexation of Texas
RE45i103p2c3, March 25, 1845:
Address of the Democratic Central Committee, To the People of Virginia!
Address to Virginians on how to defeat the Whigs and Why.
RE45i103p4c4, March 25, 1845:
Anti-Annexationists-on both sides of the House
Contemplates if Whigs will continue to discuss Annexation
RE45i103p4c5, March 25, 1845:
TEXAS
From the New Orleans Jeffersonian. Some Texans not pleased with
the terms of annexation
RE45i103p4c5, March 25, 1845:
From the Texas National Register
Should Texas reorganize their government at the bidding of the United
States?
RE45i103p4c6, March 25, 1845:
From the Galveston Weekly News
If Texas decides against annexation the powers of Europe will recognize
the Texas Gov and end the war with Mexico.
RE45i103p4c7, March 25, 1845:
For the Enquirer. TEXAS-John M. Botts
John M. Botts, a Whig candidate, refuses to enter into discussion on
the Annexation of Texas.
RE45i104p1c6, March 28, 1845: A
KEY TO THE ENIGMA
The Picayune has explained Mr. Archer's report which the Enquirer
could not understand
RE45i104p1c6, March 28, 1845: From
the New Orleans Picayune
Explanation of the Report by Mr. Archer
RE45i104p1c4, March 28, 1845:
THE CITY CANVASS
Reply to the Whig Reply on the Enquirers response to word in the Richmond
Whig
RE45i104p1c5, March 28, 1845:
THE IMPORTANCE OF UNION
Criticism of the Morgantown Mountaineer misrepresenting the Democratic
Party
RE45i104p1c5,
March 28, 1845: The Serfs of Angus McDonald
Article from the Romney Gazette against McDonald who could deliver
New Hampshire to the Whigs.
RE45i104p2c3, March 28, 1845:
British Intrigues
Concerns that Houston is on the British side against Annexation in Texas
RE45i104p2c4, March 28, 1845:
From TAMPICO
Extract from a letter published in the Mobile Advertiser, revolution
in Mexico far from over.
RE45i104p4c4, March 28, 1845:
PARTY DICTATION
Analysis of Whig Public meeting
RE45i104p4c5, March 28, 1845:
ANNEXATION
Whig reports that Texas will refuse Annexation
REv41i107p1c3, April 8, 1845
Lyons consulted the Senior Editor of the R. Whig as to his ability of
holding the post of Whig Elector or resigning it on account of his Texas
leaning-information on Lyons stance on the Texas question
REv41i109p4c3, April 15, 1845:
Augusta County
Approved the resolution of Congress to annex Texas and support Polk's stance
on Oregon
REv41i109p4c5, April 15, 1845:
"Texas and Disunion"
Judge Jay wrote a letter threatening disunion in case of the Annexation
of Texas
REv41i109p4c5, April 15, 1845:
Looking Ahead
Response to a Whig paper complaining the RE had given cause for the war
to Mexico
REv41i109p4c6, April 15, 1845: Escape
of Santa Anna
Santa Anna has escaped, reported that he is now in New Orleans with a
large sum of money; rumor of his escape as also reached Corpus Christi
REv41i109p1c4, April 15,
1845: From the Baltimore Republican
Report on the upcoming Virginia Elections-Texas question will be a big
issue-VA elections important because of the position the state holds in the
Union
REv41i110p2c3, April 18, 1845: Annexation
Quote from Northern Whig press about Mr. Dudley Selden's speech in NY-comments
on the question of annexation, which according to Seldon is not settled
REv41i105p2c6, April 1, 1845: Messers,
Bolts and Seddon in Hanover
Report on a debate between Messers, Bolts, and Seddon-talk of various things
including the tariff and annexation
REv41i105p2c6, April 1, 1845:
For the Enquirer
Who should the Republicans vote for? The Whig, Mr. Lyons who is in favor
of Texas
REv41i105p4c6, April 1, 1845: Washington,
15th March, 1845
Woodbury in favor of the annexation of Texas, comments on the tariff
REv41i108p4c5, April 1, 1845
Mexican Minister and his family from New York in the Anahuac for Mexico;
different speculations are formed about the results of US late measures
in regard to Texas
REv41i105p4c1, April 1, 1845: The
"Little Clique" Meeting
Mr. Lyon's friends called a public meeting and all other candidates were
invited to attend but declined because of the possibility of the Texas question
coming up
REv41i105p2c3, April 1, 1845: Gen.
Almonte and Mexico
Opinion of Gen. Almonte that since the decision to annex Texas was passed
by so little a minority, Mexico will not think it necessary to start war
REv41i112p2c3, April 25, 1845: News
from Texas
Gen. Houston has openly said he is against annexation; may expect some
startling developments with regard to British policy and British intrigue
REv41i13p2c1, April 29, 1845: Mexico
Schooner Fanny arrived from Vera Cruz; Mr. Shannon, the US Charge d'Affairs
has retired to Tacubaya; trial of Santa Anna has been concluded; Minister
of Foreign Relations in Mexico sees the annexation of Texas as call for war;
warlike movements in regard to the government
REv41i113p2c1, April 29, 1845:
Mr. Shannon to Senor Cuevas
Report that the US has annexed Texas; hope that the differences between
the two countries can be peacefully settled; passes over in silence the
accusation that the US has violated the treaty of friendship with Mexico;
it is up to Mexico if things are going to be peaceful
REv41i113p2c1, April 29, 1845:
Senor Cuevas to Mr. Shannon
Mexico breaking diplomatic ties with the US; US is not acting friendly
towards Mexico with the annexation of Texas;
REv41i113p2c1, April 29, 1845:
From the N.O. Tropic
Government banished several military chiefs for trying to free General
Canalizo and Paredes; Cuevas spoke in length to Congress about the annexation;
journals condemn the tone of Cuevas as not being harsh enough; warlike movement
taken by the government; American squadron headed to Vera Cruz with
Com. Connor in charge
REv41i113p4c2, April 29, 1845:
From the N.O. Republican, April 17 Mexico
Mexico will try war and invade Texas compelling the US if it annexes Texas
to begin hostilities; resolution passed in the Mexican Congress making it
high treason to acknowledge Texas as independent or part of the US
REv41i113p4c2, April 29, 1845:
National Palace, Mexico
Protest against annexation of Texas by Cuevas
REv41i113p4c2, April 29, 1845:
The general circular is as follows
More protest of US annexation of Texas
REv41i113p4c3, April 29, 1845: From
the New Orleans Bulletin, April 17
Mr. Smith the Secretary of State in Texas has left his post; resolution
having to do with the annexation of Texas-who said yes and no
REv41i112p1c4, April 25, 1845: Whig
Justice and Moderation
Comments on the Whig's anti-annexation stance
REv41i112p1c5, April 25, 1845: The Tactics
of the Richmond Whig
Comments on the Richmond Whig's coverage of the annexation of Texas
REv41i111p1c7, April 22,
1845: New Orleans, April 11
Schooner Water Witch arrived; Santa Anna still prisoner; British sloop
or war sailed from Vera Cruz to Galveston with despatches for the British
Minister in Texas; Mexican government will recognize Texas if the US doesn't
annex; comments on the press coverage in Mexico
REv41i113p1c3, April 29, 1845:
The Spirit of the Whig Press
Comments on the Whig press coverage of the Texas question
REv41i112p4c2, April 25, 1845: Texas
and Mexico
US has annexed Texas; what will Texas and Mexico say to annexation?-details
about that question from various papers; information on people coming to
the US on annexation business; more comments on annexation; letters to President
Jones of Texas about annexation
REv41i112p2c1, April 25, 1845:
Seven Days Later from Europe
Comments on Oregon-British stance compared and in response to US stance-response
to Polk's speech
REv41i105p4c2, April
1, 1845: For the Enquirer-Congressional Canvass in King Williams
Report on speeches made by Messers, Hunter and Newton-discuss the Texas
question and annexation
REv41i104p1c4, April 1,
1845: The Proceeding of her Republican Party Suggestion to the Republicans
of Albermarle
Report on nomination of Hugh A. Garland; comments on Texas-government,
interests
REv41i104p1c5, April 1, 1845: Annexation
of Texas
Comments on the Whig party's stance on not annexing Texas
REv41i104p1c7, April 1,1845: the Clam
What will Britian say about Texas and when?-speculations about
REv41i107p1c3, April 8, 1845:
speech of Chesselden Ellis
Full speech by Chesselden Ellis on the annexation of Texas
REv41i108p4c3, April
(cannot read date) 1845: Shall the Will of the People Prevail?
Comments on the Whig opposition to the annexation of Texas
REv41i108p4c6, April (cannot read the
date) 1845: A Chapter in the Political Life of J. M. Botts
Opinion of Botts' stance on the Texas question
REv41i106p1c4, April 4, 1845:
Almonte's Protest
Mexican Minister's late protest; comments on the annexation
REv41i107p4c1, April 8, 1845:
Annexation of Texas
Passage in Texas of agreement of annexation; celebration of the annexation;
predictions that Texas will be glad with the decision made
REv41i107p4c1, April 8,
1845: Annexation Meeting in the City of Galveston
Adoption of the resolution of annexation by the people of Galveston-details
of the meeting
REv41i107p4c2, April 8,
1845
Comments about the National Register-trying to throw cold water on the
annexation of Texas
REv41i107p4c3 April 8, 1845
Polk and cabinet to send Calhoun to Texas because of his difficulties with
the annexation
REv41i107p4c3, April 8, 1845
Editor of the Lynchburg Virginians trying to get the people of Texas to
refuse annexation; comments on state of Texas and what will happen if annexed
REv41i107p4c4, April 8, 1845:
The Issues in the Sixth Congressional District
Comments on abolitionists and the gaining of Texas
REv41i107p4c5, April 8, 1845:
Further from Texas
Mr. Beton's plan for Texas annexation; comments on the Texas Tariff; rumor
that despatches say that Mexico has recognized Texas as independent; Kauffinan
appointed Charge to the US
REv41i107p2c1, April 8, 1845:
Speech of Chesselden Elis
Full speech of Chesselden Elis on the annexation of Texas
REv41i107p2c4, April 8, 1845: An Editor
Clashing with a Correspondent
Comments about information stated about Texas-Calhoun going to
REv41i107p2c4, April 8, 1845
Quote from the Savannah Republican which RE says is false
REv41i107p2c5, April 8, 1845: An Appeal
to Virginia
Article copied from the Boston Morning Post-Comments on annexation; report
that British are trying to defeat annexation; Polk working to secure it
REv41i106p4c1, April 4, 1845: The Tariff
Comment on the fact that even though Texas is settled the tariff will remain
in place
REv41i106p4c1, April 4, 1845: Will
Texas Accept?
Report that Texans will accept annexation;-majority in favor of it
REv41i106p4c2, April 4, 1845:
Col. Chester Ashley
Speech by Col. Chester which gives new ideas about Texas-speech published
in last paper but comments are made in this article about it
REv41i111p4c1, April 22, 1845:
By the Great Western
English opinions of Mr. Polk's inaugural address
REv41i111p4c5, April 22, 1845: Powhatan
County
Comments about Mr. Seddon-spoke at the courthouse made attacks on Mr.
Botts who does not want annexation; report of Mr. Botts speaking against
annexation, author of the article relies the conversations between the two
men about annexation
REv41i111p4c6, April 22, 1845: To
the Editors of the Enquirer
Another person giving an account of the discussion between Mr. Seddon and
Mr. Botts-again speaks of the annexation question
REv41i108p1c4, April (cannot read the
date) 1845: The Claims of Mexico-Our treaties with her-Chance of war
Comments on how annexation of Texas does not violate our treaties with
Mexico-mentions articles from other papers that support this; comments on
Mexico rushing into war-belief that it is against her own interests
REv41i108p1c5, April (cannot
read the date) 1845: Texas is no Province
Report on Senor Almonte publishing protests against the annexation of
Texas
REv41i108p1c5, April (cannot read
the date) 1845: Cheering sign from Texas!
Article from a Texas paper that states that it believes Texas will accept
annexation
REv41i109p2c1, April 15, 1845: Cheering
from Texas!
Reports of confident hopes coming in about the annexation of Texas; passage
of the Galveston agreement on annexation has been received; comments on how
the Whigs made everyone believe that Texas might not accept the annexation
REv41i109p2c2, April 15, 1845: A
Due Compliment
Reprint of an article from New Orleans about Mr. Barton's view on the
Texas question and how it is rumored that he is a speculator in Texas land
REv41i108p1c6, April (cannot read
date): To the Republicans of Virginia
Comments about how the Texas question is not settled yet and a call to
not relax on the issue; comments about how and the Whigs think that
the annexation of Texas is unconstitutional
REv41i108p1c7, April (cannot read
date): Messers, Hunter and Newton
Debate between the three men-including conversation about the Texas question
REv41i109p1c6, April 15, 1845: The Issues
in the Sixth Congressional District
More comments on the annexation of Texas and how it is a good thing, why
it is legal
REv41i106p2c2, April 4, 1845: Views
of Annexation
Letter speaking of the views of annexation and comments about it-presents
strong reasons as to why the US should annex Texas
REv41i110p1c3, April 18, 1845: The
Succession!
Comments on how it has been predicted that the next election will focus
on how slavery will be extended into the Texas lands
REv41i110p1c3, April 18, 1845: Federal
Strategy
Quote from the Tribune about the annexation of Texas and comments about
how the annexation of Texas will be fought
REv41i110p1c6, April 18, 1845:
Meeting in Chesterfield
Comments on the remarks made by Messers, Seddon and Botts about the Texas
question-said to have been forcibly presented
REv41i110p1c5, April 18, 1845: Messrs,
Seddon and Botts
Mr. Seddon's comments on the tariff and Texas question at a debate yesterday-said
that Seddon excelled himself
REv41i111p1c5, April 22,1845: British
Views and Sentiments
Quotes other British newspapers giving the British point of view on Texas
REv41i111p1c5, April 22, 1845: From
the Galveston
French and English Ministers returned to the city today
REv41i111p1c5, April 22, 1845:
From the same
British vessels of war arrived in Vera Cruz with despatches from the government-comments
on what those despatches might say and what this means for Texas
REv41i108p2c3, April (cannot
read the date): A Very Novel Proposition
Urging Virginians to throw their weight behind the annexation of Texas
REv41i108p2c4, April (cannot read the date): To the People of Virginia
Article from the Cincinnati Weekly Herald that Whigs and abolitionist are
and appeal the annexation of Texas
REv41i108p2c6, April (cannot read
the date): To Rappahannock
Comments on England trying to defeat the annexation of Texas; Whigs turning
on Mr. Newton when he voted for Brown and came out supporting annexation;
comments on Whigs against annexation
REv41i110p4c1, April 18, 1845:
Important from Texas
Gov. Yell headed for Marmoro; Mr. Donelson has returned bring important
despatches; comments on the drama surrounding Texas; resolutions passed
at San Phillipe show a unity on annexation; annexation received in Houston;
English and French Ministers left for Washington; Annexation meeting in Austin
accepted the annexation of Texas
REv41i110p4c3, April18,
1845: Additional Accounts from Texas
More information-very detailed-about the situation in Texas-will they accept
or won't they?; what will England say?-speculation on questions that do not
have answers yet
REv41i111p2c3, April 22, 1845:
Further from Texas
Diplomatic relations have been ceased between Mexico and US; papers full
of articles relating to annexation-reprint of an article expressing the desire
for annexation; General Houston in favor of annexation law; British sloop
of war Eurydice is headed for Vera Cruz; rumors and suspicions attached to
the sailing of the Eurydice
REv41i111p3c4, April 22, 1845:
From the N.O. Jeffersionian Republic-Texas--Mexico
Comments on relations of Mexico to Texas; angry speeches made in the Mexican
Congress; Santa Anna still has a party even though he is a prisoner; Herrera
wants to have a peaceful settlement with the US
REv41i111p3c4, April 22, 1845: From the
Same-Havana--Mexico
Mexico has learned of the passage of the annexation of Texas and other
information on the situation in Mexico
REv41i111p3c4, April 22, 1845: Texas
Comments on the progress of annexation; French and English Ministers have
arrived in New York and have prepared an offer to settle the Texas matter;
results of a meeting held in san Augustin; Congress in Mexico has been insession
trying to figure out what to do about the annexation
REv41i111p3c6, April 22, 1845: For
the Enquirer
Comments on the stance of politicians on the annexation of Texas
REv41i11103c6, April 22, 1845: To
the Editors of the Enquirer
More comments on politician stances on the annexation of Texas
RE41i115p1c4: May 6, 1845: PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS
Coverage of the democratic meetings in Philadelphia regarding Oregon.
RE41i115p1c6:
May 6, 1845: OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS
As summarized by the Philadelphia Ledger.
RE41i115p1c7: May 6, 1845: HUGH A. GARLAND’S
LETTER
From the Petersburg Republican. Signed Keith. Discusses the
role Texas should play in party politics.
RE41i115p2c1: May 6, 1845: A CAUTION TO THE
WHIG PARTY
From the Washington Union. Do not make Oregon a party issue.
RE41i115p2c1:
May 6, 1845: IDLE SPECULATIONS
Oregon shows county is wild about rumors. from The Washington Union.
RE41i115p2c1: May 6, 1845: IN PEACE PREPARE
FOR WAR
From the New Orleans Republican April 28. War with Mexico will
be a war or privateering.
RE41i115p2c2: May 6, 1845: SCENES IN PHILADELPHIA
What effect do the events of Philadelphia have on national parties? From
The Washington Union.
RE41i115p2c3: May 6, 1845: OUR RIGHTS
TO OREGON
We don’t want war, but hope all will support it.
RE41i115p2c6:
May 6, 1845: GOVERNOR OF OREGON
Halifax County Herald says “We have it upon good authority,
that Sir George Simpson, a passenger in the Caledonia for Boston, goes on
as Governor of the Oregon Territory. If so, the question of right and possession
will be brought to speedy issue.”
RE41i115p4c1: May 6, 1845: MISCELLANEOUS
From New Orleans Bulletin April 26. Texas favors annexation.
RE41i115p4c1:
May 6, 1845: PROCLAMATION
Anson Jones. Texas legislature to meet June 16th.
RE41i115p4c2: May 6, 1845: THE OREGON QUESTION
Mr. Clay does not carry more weight than Polk.
RE41i115p4c2: May 6, 1845: ANOTHER NAIL
IN THE COFFIN OF ANTI-ANNEXATION
Praises Jones proclamation.
RE42i1p1c6:
May 9, 1845: OREGON AND ENGLAND
We are not alarmed by Whig war predictions.
RE42i1p1c7: May 9, 1845: THE OREGON NEGOTIATION
Negotiations aren’t over. from The Washington Union.
RE42i1p2c1, May 9, 1845: ARRIVAL OF THE HIBERNIA
From New York Express Extra, May 7. Latest news from Continent.
RE42i1p4c1, May 9, 1845: GOVERNOR OF OREGON
Suspicions regarding Sir George Simpson.
RE42i1p4c2,
May 9, 1845: LATER FROM MEXICO
From the New Orleans Tropic, April 29th. Latest Bulletin.
RE42i1p4c4,
May 9, 1845: LATE FROM TEXAS
Annexation immediately favored.
RE42i1p4c4,
May 9, 1845: COTTON FOR CHINA
Need for Oregon explained by the market in China.
RE42i1p4c5, May 9, 1845: THE RIGHT SPIRIT
OREGON!
Don’t make possible war with England over Oregon a party issue.
RE42i2p1c4,
May 13, 1845: THE ENGLISH MISSION - OREGON
Northern fear that a Southerner will be granted the mission.
RE42i2p1c4,
May 13, 1845: OUTRAGE UPON PROPRIETY
Censure of Whigs who turn Oregon into a party issue to undermine the administration.
RE42i2p1c7,
May 13, 1845: LATER FROM TEXAS
Latest from the New Orleans Tropic, April 30.
RE42i2p2c1,
May 13, 1845: THE WAR QUESTION
New York Herald reports the latest on British attitudes.
RE42i2p2c1, May 13, 1845: UNTITLED
From the Washington Union. We want peace, but it must be honorable.
RE42i2p2c1, May 13, 1845: BRITISH MOVEMENTS
Washington Union reports hints of troop movements from the London
Times.
RE42i2p4c5, May 13, 1845: UNTITLED
There will be no war with England, for she has domestic concerns.
RE42i3p1c4,
May 16, 1845: WHIG OPINION IN VIRGINIA
The role that Texas plays.
RE42i3p1c4, May 16, 1845: THE ENGLISH
MISSION - MR. PICKENS
Discussion of who will be conferred with Mr. Pickens refusal. Van Buren
would be Southern favorite
RE42i3p1c4,
May 16, 1845: MEXICAN AFFAIRS
Refutes claims that Mexico has declared war.
RE42i3p1c5,
May 16, 1845: THE STATES - CONNECTICUT
What Connecticut says about annexation.
RE42i3p2c2,
May 16, 1845: LAST NEWS FROM MEXICO
No change in relations despite recent events in Vera Cruz.
RE42i3p4c3,
May 16, 1845: THE JUSTICE OF OUR CLAIM TO ENGLAND ACKNOWLEDGED ABROAD
The Dublin Nation says England “cannot occupy Oregon without the
consent of the United States.”
RE42i3p4c3, May 16, 1845: WAR
FEVER IN BRITISH COLONIES
Toronto Globe advocates liberal policies over iron hand.
RE42i4p1c6, May 20, 1845: INTERESTING FROM
TEXAS
Annexation process continues uninterrupted.
RE42i4p2c1, May 20, 1845: MISREPRESENTATION
Sorts out the confusion of rumors regarding the mission to England.
RE42i4p2c6,
May 20, 1845: UNTITLED
Another Revolution in Mexico is said to be in contemplation. From New
Orleans Republican.
RE42i4p2c6,
May 20, 1845: OREGON
Could Arbitration work? From the Washington Union.
RE42i4p4c2,
May 20, 1845: TITLE TO OREGON
A history of the claims both England and the U.S. make on the territory.
RE42i5p1c5, May 23, 1845: ACCUMULATED
EVIDENCE
Absolute confidence that Texas will be admitted.
RE42i5p1c7, May 23, 1845: FIFTEEN DAYS
LATER FROM EUROPE
Neither side will start a war.
RE42i5p2c2,
May 23, 1845: IMPORTANT, IF TRUE
Texas Independence is too late.
RE42i5p2c3,
May 23, 1845: A WORD IN EAR OF MR. POLK
- From the Punch.
RE42i5p2c4, May 23, 1845: FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE
NO. XLII. “OUR OWN COUNTRY” - “ARM, BROTHERS, ARM!”
A letter to the editor stating the reasons that Great Britain will not
attack. Signed Agricola.
RE42i5p4c3, May 23, 1845: AGREEABLE INTELLIGENCE
All information from Texas border reports support for annexation in Texas.
RE42i6p1c4, May 27, 1845: SHALL WE HAVE
WAR?
Too many domestic troubles for Britain means probably not.
RE42i6p2c3,
May 27, 1845: FRUITS OF TEXAS ANNEXATION
We are not in favor of annexation just because we are Southern.
RE42i6p2c4,
May 27, 1845: A GOOD JOKE KNOCKED IN THE HEAD!
A detailed account of what Judge Bragg of Mobile really said concerning
Texas.
RE42i6p4c6,
May 27, 1845: THE WEST - THE OREGON
A Non-Virginian perspective.
RE42i6p4c6, May 27, 1845: MINISTER TO
ENGLAND
Discussion of possible appointments.
RE42i7p1c5, May 30, 1845: EXCITING
NEWS FROM THE SOUTH
Texas President Jones has been waiting to hear from Mexico before voting
on annexation. From the New Orleans Republican, May 20 and 21.
RE42i7p1c6,
May 30, 1845: PROPOSITIONS
Details from Washington Union on what each side has proposed regarding
Oregon.
RE42i7p2c1, May 30, 1845: UNTITLED
News from New Orleans reports Texas debt at sixteen million. However,
figures are questionable.
RE42i7p2c2, May 30, 1845: THE OREGON QUESTION
Details of Mr. Calhoun’s involvement in possible Oregon settlements.
RE42i7p2c3, May
30, 1845: MEXICO AND TEXAS
Discussion of Mexicans duplicity, i.e. their willingness to let Texas go.
From the Mobile Herald & Tribune.
RE42i7p4c5, May 30, 1845: EXCITEMENT IN
ENGLAND
War is unlikely.
June 3, 1845 RE45v42i8p1c6 The Crisis in Texas
June 3, 1845 RE45v42i8p4c3 Mexico and Texas
June 6, 1845 RE45v42i9p2c5 The Mexican Installments
June 6, 1845 RE45v42i9p4c4 Mexican Commissions
June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p1c5 Texas
June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p1c5 The Mexican Installments
June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p2c2 News from the South
June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p2c2 Texas
June 13, 1845 RE45v42i11p2c5 The Navy Court Martial
June 13, 1845 RE45v42i11p4c1
Political
Annexation of Texas
June 17, 1845 RE45v42i12p1c5 Another Act in the Drama
June 17, 1845 RE45v42i12p1c6 Six
Days Later From Texas
June 20, 1845, REv42i13p1c6 A
Diary about General Jackson
June 20,
1845, REv42i13p1c7 Texas
June 27, 1845, REv42i15p1c From
Mexico, Santa Anna
June 27, 1845, REv42i15p4c6 Very Late
From Mexico
January
Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p1c1 207 words
Foreign Intelligence, Later From Mexico and China
Arrival of Mr. Cushing-Progress of the revolution-Santa Anna deposed as President-Gen. Herrera temporary President-A new Government organized, and Santa Anna at the head of the Army.
We learn, (say the New York Journal of Commerce) from Captain Briscoe of the marquee Hogenia, from Vera Cruz, whence she sailed on the 12th instant, that the principal towns, and almost the whole country, have pronounced against Santa Anna, who with a small force was a Queretaro.
The revolution passed of very quietly, no blood having been shed-the former revolution having been carried on by one party of military against another, resulting in much loss of life, but this movement, coming from the people as well as from the soldiery, makes the thing general and hence the little commotion of disagreeable nature. Santa Anna has but little chance of overcoming this movement, and it was a matter of conjecture, whether he would attempt to escape or deliver himself up. He will very probably endeavor to gain over the opposite General by bribery or similar means; but in this it is thought he will not succeed. In case that he is taken prisoner, the people will probably demand his execution, as they deem his liberty dangerous to the public safety.
[AMB]
Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p1c1
Arrival of Mr. Crushing
Hon C. Cushing, late Minister […] of the United States to China, who arrived in town this morning, in the […] Eugenia, has communicated to us the following information-In passing through Mexico, Mr. Cushing was robbed of nearly all his private papers, but fortunately, the public papers were left […] .Mr. Fletcher Webster is expected to arrive by way of England in about a fortnight.
Santa Anna was proclaimed Dictator, and all seemed to go on well, but about midstream the troops barracked in the […] St. Francis and the citadel pronounced against Santa Anna and Canalizo. At the head of the movement was General Done Jose J. Herrera, President of the Council, who addressed the proclamation to the city, and the whole Congress immediately threw itself into his arms, who immediately took possession of the National palace without […] shed.
The Congress constituted its session’s permanent. The Ex-Minister fled. Canalizo is in […] rest at his own house.
The new authorities maintained perfect quiet.
The Chambers are occupied in […] means to remedy the injury the country has […].
On the 1st of November, 1811, the Departmental Assembly of Jalisco adopted and published what is called an Initiative, being an act published what is called an Initiative, being an act […] for by the constitution, in virtue of which the Assembly submitted the proposition following.
“The National Congress will make […] the responsibility of the Provisional Government to which it was subjected by the 6th of the […] of Tacubaya, which it swore to and caused to be sworn to by the nation.” The four departments of Zacatecas, Aguasclientes, Sinaloa and Sonora […] at once in the pronunciamento of Jalisco, and thus the […] Northwestern departments were in arms at […] against Santa Anna. Between these and Mexico, there intervene the two departments of […] and Queretaro.
Paredes advanced to Lagos, on the Frontier of Jalisco, and the established his head-quarters, with an army of 1400 men, to await the progress of events. In the contiguous department of Guanajuato was General Cortazar, with 2000 men, on whom Paredes depended for support; but the rapid movements of Santa Anna himself prevented Cortazar from joining Paredes, if he had the intention, and compelled him, for the present, at least to declare for Santa Anna.
The Mexican Constitution provides expressly that the President cannot command in person the military force either by land or sea, without the previous permission of Congress. Santa Anna would have taken the command without even pretending to ask the counsel of Congress […] in so doing, had himself performed a revolution an act quite as positive and serious as that of Paredes.
Nevertheless, on the 22nd he proceeded on his march to Queretaro, and on the same day, the Chamber of Deputies voted the impeachment of the Minister of War, Gen. Reyes. For signing the order under which Santa Anna held the command of the troops. Congress also voted to receive and print the procurements of the revolutionized department; in all this indicating a disposition, not to be mistaken, of hostility of Santa Anna.
On arriving at Queretaro, Santa Anna found that, although the military authorities were […] in power, yet the junta department had pronounced for the institution of Jalisco. There fore he made known to the members, that if they did not re-pronounce in his favor, he would send them prisoners to Perote.
His position is now extremely critical, therefore. Everything he depends on whether his troops adhere to him against the Congress and the constitutional government. If they do, he becomes military Dictator of the country.
They refused, and three of them were immediately arrested by his order, and sent off under a strong guard in the direction of Mexico and Perote. When the report of these proceedings reached Mexico, the Congress summoned before it the Minister of War and of Government to […] whether they had authorized General Santa Anna to imprison the members of the junta department of Secretary.
This subject occupied the Chambers on the 29th and 30th of November, and their attitude had now become so menacing that the […] interino, Canalize, (after consultation with Santa Anna) took the high-handed step of deciding to close the session of Congress by force, and declaring Santa Anna Dictator of the Republic.
Accordingly, on repairing to the palace on the 1st of December the members found the doors shut against them and granted by soldiers and on the 2nd appeared the proclamation of Canalizo, the Presidente[…] declaring the Chambers dissolved indefinitely, and conferring all the powers of Government, legislative as well as executive, on Santa Anna, as […] the same to be exercised by Canalize Presidente interino, until otherwise ordered for Santa Anna.
For some days this forcible demolition of the constitutional Government by the creatures of Santa Anna, […] without producing any apparent effect in Mexico. But on the very day when the news reached Puebla, Gen. […] commandant-general of that department, in concert with the civil authority, pronounced against the Government, imprisoned Canalizo and his ministers-Congress re-assembled-the President, according to the Constitution, and new ministers were appointed the next day, whose authority was immediately acknowledged in Vera Cruz.
At the latest dates there from Vera Cruz […] a departments of Sonora, Sinaloa, Jalisco, revolution and Aguasclientes were in a state of Paredes. […] in the military possession of Gen Santa Anna. Santa Anna’s President […] Congress had re-assembled, and a temporary [ . . . ] Government was installed there, composed as follows viz:
General
Jose Joaquin de Herrera, President of the Council of Government, charged
temporarily with the supreme executive authority.
D. Luis G. Cuevas, Minister of
Foreign Relations, State and Police.
D. Mariano
Riva Palacios, Minister of Justice Public Instructions and Industry.
D. Pedro
J. Echeverria, Minister of Finance.
D. Pedro
Garcia Conde, Minister of War.
And it was already known that the Departments of Puebla and Vera Cruz had declared their adhesion to the provisional Government, and there is no doubt that most of the other Departments will also support the Congress.
Meanwhile, Santa Anna, constitutional President of the Republic, but unconstitutionally in the command of the troops, is employed against Paredes. The new Minister of War has ordered him to give up his command.
Reports were current at Vera Cruz, that a part of his troops had already proclaimed him Dictator; that another part had declared against him: but, upon this point, no information in authentic form had reached the public ear.
If any [ . . . ] portion of troops adheres to him, to enable him to continue the war, still he is surrounded with difficulties, being in the very heart of the republic, with Jalisco and its concurrent departments to the Pacific against him […] and Mexico, with its […] Gulf against him on the […].
[AMB]
Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p2c5
To the Editors of the Enquirer
Gentlemen: The enclosed letter from Mr. Bowden to me, has been approved by such of our friends as have seen it, and they think it best to have it published. If you can find space in your columns, be good enough to give it an early insertion. Yours, respectfully,
ED. S. RUSSELL.
30th December, 1844.
Williamsburg, 28th Dec., 1844
My dear Sir: I observe in the country Whig, which came to hand this morning, that a writer, signing himself "Poqusin," has advanced the idea, that "neither any good Whig, nor any Republican who values the Right of Instruction, can consistently vote for Mr. Bowden." I have not the advantage of knowing who "Poqusin" is, nor would I venture to say whether his residence is in York, James City, or Williamsburg; but one thing I desire you to do for me, and that is to assure any of my constituents, with whom you may meet, that I fully acknowledge the right of the constituent body to instruct their delegate, and the duty of the delegate to obey or to resign; and I wish you to make this known as early and as widely as possible, and especially to the Whigs-- that they may [ . . . ] to be instructed, if the people desire to here and [ . . . ]. I shall have it fully understood.
The Senatorias City.
The writer in the [ . . . ] is the subject on which [ . . . ] of instructions. [ . . . ] I design a [ . . . ] is not yet fixed: it will not [ . . . ] of that election sooner than the 20th of January; [ . . . ] take place remediate time, full opportunity will be the [ . . . ] my opponents to remove all doubts as to the [ . . . ] that my district entertains relative to the election of Senator, by obtaining from the people a direct and unequivocal declaration on the subject.
That the people whom I represent desire me to vote for an anti-Texas Senator-placed in Congress to thwart the measures of the Administration which the nation's will has so recently advanced to power, and to nullify the voice of Virginia, pronounced by a majority of about 6,000 in opposition to the principles and policy which a Whig Senator would maintain-is what I shall never believe, until by some clear and manifest declaration from them all shadow of doubt shall be removed. Virginia, you must admit; is entitled to a Republican Senator-no matter in what aspect the subject may be viewed.-If you look to numbers alone, she is Republican by about six thousand majority. If you regard representation alone, and look to the compound basis, so as to give Eastern Virginia her constitutional weight in the election of Senator, how then stands the case taking the Presidential Election as a test? (and you will bear in mind, it is from that election my instruction to vote for a Whig is deduced.) Taking the Presidential Election as a test, the Whigs sustain a clear loss of eight or ten votes in the Legislature, which ensures the election of a Republican Senator. With this statement of facts staring them in the face, and ringing in their ears, if any people wish me to vote for a Senator to misrepresent Virginia, and to make this old Commonwealth support in the Federal Legislature the very measure which, in fact, she abhors and detests; if any people wish me to act in this manner, let them say so at once. I know full well what I shall do the instant such a request is authoritatively made. But, that my constituents-who were rocked in the cradle of Republicanism-who dwell on a soil consecrated by the earliest and most glorious achievements of Freedom's votaries-who have ever regarded as a fundamental principle of out institutions, the right of the majority, when fairly expressed, to control the action of the Government, and to declare, within the limits of the Constitutions, what shall be the law of the land-that these constituents desire me to stifle the voice of the state, and to saddle her with a Senator
who would oppose the wishes and misrepresent the interests of a legislative majority, backed by a popular majority of 6,000, would be to suppose then actuated by feelings and opinions which I believe have no place but with a lean and scanty minority-a minority which may fancy itself to speak as with the voice of the people, and which has caused its clamor so to resound through the press as to make the distant public believe that the whole district was in an uproar!
If the Whig party deem the Presidential vote a test-'tis all well enough. If the members of that party, in the House, whose counties voted for Polk, regarding the Presidential Election as instructions, will vote for a Republican, I will follow their lead and vote for a Whig-not that I deem myself instructed. Many, who voted for Clay, want Texas; and some have told me to act as I please. But if the Whigs situated as above, will vote for a Republican, the Republicans will be perfectly willing that I should, by adopting such a principle, gain eight or ten legislative votes to the party-and the Whigs could not complain of my voting for their man.
You will find out, however, that whilst the Presidential Election is viewed as instructions to Democrats, the idea of its being considered instructions to the Whigs will be treated as perfectly absurd and ridiculous; though, on every fair principle, a rule the direct reverse of this should prevail-for every Republican must wish the administration supported-but every Whig does not wish it opposed. Many desire it to have a fair trial, and are unwilling to throw embarrassments and difficulties in its way-preferring rather to see the country prosper, by wise measures, successfully pursued, than to witness the triumph of their party, secured by the distress and ruin which a factious opposition might visit on the land, under the wisest and best administrations.
Do not fail to let my position be clearly understood-for, whilst the Senatorial, and all the other elections, belong to the people, it belongs to me, and to my friends, to see to it, that no charge of violated instructions should be urged against me, without arming myself with testimony wherewith to stop the mouths of my adversaries.
Remember me most respectfully and kindly to the family, and tender my respects and good wishes to such as consider me worthy of inquiry.
Yours, L. J. BOWDEN.
To Ed. S. Russell, Esq.,
Half-way House, York County.
[AMB]
Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p2c4
Letter to the Editor
We invite attention to the powerful letter of Mr. Bowden and to the highly important news from Mexico, which seem to portend the downfall of Santa Anna. Will the Whigs of the Senate still persist, that we should ask the "consent" of Mexico to the annexation of Texas-when it is clear, that the former doomed country, a prey to intestine dissensions, cannot command her own ambitious and discordant spirits? At the present moment, Texas occupies a vastly higher moral position in the scale of nations, than her would-be mistress. In every sense, Texas is more independent than Mexico.
[AMB]
Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i47p2c2
Missouri Right Side Up, Action Reversed - Col. Benton Instructed by Legislature [from the St. Louis Reporter, Dec. 23]
We announce with great pleasure the final passage of the Resolutions of Instruction, through the House of Representatives, on the 18th […] by a vote of 55 to 25. They had previously passed the Senate by a vote of 3 to 1, except the 6th, which was opposed by five Democrats, under the apprehension that it would be seized on, as justifying efforts to embarrass the friends of […], and might lend to the defeat of the […], at the present session. The opposition to immediate annexation was confined to the Whigs-The five first resolutions received the unanimous vote of the Democrats in the Senate and on the question as to the passage of the entire series, every Democrat, present in the House, voted in the affirmative.
[The resolutions were published in the Enquirer a few days since.]
These resolutions clearly express the will of the people of Missouri. They instruct our Senators to vote for annexation at the earliest practicable period-by which the debate shows that the Democrats mean now, immediately, or at the present recession of Congress. They declare the Missouri regards Texas, as free and independent-capable of maintaining that independence-and possessing the indisputable right to transfer herself to this country; and that the right of the U. States to accept Texas, without that consent of Mexico or any other power, is equally unquestionable-They also declare that Missouri approves the arrangement as to the boundary agreed on in the treaty, and is opposed to the division of Texas into slave-holding and non-slaveholding States for territory. Thus, every objection urged by Col. Benton against the treaty, has been pronounced unfounded by the Legislature, representing the sovereign people of Missouri.
The Colonel, if he means to act as a Democrat, and with the Democratic Party, will cheerfully obey the foregoing instruction-drop his bill, and vote for the annexation of Texas, by joint resolution, in accordance with the views of the party and the State of Missouri.
We sincerely congratulate the Democratic Members of the Legislature on the result of their deliberations on the great issue of annexation. Though the 6th resolution shows that many of them naturally continued to repose confluence in the opinions and assertions of Colonel Benton, and, therefore, supposed Texas would offer more favorable conditions, and Mexico yield her consent to annexation-still, the five preceding resolutions are very explicit, and clearly instruct our Senators to vote for annexation on the terms and embraced in the treaty. The friends of Colonel Benton declare that he will most cheerfully obey the instructions given, and we hope their confidence may not be misplaced. For the sake of the country, to say nothing of the harmony of the party, we trust Colonel Benton will renounce his heresies at once, and faithfully co-operate with Judge Atchison in favor of immediate annexation.
Again we congratulate the Democrats in the Legislature. […] have they proclaimed the sovereign will of the State, and thus shown that they understand our national interests, and […] defend them. They are now with the party in other quarters of the Union-and if they cannot carry Col. Benton with them, it will be his fault, not theirs. They have shown that they will only follow when they believe they are correctly led, and that they adhere to the Democratic doctrine, that they representatives should obey the will of his constituents.
There is now an opportunity for the party to harmonize. On State issues there seems to be but little difference of opinion, as all now agree that we were right in advocating equal representation and the district system, and opposing bills of pains and penalties. On national questions, we are now united, and may remain united, in spite of the efforts of any one man.
The members of the Legislature have acted as Democrats should always act. The will of the people-of the party, has been boldly proclaimed, and should be obeyed. We can continue to agree on all great questions and, by resolving that we will not quarrel about non-essential, harmony may be restored and preserved!
[AMB]
Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p2c6 24 words
Marine Journal
From the Port of Richmond, 10:00 a.m.
Arrived
[…] Curtis Peck, Davis Norfolk
Sailed
[…] Manchester, Worth, New York,
[…], Couster, Rogart, Jersey City.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1846 RE41i78p1c3
The Dangers of Procrastination - Again!
If we were to believe most of the thousand and one rumors which reach us from Washington, we should not entertain a very sanguine hope of the results of the present session of Congress. Most of the Whig scribblers even ridicule the prospect of Annexation, or the reduction of the Tariff. But the strongest considerations are opposed to this miserable policy of delay. The country demands relief from the present oppressive Tariff. The manufacturers themselves demand stability in the imposition of duties. The present Tariff cannot continue. The South will never acquiesce in it. Is it not wiser, then, to regulate it at once, and thus avoid those agitations which we are otherwise destined to witness? Let some liberal system be adopted at once, which shall certainly but gradually relieve us from the oppressions of the Tariff, and we are willing to meet our Republican brethren in other quarters in the most conciliatory spirit.-We equally deprecate all procrastination in the acquisition of Texas. We are only satisfied by longer time and greater reflection that Immediate Annexation is our true policy. (Our last accounts from Washington are of the most cheering character. We understand, upon good authority, that the Republican Caucus have agreed upon the question of Annexation by a majority of 30 odd-and that, in case it passes the House by a respectable majority, there is a favorable prospect of its passing the Senate. It is said, Col. Benton will obey the instructions of the Legislature of Missouri.)- But why is not all the Republican press doing its duty on these great questions? Why are they not all making their boldest appeals to Congress? We earnestly request them all to speak out, and urge an immediate settlement of these two important subjects.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p1c3
Texas
The best policy of the government, too, forbids any procrastination upon this subject. Everything shows that Great Britain is attempting to tamper both with Texas and Mexico to defeat any annexation with the U. States. Why incur the danger of losing this country? The people of the U. States have just decided in favor of the measure. Why run the risk and danger of any delay? Some of the Republican presses are not speaking out as boldly and as energetically as the country has a right to demand. They cant about delay.-They affect to say, that Congress will do nothing at the present session: and we must submit. - Shame upon this hesitating and equivocating language! Why do they not speak out-and call upon the members to act at once? If these presses and politicians were to speak out without any reserve, and instead of encouraging the lagging members to violate their duties, were to shame them into the fulfillment of them, then might the will of the people be respected, Texas be acquired, without war and without disturbance. It must be confessed, too, that some of our politicians are shivering in the wind. They are either slumbering at their posts, or sacrificing the interests of their country to the gratification of their own passions. But there are many other politicians and presses, who deserve the people's thanks for the energy with which they throw themselves into the cause of immediate annexation. We shall quote a few specimens of this class, as well to do honor to themselves, as that we may avail ourselves of the arguments which they are urging. - The first of these is Mr. Foster, one of the United States Senators of New York. The following is an extract of a letter which he addressed on the 25th December, to the Editor of the N.Y. Plebeian, in reply to certain questions of its Editor:
"I am in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas, and placing over the territory of Oregon the shield of our government. I believe that the resolution adopted at the recent Democratic National Convention, held at Baltimore:-'That out title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestioned; that no portion thereof ought to be ceded to England or to any other power, and that the re-occupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas, at the earliest practicable period, are great American measures,’ should be accomplished as soon as is compatible with national honor. That the re-annexation of Texas will not increase the evils of slavery, but will hasten its extinction in the slaveholding States; will in an especial manner, promote the agriculture, manufacturing and commercial interests of the Northern and Eastern States; will add to the security of the whole Union; and extend and perpetuate the benefits of our form of Government over one of the richest portions of the earth. I cannot present you with the details of a plan of annexation; but I hold that it can rightfully be annexed without the consent of Mexico. She has no right to interfere. Texas is really, as well as nominally, independent. She has maintained her independence for several years, and not a hostile force has entered her territory, without being compelled to retreat with more rapidity than it had advanced.
"The leading powers of Europe, as well as our own Government, have acknowledged the independence of Texas, and some of them have treated with her as an independent nation; and even the Congress of Mexico has recently refused to vote the supplies necessary to a further prosecution of her war with Texas. The only question, therefore, in regard to which Mexico is interested, is one of boundary; and that can as well be settled by negotiation with our Government after the annexation shall take place as with Texas, if she remains separate from us.
"I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"HENRY A. FOSTER."
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p1c1
House of Representatives
On the motion of Mr. PRATT, it was Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate to this House such [ . . . ] as he may possess, or may be able to [ . . . ], of the whole amount of the debt of Texas the amount for which bond or scrip has been issued; and the present market value of [ . . . ] scrip or bond in Texas, in the United States, and in Europe; the amount in value of the exports from, and the imports into, Texas for the years 1843 and 1844, with the amount of revenue [ . . . ] and collected for the same years, with [ . . . ] expenditures for the same time; also, the present population of Texas, distinguishing in numbers between free and slaves; also, the quantity of acres of land, which it is supposed is covered in valid grants from the present and former Governments of that country; and the estimated quantity in acres of good and [ . . . ] land [ . . . ] for cultivation which remains [ . . . ] [ . . . ] the disputed and acknowledged limits of [ . . . ] as same existed prior to the year [ . . . ].
RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS
Mr. HAMMETT moved that the rules be suspended, that the House might resolve [ . . . ] into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
The motion was agreed to and the House went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair,) assumed the consideration of the resolutions to annex Texas to this Union.
Mr. Holmes, who had the floor from yesterday, commenced with some remarks [ . . . ] importance of the question which now [ . . . ] the attention of the committee. He contended that this was not a sectional, but a great [ . . . ] question; and to this complexion it has [ . . . ] at last; annexation or rejection now and [ . . . ]. And on this he based the proposition, and [ . . . ] to it the attention, not of a section, nor of a [ . . . ] but of every man who had in his [ . . . ] the [ . . . ] union and confederation,[ . . . ] Annexation[ . . . ] [ . . . ] was salvation or destruction to the [ . . . ] Atlantic States, to New England and to the manufacturing community, and be admitted, [ . . . ] the inevitable destruction of the South, and sustained his position by showing the [ . . . ] effect which would be produced on the producers and manufactures of the various sections of [ . . . ] country by Texas remaining independent and [ . . . ] commercial league with England, and in [ . . . ] of the guarantees promised to her [ . . . ] [ . . . ]. A [ . . . ] on condition of her [ . . . ] government separate from ours. Her [ . . . ] [ . . . ] Great Britain would preclude exportation [ . . . ] our country to that republic, and under the restrictive policy our entire Union would be injured to [ . . . ] degree now not to be determined.
Mr. WM. J. BROWN was wedded to no particular plan. He was like the young man in his own native West with stout arms and [ . . . ] principles, who, when first sets out from his maternal home, gets himself a wife. When [ . . . ] to one whose smile serves the purpose [ . . . ] rainbow of hope and promise, he begins to [ . . . ] his cabin, and lay out his fields, until his horn of plenty is filled to overflowing. Just so with [ . . . ] he was first for his country, and next for Texas and, having obtained her, all things else [ . . . ] be added thereto. Let us then have Texas [ . . . ] and hereafter all the details could be settled. [ . . . ] as this question was decided in the late election, he called upon gentlemen to obey the will of the people.
Mr. GARRET DAVIS would not be displeased; on the contrary, he would be glad if Texas could be annexed without a violation of the Constitution, and our neutral rights, and with the general assent of the people. It was with a [ . . . ] to the distant future that he should desire the [ . . . ] of this measure. The natural [ . . . ] cities of Texas for the production of cotton and sugar rendered it of immense importance [ . . . ] inhabitants of the United States. But his [ . . . ] to see Texas annexed was subordinate to other considerations. His attachment to the Union [ . . . ] existed, rather than endanger its [ . . . ] led him, nevertheless, to oppose annexation [ . . . ] every possible form. He spoke of the question as one of power-contending the legislature was not, by the Constitution, empowered to require foreign territory, &c.
Mr. BOWLIN next obtained the floor but The Committee rose, and reported progress, [ . . . ] The House then adjourned. Extract of a letter from Madison County,
"Mr. Goggin has declined becoming a candidate for re-election, as you have seen. The Whigs are awfully troubled about it here. [ . . . ] do not think there is the least doubt about the election of a Democratic member of Congress [ . . . ] this district, unless there be some discord in [ . . . ] Convention proposed to be held in Charlottesville to nominate a candidate."
[We will listen to no such apprehension. [ . . . ] take it for granted, that the Convention will be well attended, as it ought to be- fairly organized as it ought also to be- and that its [ . . . ] will meet the immediate and cordial [ . . . ] every Republican in the District.] [ . . . ]
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c3
Resolutions of New Hampshire
Missouri has adopted Resolutions instructing her Senators to vote for the annexation of Texas as early as practicable. The Granite State is also coming up to the rescue. The following Resolutions have just been passed by the House of Representatives of New Hampshire, by a vote of 136 to 61. Upon which, the N. York Plebeian says, “The Democracy of New England are unanimous on this great American question. There is no backing out, or denying the issue in that quarter.”
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened, That the result of the Presidential election demonstrates that the people of this State and the U. States are in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas to the Union.
“Resolved, That the usurpation of Santa Anna and his subversion by the sword of the compact under which Texas became one of the States of the Mexican Confederacy; the triumph of Texian arms a the decisive battle of San Jacinto; the subsequent acknowledgement of her independence by the usurper, and by the great powers of both continents the maintenance of that independence for a long succession of years against every toe-all combine to absolve Texas from all further allegiance to Mexico, and to establish her independence in law and act and her prefect freedom to negotiate treaties and contract alliances with other sovereignties of the globe.
“Resolved, That we regard it as an insult to the people of Texas, who have gallantly achieved their liberties by the sword of revolution, to make the consent of Mexico a pre-requisite to their annexation to the United States, and that an attempt to procure the assent of Mexico now convulsed with insurrection and torn with contending factions, each claiming to wield the rightful powers of Government, would be as fruitless as unnecessary, and uncalled for by the justice and law of the case.
“Resolved, That the annexation of Texas is as constitutional and expedient as was the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, of which purchased territory, we believe the present territory of Texas constitutes a part.
“Resolved, That the re-annexation of Texas, aside from its restoring to the Southwest its mutilated territory bargained a way by the treachery or folly of our diplomatists, is found in the interest of every section of our country-the agriculture of the South and West, and the commerce and manufactures of the North.
“Resolved, That we do not recognize the right of foreign nations to interfere in the negotiations upon this subject, and that the two countries consenting, and as against foreign nations, Texas should be re-annexed to the U.S., if need be, by armed occupation.
“Resolved, That national honor and national policy alike forbid all further aggression upon American soil.
“Resolved, That we believe with Mr. Clay, ‘that the re-annexation of Texas will add more free than slave States to the Union, and that it would be unwise to refuse a permanent acquisition, which will exist as long as the globe remains on account of a temporary institution.’
“Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives be requested, to use their exertions to procure the adoption of such measures by the General Government, as in their opinion shall be best calculated to effect the re-annexation of Texas to the United States, and to assert and maintain our rights to the territory of Oregon.
“Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to furnish a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to the Governors of the several States and Territories of the Union.”
[The above resolutions were unanimously adopted, by the Senate of New Hampshire.]
We understand, that Representatives of New Hampshire in Congress are unanimous for annexation-and that the cause is, in fact, gaining ground in both Houses. It is hoped, that the measure will not fall through the multiplicity of projects-but that some scheme may be adopted in a wise and conciliatory spirit, during the present session. Let us seize upon the present golden opportunity, while it is in our power. We are much more indifferent to the details than to the great object itself. Strike whilst the iron is hot, and all will be well.
And shall Virginia slumber at her post? Shall Missouri and New Hampshire instruct their Senators, and shall she refuse to mingle her voice with theirs? Shall the largest State in the South shrink from her duty? No man, as far as we are advised, knows whether her two Senators will vote for the annexation. Their course at the late session of Congress is calculated to produce only suspicions and doubts. Called upon, therefore, as Virginia now I, by the importance of this question and its present position before Congress-called upon particularly by the resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, which the Governor has officially communicated to the General Assembly, we do not hesitate to say, they are called upon to act decisively upon the question, as soon as possible. We had once hoped that it would never become such a question under the malign auspices of Mr. Clay’s letter. We still dare to hope that some of the Whigs in the Legislature will rise above all party feelings, and go for the country. At all events, the Republicans are bound to speak out, in the most unequivocal language, and instruct the Senators of Virginia to vote for immediate Annexation. We are no dodging of this question. Let the Whigs of the House vote against it if they please, or let them under any flimsy pretext whatever dodge the issue; they must answer for their votes at the bar of their country. But no idle scruples should arrest the action of the State. We have no doubt that the question will come up in a very few days, and that then every gentleman will have the opportunity of showing his hands.
In connection with this subject, with subjoin some very important information, which was give by Mr. C. Ingersoll to the House of Representatives, and to the world, on Friday last, and no doubt upon the highest authority.
‘But now to speak a word with respect to these foreign superintendents of our affairs. On this point he should be very grief. And, first, in regard to Mexico: her right to interfere in this question had been too much urged in various quarters to require him to touch that question; but he was authorized by those who, he felt very sure, had not deceived him, (and he would assure the House and the country that in this declaration he was not deceiving them.)to declare here, in his place, and on his responsibility, that, whatever angry feelings might now prevail between us and Mexico, there was no reason to believe that any rupture with that Power would be consequence of annexation. On this point he had asked for information where he believed he was not deceived. There was a sinew of war, and the best and strongest sinew of it-he meant money-which would heal all our breaches in that quarter.
[some laughter]
“And, in the next place, with regard to Great Britain. Some gentlemen might be surprised perhaps to hear him say, that in regard to her-
[“At this point Mr. I. was interrupted by a query from a member near him, which the Reporter did not distinctly hear, but which he understood to have reference to Mr. I.’s authority for making these declarations. Mr. I., speaking in reply, said he was not, he believed, authorized by the committee to go further in the way of exploration; but it must, he though, be pretty obvious where his authority came from.]
“He was saying that with respect to Great Britain (and there might, perhaps, be those present who thought he regretted to make such a statement,) there was […] as little reason to apprehend any rupture in that quarter.
“A voice. ‘And respecting Oregon too?’
“As to Oregon that question was under negotiation, and he did not know what the exact state of it was; but in regard to Texas, he was authorized to state, that however, Great Britain might desire a more intimate connection with that power-however she would be pleased at seeing all the slaves in that territory emancipated-and how little, so ever she might wish that Texas should be annexed to the U. States, yet, there was every reason to believe that annexation, if effected, would be productive of no rupture.
“And, then, in regard to France-though there had been a suspicion, at one time, that she might take umbrage at it, the contrary had since officially been made known to both branches of Congress. The re-annexation, therefore, none proposed would be a peaceable re-annexation. Meantime, all we had to do was, to preserve peace at home, there was no danger of any quarrel or any coolness with any foreign power.
“As the South, he believed, was upon this subject nearly unanimous, he would now address himself to the Northern Democracy, or rather to the Northern States altogether.
[“A voice. ‘No, no; stick to the Democracy.’ A laugh.]
“Well, be was willing to repeat the term, and he would now, then, address himself to the Northern Democracy, and would here recall one or two things to their recollection. Mr. I. understood that, in the commencement of our National Revolution, two of the distinguished leaders among the friends of freedom at that day-he meant John and Samuel Adams-were one day conversing together on the question who should be appointed Commander-in-Chief of the American forces, and, on comparison of views, they agreed in sentiment that it was most expedient he should not be an Eastern, but a Southern man; and they fixed upon Col. Washington, then comparatively young, and who had not yet displayed those magnificent attributes of character which afterwards rendered him so illustrious, as the suitable man, mainly because he was a Southern man. Again, the war of 1812 had begun with the complaints of the Eastern States, and it was entered into expressly with a view of vindicating Eastern rights and interests; and all must recollect with what a ready and devoted zeal the South and the West rushed forward to that vindication. Mr. I. insisted that all ought to now to imitate that patriotic example. To which he might add yet another; when, on a more recent occasion, an army of fifty thousand men, and the sum of ten millions of dollars, were by a vote of that House, put at the disposal of the Executive for the maintenance of our rights, then supposed to be a threatened by another Power. All we wanted was a display of the same national spirit now. Why were gentlemen sitting in the Hall? To make laws? No; he denied it; and always had denied it, They were there to prevent war, they were there to preserve peace, they were there, that all parts of the country might become acquainted with each other, that we might see, and feel, and realize that we were one people and one nation; and that, though we were spread over a region two thousand mile square, we still composed but one great American Republic. Whenever we felt this, and acted accordingly, we never had failed to accomplish our object, be it what it might.
“We were in no danger of hostilities from any quarter. Gentlemen might rest assured, that annexation was not the path to war, but, on the contrary, was the pledge of peace. They might differ here as to the best mode of effecting the object, but unless he was not egregiously mistaken, there was a large majority of the members of that House who did not differ as to the wisdom of the measure itself. In regard to the treaty which had been rejected by the Senate last year, none had been rejected by the Senate last year, none had open more opposed to it then Mr. I.: he had even gone so far as to dissuade the Executive from its completion, because he thought that to defer the treaty and make an appeal to the good sense and the god will of the whole American people would be a far better course. Yet he was willing to take the treaty rather than nothing; and he now believed, and he did not did no think that nay man could reasonably doubt, that if it had been ratified last year, in the course of ten days all excitement would have been over, and not a word more would have been said about it. The whole country, on the contrary, would not only have become reconciled to it, but highly gratified.
“[Here Mr. I. was interrupted by some gentleman behind him, who expressed a dissent from this opinion, and put to him some query not heard by the reporter.]
“Mr. I. uttered a very emphatic negative=There might be, he admitted, some persons in N. York, who might possibly think otherwise, but his remark applied to a vast majority of the country; and in this opinion he believed himself to be right. He did think that all would have been gratified when the result was seen. A Governor would have been sent to take possession of Texas, just as Gov. Claiborne had taken possession of Louisiana, and Gen. Jackson of Florida. Nay more, we should now have had on this floor a delegate from Texas, and before this time the whole marvel would have been over.”
Yes-Mr. Ingersoll is right. And we are somewhat surprised, as well as sorry to see, that the best decidedly of our political periodicals-to whose ability, and energy, and efficiency, we cannot pay too high a tribute of commendation-has, without intending it, thrown something like a wet blanket upon the subject. No one has contributed more to our late glorious victory than the “Southern Review;” but whilst it continues the devoted friend of Annexation, yet the way in which it speaks of the public sentiment upon it, is calculated to encourage the Whigs more than ourselves. The Whigs have accordingly quoted its remarks against the cause, for they seize upon everything, and they exaggerate everything upon which they seize, to abate the tone of public sentiment for the Annexation.-Decision may secure the measure. Doubt may produce delay, and delay may defeat it. We are for no delay. We are for settling Texas and the […] if possible, at the present session. Some politicians will try to excuse their apathy by saying “If we cannot succeed now, we will call an Extra Session of Congress to carry it through.” We are doing it now-now is the accepted time, rather than run the risk of an Extra Session, always a very ticklish, sometimes a very dangerous policy.
Mr. Adams is said to have declared it as his opinion, that the United States would acquire Texas without any objection on the part of Great Britain, who would then attempt to obtain possession of Cuba. The report about his declaration is daily gaining ground. As for any such design on the part of England, we must say, that the United States can never submit to it. It is the key to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi. We must resist such a policy on her part that the point of the sword, and at very extremity.
The New Orleans Picayune of the 28th […] publishes an interesting letter from its Havana correspondent, who “combats the idea, attributed to ex-President Adams, that England will take possession of Cuba whenever the United States annexes Texas. The Cubans appear to have correct notions of the blessings that British legislation would confer upon their beautiful island.-It is not to be supposed that the […] of abolition in Jamaica will assist British intriguers in compassing the subjugation of the reaming islands in the Gulf of Mexico; much less can we believe that the United States would calmly witness the further acquisition of American territory by the British crown in this direction, especially of so important an outpost as Cuba is.”
The Havana letter(of the date of Dec. 24)says, that not withstanding the present derangement of the finances of the Island, “every son of Cuba deeply feels how much better he is situated, than if he were under the merciless claws of England’s colonial policy. This latter event we imagine far more distant than John Q. Adams would seem to think, if certain newspaper paragraphs that have lately been going the rounds in the United States are true. That England should force Spain to sell Cuba-for it would be nothing better than forcing-because two Republics choose to unite under one Federal Government, and those Republics by thus uniting, would lose the power of preventing this mighty rival from assuming this armed surveillance over one-half of their sea coast, seems to us rather preposterous; and if Mr. Adams think that in the supposed event of England would justly acquire, and the United States justly lose, the rights now supposed to be held by either, it strikes us that his idea of ‘justice’ is a very strange one. For our part we set this down as only another of vagaries of ‘the old man eloquent.’ Spain never will loose the hole she has upon Cuba, so long as she can by any possible means retain it; and when such no longer is the case, the following significant language held by the first citizens and a portion of the authorities here to the home Government a few short years since; when the question of melding with slavery here at the urgent request of England was mooted, clearly indicates the course that Cuba would hold-‘It is not to be presumed that any white man will submit to so hard a fate; they will prefer to emigrate to foreign countries, to earn their livelihood and save the lives of their children, if they do not previously adopt the course which a state of desperation would prescribe.’ That Cuba will ever peaceably be England’s knowing the people as we think we do, we can never believe.”
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c6
From Washington
Our last letter (4th January) says-"The opinion to-day seems to be, that the Annexation question will pass the House by a large majority, and the Senate by a small one. All the Democrats are now relied on, in voting in the affirmative in obedience to their own convictions, or the expressed wishes of their constituents. Several of the Whigs are spoken of as intending to vote for the annexation.
"On the other hand, it is said that the question of acquiring by law a foreign territory, could not pass the Senate; and it is even added, that the heads of the Report of the Committee of Foreign Relations are already written- and that the ground taken is, that it was unconstitutional. - Mr. Tibbatts’, (of Ky.) plan in the House of Representatives is, to provide for the admission of Texas as a state. It may yet become the favorite scheme, in order to meet the Whigs in their professions of constitutional scruples."
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c6
Extract from the New Orleans Bulletin (Whig) of the 28th December
The New Orleans Bulletin (Whig) of the 28th December says: "There is good reason to believe that an opportunity for peaceful Annexation is now presented for the last time-that an opportunity to restore the fair domain of Texas to this Confederation of States, with the good will and thankfulness of the Texian people accompanying the surrender of their sovereignty; and without giving even the color of excuse for the interference of European powers, is now for the last time offered to the acceptance of this country. Shall a mere factious spirit serve to thwart this master stroke of national-of American-policy?"
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c1
Richmond Grays
At a meeting of the Richmond Grays, held at Military Hall on Friday evening, January 3d, 1815, Lieut. Scott in the Chair, the following Preamble and Resolutions were adopted.
The Company of Richmond Grays having seen with gratification, that the Common Council, on the 30th day of last month, by Resolution of that body, appropriated the sum of 300 dollars for the repair of Military Hall, and hailing this evidence of liberality on the part of the representatives of the people of this city, as going far to remove the vulgar prejudice entertained by many, that there is nothing good in Volunteer Companies, and believing now that they take some interest in the prosperity and success of the Volunteer Corps of this city, we think it due to them and to ourselves to manifest our sense of the obligation and gratitude for the kindness they have shown. Therefore,
1st Resolved unanimously, That we tender our sincere and grateful thanks to the Common Council of the city of Richmond for the liberal donation which they have presented to the volunteer Companies of this city for the repair of Military Hall.
2nd Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing Preamble and Resolution, signed by the Chairman and Secretary, be delivered to the President of the Council.
3rd Resolved, That the city papers be requested to publish the foregoing Preamble and Resolutions. ROBT. G. SCOTT, Jr., Chairman.
S.T. Barclay, Secretary.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p3c1 27 words
Marine Journal
The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
High Water 21/2 P.M.
Arrived
Schr. Grand Island, Lecompt, Boston, sundries.
[AMB]
January 7, 1845 RE41i78p3c1 141 words
James River & Kanawha Canal
The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.
Richmond, January 4, 1845.
Arrived
Canal Boat Farmer, E. Goodwin, master, with 441/2 tons
merchandise from Lynchburg to Brown, Taylor & Tucker.
Experiment, S. Cox, master, with 35 tons
merchandise
from Lynchburg to Brown, Taylor & Tucker. Nancy
Perkins, George Cabell, master, with 30 ¾ tons merchandise
from Midway Mills and Hardwicksville, to Brown & Deane,
B. Peyton, A.T. Harris.
Cleared
Flying Lucy, Jas Spiller, master, with 223/4 tons
merchandise from Lynchburg.
Lynchburg, Wm. Miller, master, with 351/2
tons
merchandise for Beaver Dam, Cartersville and Lynchburg.
Champion S. Guerrant, master, with 171 tons merchandise
for Scottsville.
Wm. L. Lancaster, D. Couch, master, with 541/4
tons
merchandise for New Canton, Scottsville, Howardsville and Lynchburg.
Highlander, Jas Byers, master, with 2 tons merchandise
for New Market.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i78p1c3
Proceedings on the Texas Question
The House of Representatives is in full blast on the great question of the day. No one can predict the length of the debate, nor the variety of [ . . . ] which may be submitted, nor the results to which they are ultimately arrive. We presume the annexation may pass the House in some form or other-and, if the Whig Senators from the South and West discharge their solemn duty to their country, strict of all insurable party ties, the measure will prevail, at the present session, in some form or other. If it cannot succeed in one form, it should be carried in another. In such a case, private preferences ought to yield to the high considerations of public good. No dogged adherence to a particular mode ought to defeat the great object which we ought all to have in view. Conciliation ought to be consulted. The friends of the measure, in both Houses should compare notes with each other, and fall upon some fair and honorable course, which can command the majority of both Houses. If Messrs. Ingersoll and McDullie cannot carry their resolutions, following out the form of the late rejected treaty, some other more available formula should be pursued. If Messrs. Weller and Douglass cannot carry their resolutions, for acquiring Texas in the territorial form, we see no reason at all why we should not fall back upon the propositions of Messrs. Tibbatts and Niles- bring her in as a State, subject to fair conditions, which will prevent Texas from being larger than the present largest State in the Union, and will permit the extra territory to be carved up into as many other States as the wisdom of Congress in the course of time may consider best for the whole Union. With this conciliatory spirit among the friends of Annexation, we can see no insurmountable difficulty in the way. As for those, who love Henry Clay more than their country-and would sacrifice her great interests to their party idol; nothing can be expected from them. They will pursue Mr. Winthrop's course, and do nothing. They will trample upon the precedents of Louisiana and Florida, and the negotiations of Adams and Jackson for the annexation of Texas. They are opposed to the measure in every form in which it may be presented. No argument can convince them-no appeals can overrule their idolatry to Mr. Clay, or their idle and dangerous antipathy to the South. No conciliation can reconcile them to any measure. We must act without them, or not act at all. It remains to be seen, whether the two Senators from Virginia are so infatuated as to sacrifice themselves and their country to their prejudices- or, whether (as we have some reasons to hope) they can rise superior to the [ . . . ] of party, and strike boldly for their glorious country.
It is impossible for us to publish the whole of this interesting debate; but we shall give as many speeches as we can. We begin this day with Mr. C.J. Ingersoll's speech-and shall follow it up to-morrow with Mr. Belser's.
The Globe of Tuesday night sketches the debate of that day in the House of Representatives. It notices the severe castigation which Mr. Yancey of Alabama, has administered to Clingman of North Carolina. It says, that "Mr. Yancey, from Alabama, in his first speech in the House, distinguished himself by his severe sarcasm and fervid eloquence. We did not hear his introductory remarks, but learn that they were made up of caustic for Mr. Clingman. It is certainly a good maxim which teaches to take the beam out of our own eyes before we attempt to spy the mote in another's, and this couching of the eyes of a Southern man, by a Southern man, was quite appropriate. We must confess that we have seen with some regret, that a portion of our Southern friends have, for years, shown a disposition to find fault with their distant political allies as not feeling that intense sympathy with them on political matters which affected them locally, while they were inclined to spare their own men of the South, who sacrificed the great interests of that region to its selfish Northern enemies. The Tariff discussion, the vital measure in regard to which, at the last Congress, almost every Whig in the South gave up his often avowed principles-the known will of the people he represented-their rights and interests, to foster a remote privileged class, and support its candidate for the Presidency, furnishes an example of this. And yet the vials of wrath of the opponents of the Tariff in the South were not poured out on these betrayers at home of the domestic cause; but on a few Northern Democrats, who believed they represented the wishes of their constituents faithfully in opposing a change in the Tariff. Now this mode of dealing with the [ . . . ] in our party conflicts does not evidence a feeling of political justice. Charity should not begin at home for the betrayers of a cause; nor should vindictive persecution be attempted towards those who, differing with political friends on a question of policy in regard to the interests of their constituents, resolve to maintain the fundamental principle of our Government, of fidelity to the constituents, rather than the [ . . . ] of a majority of their own party. We are led to these reflections from the reform which Mr. Yancey seems disposed to introduce in the mode of treating the Southern enemies of the new Southern topic at present under discussion-the re-annexation of Texas. If the shafts of invective are to be hurled against any in this new controversy, let it be against the neighbors and kindred of the heroic men of Texas, who would surrender them to the tender mercies of military government in Mexico, forgetful alike to the perfidy and atrocity under which Fanning and his brave men perished, and of the magnanimity of Houston, through which Santa Anna and his army survive the wrongs which they had perpetrated. Mr. Yancey did well to-day in [ . . . ] his spear at Mr. Clingman as among the first of the Southerners to appear in the tournament against the South; and he did well, too, in the conclusion of his speech, to deal his blows upon those in the North, who, from their hostility to the South and Southern institutions, would immolate the Union. The Hartford Convention conspirators, and those who now harbor that infamous treason in their bosoms, deserve the indignant animadversion with which he visited them," &c.
The Globe adds: “We heard the speech of Mr. Bayly of Virginia with great pleasure. It was a profound view of the question debated, sustained at every step by an able constitutional argument. Mr. Bayly is a strong man; and if the early promise holds, Virginia has gained much by his transit from the judicial bench to the floor of the H. of Representatives."
[Such is the sentiment which every liberal and enlightened man expresses for Thos. H. Bayly. He is indeed "a strong man"-and does honor to the District which he has the honor of serving in Congress.]
The "Constitution," too, notices the argument of General Bayly in the following terms: "He proceeded, then, most powerfully and ably to illustrate his views of the question.-He. demonstrated most conclusively that Congress had the power under the Constitution to acquire territory by bill of joint resolution, as well as by treaty. He proceeded by numerous and authoritative historical illustrations, to show the sinister, the aggressive and insincere policy of England in regard to slavery and the slave trade. He also showed that her diplomacy had been brought to bear upon this question, the result of which, if successful, would be to embarrass, if not to defeat annexation altogether. The whole scope of his argument was most dignified, able and conclusive. When fully reported, as it will be with all its illustrations, it will be found to bean argument fully sustaining our policy and purposes in regard to Texas. Posted up to this point of time, we are happy to say to the friends of Texas, that the sum of the argument is immensely in favor of annexation."
(Gen. Bayly will prove himself, by his talents, worthy of filling the space of Wise.)
In the Senate, the debate upon Texas has not commenced. But they are not altogether standing still. On the same day, Mr. Niles of Connecticut submitted the following bill, which is intended to introduce Texas as a State, (by the vote of Congress,) rather than directly in the form of a Treaty:
Mr. Niles, pursuant to notice heretofore given, asked and obtained leave to introduce the following joint resolutions-which were read twice: Joint resolutions for the admission of Texas into the Union as a State, on certain conditions, and for certain purposes: "Whereas the Government and people of Texas have manifested a desire to unite their country with the United States of America, to constitute one or more States of this Confederacy; and whereas there are reasons to believe that a decided majority of the people of the United States are in favor of such union, and the same being regarded as highly conducive to the peace and best interests of both countries: therefore- "Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Texas, with such territory and limits as rightfully belong to it, and with the restriction hereinafter provided, shall be admitted into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States, to be called the State of Texas; and which admission shall be subject to the following conditions, and shall take effect when the said conditions shall have been complied with to the approval and acceptance of Congress:
"First. The citizens of Texas in such way and form as the Government may direct, to express their assent to this union, and according to the terms of these resolutions; said assent to be given before the first Monday of December, 1845.
"Second. The citizens of Texas, before the said first Monday of December, 1845, so to alter or modify their Constitution, as to make it in all respects confirm to the requirements of the Constitution of the U. States.
"Third. That the citizens of Texas prescribe the limits and boundaries of the State of Texas, Northernly and Westerly, so as not to embrace a greater extent of territory than that of the largest State in the union, and as one of the conditions of this Union, that the State of Texas, within one year from its admission in the Union, will cede to the United States all the right of sovereignty and jurisdiction belonging to, or claimed by it, over its whole territory, not included in the State of Texas; and the limits and boundaries of such territory, so far as the same may be in dispute with any foreign power; and also those of the State of Texas shall be settled and adjusted by the United States, with the foreign nation, or nations, interested therein: Provided, That if any portion of the territory so ceded shall, at the time of such cession, be in the occupation and under the actual jurisdiction and government of any foreign power; the cession, in respect to such portion of the territory which it may include, shall be held to be void, and the United States will not claim, or assert, any right or jurisdiction over the same. The several acts herein require to be performed, as conditions of the admission of Texas into the Union, shall be officially certified by the proper authorities of Texas, to the President of the United States, with a copy of the Constitution of Texas, as altered or modified, to be by him communicated to Congress as its next session, so that Congress may decide whether the conditions herein contained have been complied with, so as to entitle Texas to an admission into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States.
"And be it further Resolved, That nothing contained in these resolutions, nor the admission of Texas as a State into the Union, nor the cession of its jurisdiction over the territory not included in the State of Texas, shall in any way impair or affect the private rights of the citizens of Texas, or those of the citizens of the United States having claims against Texas or the citizens thereof; nor in any way impair or affect the title or claims of individuals to lands, whether within, the State of Texas, or the territory ceded to the United States; nor in any way impair or affect the right which Texas may have at the time of her admission into the Union; in the soil in the public or unsold lands, whether the State of Texas, or the territory so ceded by her.
"And be it further Resolved, That, should it be desired by Texas, the United States will advance to her a sum not exceeding three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to discharge the debt due from Texas to the executors of Frederick Dawson, late of Baltimore, and for the redemption of exchequer bills, which may be in circulation at the time of her admission into the Union, and which shall be reimbursed to the United States, by the State of Texas, from the proceeds of the sales of her public lands.
"And be it further Resolved, That, on the admission of Texas, as a State, into the Union, it shall be entitled to one Representative in the House of Representatives of the United States, until the next general census shall be taken by the authority of the United States.
"And be it further enacted, That the territory which may be ceded by Texas to the United States, shall be united to some existing Territory, or formed into a district territorial Government; and that the inhabitants who are, or may become residents therein, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States in other Territories West of the Mississippi; and that they shall be admitted into the Union as one or more States, as soon as, from their population and other considerations, Congress may deem it just and reasonable.
"And whereas, by the ordinance of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, adopted in a spirit of compromise, it was ordained and established as a fundamental law, that slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist in the territory Northwest of the Ohio; and whereas, subsequently, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty, the restriction of the aforesaid ordinance was extended and applied to the territory (excepting that embraced in the State of Missouri) which was ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies North of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes North latitude; therefore
"Be it further Resolved, That the eighth section of the act entitled 'An act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' approved the sixth day of March, 1820, shall be applicable to the territory which may be ceded by Texas to the United States, and so modified as that the restriction and prohibition contained therein shall extend to, and be in force in and over the whole of that part of the territory which may be so ceded, which lies west of one hundred degrees of west longitude, so long as the same may remain a territory of the United States."
On motion by Mr. Archer, the resolutions were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.
Upon a subject so deeply interesting to the whole U. States, it becomes proper for the press to speak out. We shall not enter into the comparative merits of the various forms of annexation by bill, resolution or acts of Congress-whether it be best to admit her as a Territory, or first as a State. We see no objection to the great State principle of Mr. Niles's bill; and if it be most acceptable to a majority of the friends of Texas, we see no reason why it should not be adopted. In this spirit, we hope all its friends will approach the subject. Where there is such a variety of opinions, and so many projects, there must be some conciliation shown, and some compromise effected. Nothing but the want of this spirit can defeat one of the most important measures of modern times.
"The Constitution," after reciting the substance of Mr. Niles's bill, adds: "We hail this proposition, coming from the quarter it does, with great pleasure. It is intrinsically valuable, and is entitled to the most favorable consideration. We have no fears from the multiplicity of propositions. It is by a candid discussion and comparison of the whole, that the best features of all [ . . . ] and unite all the friends of the great measure in its final support."
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c5
New Orleans, Dec. 13, Later From Texas
The schooner William Bryan [ . . . ]. [ . . . ] are [ . . . ] to Captain Moss for the Galveston News of the 24th inst., three days later than received by the New York. The News contains a message from President Jones to Congress, conveying his views and opinions in regard to such measures connected with the public interests, as he deems proper to engage their attention. We have not space to give a synopsis of this document to-day, but will endeavor to do so to-morrow. The Valedictory message of President Houston, and the Inaugural Address of Vice President Anderson, are also published in the News. Of the latter of these documents, we have nothing to say. General Houston's Valedictory is well written, and suited to the occasion. He refers to the prosperous condition of Texas, to her rise and progress as an independent nation, and speaks with confidence of her future prospects. The following extract is interesting:
"When I look around me, my fellow-citizens, and see and know that the prospects of the Republic are brightening, its resources developing, its commerce extending, and its moral influence in the community of nations increasing, my heart is filled with sensations of joy and pride. A poor and despised people a few years ago, borne down by depressing influences at home and abroad, we have risen in defiance of all obstacles, to a respectable place in the eye of the world. One great nation is inviting us to a full participancy in all its privileges, and to a full community of its laws and interests. Others desire our separate and independent national existence, and are ready to throw into our lap the richest gifts and favors.
"The attitude of Texas now, to my apprehension, is one of peculiar interest. The United States have spurned her twice already. Let her therefore maintain her position firmly, as it is, and work out her own political salvation. Let her legislation precede upon the supposition, that we are to be, and remain, an independent people. If Texas goes begging again for admission into the United States, she will only degrade herself. They will spurn her again from their threshold, and other nations will look upon her with unmingled pity.
"Let Texas, therefore, maintain her position. If the United States shall open the door and ask her to come into the great family of States, you will than have other conductors, better than myself, to lead you into a union with the beloved land from which we have sprung-the land of the broad Stripes and bright Stars. But let us be as we are, until the opportunity is presented: and then let us go in, if at all, united in one phalanx, and sustained by the opinion of the world.
"If we remain an independent nation, our territory will be extensive, unlimited. The Pacific alone will bound the mighty march of our race and our empire. From Europe and America her soil is to be peopled. In regions where the savage and the buffalo now roam uncontrolled, the enterprise and industry of the Anglo-American are yet to find an extended field of development. With union, industry and virtue, we have nothing to apprehend. If left alone, we have our destiny in our own hands, and many become a nation distinguished for its wealth and power."
Intelligence has been received at Galveston, that John R. Kemper, of Victoria county, was lately murdered by a party of Caronkawa Indians, near his residence, some 10 or 15 miles below Victoria, on the West bank of the Guadeloupe River. The News says:
"The Indians afterwards made an attack upon his house, but the inmates, consisting of his wife, children and mother-in-law, saved themselves by escaping to the forest. The house was burnt, and much property destroyed or taken away by the savages. Captain K. was an old citizen of the West, and his death will be much regretted."
The Lagrange Intelligencer says that an engagement took place between some Lipan Indians and the citizens of Sequin, a few days since, which resulted in the death of two of the Indians. The citizens came off uninjured, having re-taken the property, stolen from Sequim, the evening before the fight.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c6
Revolution in Mexico [from the N.O. Picayune, 29th]
The New Orleans Picayune of the 29th ult. brings one day's later news from Mexico. The baroque Eugenia, with Mr. Cushing on board, brought accounts from Vera Cruz to the 12th December. The schr. Fortuna, which brings the news to New Orleans, left Vera Cruz the next day, (13th.) The additional accounts are not decisive of the fate of Santa Anna. We shall content ourselves with giving a few paragraphs from the Picayune, showing the then desperate state of Santa Anna's fortunes. The Picayune infers from the various intelligence it has collected, "that Santa Anna's career is drawing to a tragic close. Unless some lucky chance has befallen him, his doom, ere this, has been as terrible as well deserved. The new Cabinet has not had time to develop its policy in relation to foreign matters. The disturbances are so violent in their nature, and important in their results, as to leave the authorities little time to attend to any other concerns than such as relate to the crisis wrought in the domestic affairs of the country."
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c6
Important From Mexico
By the arrival yesterday of the schooner Fortuna, from Vera Cruz, whence she sailed on the 13th December we have the important information that the revolution, started in Jalisco by Gen. Paredes, has finally extended almost entirely over the country, and that the complete overthrow of the tyrant Santa Anna is certain, although he is still in command of a few troops at Queretaro. In the city of Mexico the revolution broke out on the 3rd instant, and by the 7th all was quiet.-General Jose Joaquin de Herrera was in command at the last dates, with the title of Provisional President, while Canalizo and some of the chief minions of Santa Anna were in arrest.
On the 1st of December, fifty-five members of the House of Deputies issued a manifesto, protesting against the orders promulgated by President Santa Anna, and denouncing Government for not having had him removed from office. The next day, ten others, who were not able to get into the hall on the 1st, signed it. The Senate likewise adopted the same proceeding on the 2d of December-every member, save four, of that body signing the [ . . . ] of [ . . . ]. This action giving great offence to the Dictator, it seems that, on the 3d December, General Canalizo, by the express order of Santa Anna, issued a decree for the dissolution of Congress. The dictator was at that time at Queretaro, at the head of some 8,000 men, on his march against the revolutionists in Jalisco. No sooner was it known in Mexico, that the arbitrary decree had been promulgated, than an immense excitement was created among all classes. The Chamber at once made three protests, besides a proclamation to the citizens; but before they could have them printed, Canalizo issued a peremptory order that all printing offices, with the single exception of that of El Diario del Gobierno, Santa Anna's own paid organ, should be closed, and that publications of every description were expressly forbidden. When these tyrannical decrees transpired, the excitement rose to such a pitch, that all business was suspended, and groups of men collected in all quarters to talk over the obnoxious measures, and prepared to act as circumstances might dictate. Canalizo, in the mean time, seeing the affairs were coming to a crisis, and deeming himself unsafe, collected at the palace all the troops he could gather, (some 2,000 in number,) and shut himself up with them. Baranda, Rejon (the latter a name become familiar to the people of the United States) and Salas, three Santa Anna's minions, also took refuge in the palace at the same time.
During the 4th and 5th of December the excitement continued, with little or no abatement at any time. Early on the 6th large numbers of the inhabitants; comprising not only the lepers and middling classes, but all the most wealthy and respectable citizens gathered, with arms in their hands, at the Convent of San Francisco. Here the members of Congress, having been driven from Chambers, had assembled, amongst them being Generals Herrera, Garcia, Conde, and Cespedes. Previous to this the greater part of the troops in the garrison and in la Ciudadela had really pronounced in favor of the revolution. Generals Conde and Cespedes had come from the Ex-Acordada, where the movement was going on, and reunited themselves with the deputies in the Convent.
From this place, as we learn by some of the accounts, the entire body-members of Congress, citizens leperos and all- marched to the principal plaza in front of the palace, and ordered Canalizo to surrender-giving him two hours to reflect and no more. Thinking that his officers and soldiers would stand by him, Canalizo prepared to attack the citizens, and called upon his troops to make a sortie. At this crisis, one of his officers exclaimed that he was the soldier of no tyrant but of the nation, and then shouted, "Long live the Congress." This cry was taken up by the ranks stationed at the palace, when Canalizo at once fled in consternation to his apartments.
Here he was commanded to surrender, and in reply, he assented, on condition that his safety was guaranteed, and passports to leave the country were given to him, the four Ministers and the Commandant-General. What disposition was made of this demand, our accounts do not say; but it is certain that he was detained a prisoner in the palace, together with Salas, the Commandante General, as he is called. The Ministers of War, and of the Home Department, had been set at liberty upon giving security, while Rejon and Baranda had made their escape.
On the 7th of December, Gen. Herrera was appointed Provisional President of the Republic with a Cabinet, as follows; Don Luis G. Cuevas; Minister of Foreign Relations; Don Mariano Riva Palacios, of Justice and Public Instruction; Don Pedro Echeverria, of Internal Affairs; Gen. Pedro Garcia Conde, of War and Marine.
On the evening of the 6th and during the whole of the 7th of December the greatest rejoicings took place in the city of Mexico, accompanied by many acts which show the deep detestation in which Santa Anna was held. A number of his portraits in the public places were dragged through the streets, torn into fragments, and every lepero preserved a piece as a memento of their oppressor's downfall. The statue of Santa Anna in the plaza was tumbled down, broken in pieces, and the head borne in triumph through the city. It is also stated that the crowd, intoxicated with joy and frantic with revenge, afterwards proceeded to the monument where the leg of their Dictator had been buried with so much pomp a year or two since, broke it into atoms, and then kicked and dragged the embalmed limb through the plazas and principal thoroughfares. While all this was being enacted by the mob, the more prominent citizens were rejoicing heartily in the change of Government. Messages of congratulation between the triumphant Senate and House were interchanged, and the new President, Herrera, was waited upon by the crowds, who appeared most joyous in obtaining relief from the despotic ruler under which they have groaned since the downfall of Bustamente. Such were the scenes enacted in Mexico-great were the rejoicings all over the country.
The revolution against Santa Anna appears to be general, yet we hear of little bloodshed except at Jalapa, where a few persons were killed.-At Puebla, the inhabitants rose as with one voice, tumbled down the statue of the obnoxious Tyrant, and tore his portrait into a thousand tatters.
Here we will insert an extract of a letter to a gentleman in this city, showing the completeness of the revolution. It is dated, "Vera Cruz, Dec.11, 1844.
"As far as I can learn, no place holds out for Santa Anna. Jalapa, Perote, [Girzala], and [ . . . ] have pronounced, and the great mans fall appears to me inevitable. I do not see a loophole for him to creep out of, and I shall be glad if I am the first to give you this decisive news.
"This has been a revolution of public opinion. Not a sword has been drawn nor a drop of blood spilt; and, amidst all the apparent disorder of a revolution, and with no military to restrain the populace, no excess has been committed.
"Here Santa Anna's portrait was taken out of the Municipal Rooms and thrown to the populace, who tore it into a thousand pieces. The greatest enthusiasm prevailed; and, as I said before, in the midst of all this confusion, there is not a single instance of any excess having been committed. This is the triumphs of popular opinion over the force of arms, and is the commitment of a new era in the existence of the Mexican Republic.
"It is asserted, that the new government offers Santa Anna no terms short of his paying up the twelve millions of dollars of the public money he is charged with having uselessly squandered or appropriated to his own private purposes. This condition it can scarcely be possible to execute, and in default of complying with it, the disposed tyrant is threatened with death."
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c7
House of Delegates
Mr. WITCHER moved to make the Report of the Committee of Elections on the Bath contested election, the order of the day for Friday next.
Mr. BOWDEN moved to amend by making it the order of the day for Monday next, which was lost-49 to 55.
The House then fixed the subject for Friday next.
Mr. BLUE moved a resolution, that the House will, with the consent of the Senate, proceed on Wednesday, the 15th instant, to the election of a Councilor of State.
Mr. STEPHENSON moved to fix it for the 22nd January, to which suggestion Mr. Blue acceded, and the resolution was adopted.
On motion of Mr. SMITH,
Resolved, That the Committee on Banks on quire into the expediency of amending the first section of an act to establish the Band of Kanawha, passed on April 4th, 1839.
Petitions, &e., were presented and referred.
By BROWN, a remonstrance of some of the stockholders of the Rivanna Navigation Company against the application of said Company to be released from the requirements of their charter, prescribing the dimensions of their improvement; also a remonstrance of citizens of Albemarle, to the same purport.
By Mr. LACY, a petition of J.M. Ferguson, Sergeant of the city of Richmond, in relation to Sergeant’s fees;
By Mr. McRAE of Henrico, of John Robertson, G.A. Myers and B.B. Minor, committee of the Richmond Library company, for the […] said company;
By Mr. TAYLOR of Norfolk Borough, of May Nester, widow of a Revolutionary […] for an increased pension from the Cincinnati […]
By Mr. THOMPSON of Dinwiddie, documents in relation to the extension of Centre Warehouse;
By Mr. KIDWELL, a petition of Thomas S. Haymond, Commissioner of forfeited and delinquent lands in Monongalia, praying legislation in relation to the sale of a tract of 840 acres of land sold by him as such commission.
By Mr. FLOOD, of rurally citizens of Buckingham for a change in one of the precinct elections in that country;
By Mr. RAMEY, of sundry citizens of London for a special road law for said country;
By Mr. STEPHENSON, of citizens of Tyler county for the right of way to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
The House resumed the consideration of the Southwestern Turnpike Road bill - Mr. Garnett’s motion for indefinite postponement still pending.
Mr. LEE sustained and Mr. WITCHER opposed the bill.
Mr. PRESTON replied at length to […] of Halifax, and WITCHER, and in support of the bill.
Mr. RICE opposed the bill.
The vote was then taken and the bill indefinitely postponed by the following vote:
Ayes-Messrs, Pitts, Powell, Campbell, Blick, Harrison, Seruggs, Fox, Lacy, Winfree, […] of Culpeper, Hobson, Thompson of D. Wood, Garnett, Grigsby, Edmunds of F., Leake, […], Edmunds of H., Stovall, Ward, Wonton, Godwin, Bowden, Davis of K. & Q., Wallace, Hawes, Flanary, Ramev, Gordon, Blackwell, Banks, Billups, Baskerville, Wade, Hamilton of Monroe, Kilby, Cabell, Taylor of N.B., Watts, Happer, Yerby, Middleton, Oliver, Davis of Orange and Greene, Turner of P., Bolling, Witcher, Cocke, Dey, Daniel of P.G., Macrae of P.W., Smother, White, Couan, Kane, Sebrell, Hedgman, Freeman and Rice-[…]
Noes-Messra, Southall, (Speaker), Brown, Harvie, Fulton of Augusta, Frazier, Van Buren, Pendleton, Myers, Thompson of B., Hays, Flood, Moseley, Beuhring, Toler, Tyree, Street, Brooks, Carson, Lovett, French, Parks, McPherson of Greenbrier, Blue, Winston, Lee, Bassett, McKan of Henrico, Turner of J., Powner, Smith, Farley, Grubb, Kidwell, Hall, Pool, Preston, O’Ferrall, Edgington, Hiner, Gay, Anderson, Storm, Moore, Martz, Denison, Stickley, Tate, Newlon, Stephenson, Funsten, Goodson, Jackson, and Fulton of W.-53
On motion of Mr. ANDERSON, the House adjourned.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p2c5
Military Convention
At a meeting of the Officers of the Seventy-fourth Regimen, in the county of Harborer, held at the Court House on Monday, the 26th of November, 1844-Colonel Thomas M. White was called to the Chair, and Captain Hudson M. Wingfield appointed Secretary; and the following [ . . . ] and Resolutions were {...} adopted:
Whereas, it is believed that the Militia System of Virginia is radically defective, and not [ . . . ] to answer the purposes for which it was intended; and whereas, it is the sincere desire of the members of this meeting to see the system place, upon a better footing throughout the Senate, and also have an opportunity afforded them[ . . . ] no training the regiment in which they [ . . . ] commissions, as to render it an efficient and valuable force to the country, in time of danger; therefore, be it
Resolved, That we cordially approve of the resolutions recently adopted by our brother officers of the 87th regiment in the county or King William, and that we go heart and hand with them and all others who have pursued a similar course in their laudable efforts to reform the Military system of Virginia.
Resolved, That we heartily approve and [ . . . ] earnestly second their recommendation to the officers of the different Regiments throughout the State to hold meetings and to appoint delegates to the Military Convention proposed to be [ . . . ] in the city of Richmond on the first Monday in January next.
Resolved, That the following gentlemen be appointed delegates to the said Conventions, to [ . . . ]. Our delegate elect, William D. Winston, [ . . . ] Col. Thomas M. White, Lieut. Col. John S. Atkins, Major William Atkinson, [ . . . ] Davis, Capt. Samuel Perrin, Capt. Robert Atkinson, Capt. Edwin Grenshaw, Capt. William [ . . . ] Capt. Charles P. Higgerson, Capt. Leland W. Butler, Capt. George W. Richardson, Capt. [ . . . ] B. Mason, Capt. James M. Taylor, Capt. [ . . . ].
Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting be published in the Richmond Whig and Enquirer.
And, thereupon, on motion, the meeting was adjourned. THOS. M. WHITE, President [ . . . ] M. Wingfield, Secretary
At a meeting of the [illegible] consider the reorganization of the militia is the State, Col. Spencer A. Mann was called to the Chair, and Lieut. Thomas E. Bottom appointed Secretary.
The object of the meeting having been explained, the following Resolutions were unanimously adopted:
1. Resolved. That a well regulated militia begin essential to the security of a free State, and the present militia system in Virginia being extremely defective, we conceive it to be of paramount importance that it should undergo a material reformation.
2. Resolved. That we cordially approve the resolutions adopted by the officers of the 87th Regiment Virginia Militia, recommending to all the officers of the militia in the Commonwealth, [ . . . ] hold a Convention in the city of Richmond on the third Monday in January next for the purpose of devising some plan for the better organization and discipline of the militia of the State, by which military spirit, at present depressed and withering, may be revived and encouraged."
3. Resolved. That Lewis E. Harvie, Col. Spencer A. Mann, Capt. Thomas Coleman, Capt. Samuel R. Seay, Capt. Joseph M. Clark, Lt. Philip Southall, Lt. Samuel S. Weisiger, Lt. Thomas E. Bottom, Lt. Wm. A. Scott, and adjutant John Roberts, be appointed delegates to said Convention.
4. Resolved. That the Richmond Enquirer and Whig be requested to publish these proceedings. SPENCER A. MANN, President. Thos. E. Button, Secretary.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p2c4
Signs From Texas
We have received from Texas the Valedictory Address of General Houston, and the Annual Message of the new President, (Anson Jones,) to Congress, Mr. Jones does not touch upon annexation at all-unless the following beautiful passage may be considered as an exception to our remark:
The history of the world demonstrates, that the infancy of every community, however exalted or distinguished may have been its subsequent career and elevation, has been nursed and cradled amidst the stern concomitants of adversity and poverty-until nerved and fitted to win in the race of empire, regardless of the toils and difficulties of the course-and the fact, that our Republic has heretofore struggled and labored beneath the burthen of adverse and depressing influences, only shows that she could neither claim nor expect in her favor any exception or remission of the destiny prescribed for all. We have reason, however, for joy and congratulation, that our past history and our present attitude alike [ . . . ] to the powers of the earth out capacity for self-government, and our undeniable claim to distinct and elevated nationality, and for unfeigned gratitude to Almighty God, whose providence has guided our nation through her initiatory struggles, by exhibitions of favor and protection, not less obvious in the course of events, and in the connection of cause and effect, than the pillar and the flame, which absently proceeded and led his chosen people in their journey to the promised land.
"The fears of our friends touching the permanency of our institutions, and the misrepresentations of our enemies abroad, have no doubt heretofore had an effect greatly to lessen-the amount of emigration from other countries to this; but within the past year the [ . . . ] influence of these causes has been greatly mitigated, through doubtless not completely removed-This is apparent, from the tide of emigration, consisting of thousands of families, which, during the last few months, has flowed into the Northern, Eastern and other portions of our territory-so that the rich harvests and plenteous crops, which in those sections crowned the labors of the cultivator of the soil, have not sufficed to prevent a temporary scarcity of provisions, in a land hitherto overflowing with abundance."
General Houston notices the subject in very dignified and eloquent terms, as the reader will perceive, from the following extract which is contained in the New Orleans Tropic of the 31st ultimo.
The election of Mr. Polk over the ill-starred Clay seems to have been hailed with great pleasure in Texas. It has cheered the people, and encouraged them in the hope of annexation. A public meeting at Matagorda was held on the 7th, for the purpose of exchanging congratulations upon the result of the Presidential election in the United States. The "Texas National Register" (printed at the town of Washington, on the 21st) denies, that the new President has yet given any grounds to suspect him of any opposition to annexation.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c1
Senate
Mr. McMULLEN, from the Committee on Internal Improvement, reported the bill amending the act appropriating a certain sum of money to the Cumberland Gap Road, which was on motion of Mr. CARTER, laid on the table.
Mr. WALLACE, from the Select Committee to examine the printed Journal of the Senate made a report, specifying certain errors discovered therein, which was agreed to, concluding with a resolution, which makes it the duty of the Clerk of the Senate to examine the proof sheet before printing.
Texas
Mr. WALLACE, from the Select Committee to whom was referred so much of the Governor’s message as relates to the annexation of Texas made a report accompanied with the following resolutions which were laid on the table, and on Mr. SHINN’S motion, ordered to be printed.
Whereas, by the Treaty of Louisiana it was expressly […] by the U. States that the inhabitants of said territory should be incorporated into the Union, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all rights, advantage and immunities of citizens of the U. States and whereas, the people of that part of said territory known as Texas, have expressed their desire to be received into this Confederacy according to the terms set forth in said treaty:
1. Resolved, Therefore, That it is the rights of the people of Texas to be admitted into the Union, and the duty of the people of the U. States to perform in good faith all their of legations assumed by them in the purchase of Louisiana.
2. Resolved, That Texas should be admitted into this Union as soon as practicable.
3. Resolved, That the […] from this Commonwealth in the Senate of the U. States be instructed to affect that object.
Mr. McMULLEN reported a lull concerning the Price’s Turnpike, which was laid on the table.
Mr. PEYTON, from the Committee on Court of Justice, reported the bill from the House of Delegates which authorizes E. Dodson, of Mecklenburg, to qualify as High Sheriff at his own house, with a substitute to the same, which makes it a general law in all similar cases.
After some discussion among […], PEYTON, WALLACE, SHINN, GALLAHER, THOMPSON of K. BAPTIST and McMULLEN, the bill was laid on the table.
Mr. NEWMAN, from the Select Committee, reported the bill authorizing William Jones of Brooke, to establish a ferry across the Ohio River-which, being ready, was passed.
Mr. THOMPSON, of K., from the Select Committee, reported the bill of changing the time of holding the Courts of Jackson county-which was read and passed.
Mr. THOMSPON, of K., from the Committee of General Laws, reported the bill apportioning the school quotas of Harrison, Barbour, Marion, and Taylor-which was read and passed.
Also, the bill to allow Cromwell Orrick further time to establish his Ferry-which was read and passed.
Also, a bill authorizing separate elections in Kanawha, Nansemond, Jackson, & tc. -which was read and passed.
Mr. DENNIS, from the Select Committee, reported that bill changing the time of holding certain Courts in the 2nd Judicial Circuit-which was on motion of Mr. D., laid on the table.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c3
Texas, Part of Louisiana
The National Intelligencer, true to its instincts, where the interests of a foreign State clash with those of the United States, comes forward in its last No. with an article under the head of a "Legal Definition of the bounds of Louisiana as by us purchased of France." The object is to prove that Texas was no part of Louisiana-that "we ourselves voluntarily adopted, on the side of Texas, the line of the Sabine-then and now the line of possession-as the real extent of our purchase from France, as the true Louisiana. All the rest, then-the subsequent claim to Texas-was but a diplomatic after-thought, skillfully employed to make Spain yield to us what we really then wanted-Florida." It also professes to quote the acts of Congress of October 1803, authorizing the President to take possession of the territory-and the act of March, 1804, erecting Louisiana into two territories-and the act of 1811, to enable the people of the territory of Orleans to form a State Government-as evidences, on part of Congress, "and the administration that made and sanctioned the Treaty," to show that they did not claim beyond the Sabine. "What, then, (says the Intelligencer,) becomes now of the proposed re-annexation, or of the proposition to admit the State of Texas into the Union?
This is indeed a desperate effort to cut us off from Texas. It professes to lay down a boundary to the territory acquired by Mr. Jefferson, which neither he nor any of his successors ever sanctioned. He, as well as the rest of them, in fact, contended for a line West of the Sabine-and the very act of cession of the territory West of the Sabine, to Spain, in lieu of Florida, shows that, in the opinion of Messrs. Monroe and Adams, at the time (in 1819) they were ceding what did belong to us, (West of the Sabine.) And the efforts of Messrs. Adams and Clay afterwards show, that they were anxious to reclaim what had been so improvidently ceded. We have rarely seen, indeed, a bolder effort made to deny the concurrent evidence of our historical documents, or to cloak a grosser effort to defeat the interests of our country by a misrepresentation of our records.
We shall first notice the facts upon which it relies-and then introduce other facts which it has carefully suppressed.
The Intelligencer confesses, that the act of 1803 furnishes no evidence on the point of issue. It is a simple authority to take possession of the newly-acquired Territory.
The act of 1804 divides the Territory into two portions-one which was called the Territory of Orleans-and the residue into another, called by the general name "District of Louisiana." The former is run West "to the Western boundary of the said cession."
The act of 1811 erects the territory of Orleans into a State, under the name of the State of Louisiana. Its Western boundary is here specified to be "the river Sabine” and, therefore, the Intelligencer argues, that the Sabine was regarded in the act of 1804 as the "Western boundary of the said cession." This is clearly a non [ . . . ]. It was surely competent for Congress in marking off the boundaries of the new State, in 1811, to designate such boundaries as they pleased, whether it was the whole or a part of the territory of Orleans. They limited her Western boundary to the Sabine; but does it appear that Congress still claimed nothing beyond it? By no means. - They gave her all the land to the Sabine-but there are no expressions in the act to show that they considered the Sabine to be the Western boundary of the cession. Congress considered itself at liberty to mark out the territory as they pleased, and then to make out of these territories such States as they might please according to such boundaries as might suit the views of Congress. Thus, the other territory, called in the act of 1804, "the residue of the province of Louisiana," was not erected into a single State afterwards; but a part of it was carved up into Missouri-another part into Arkansas, &c.
But to show how completely the Intelligencer misrepresents the whole subject of the Western boundary, we subjoin the following interesting extracts from Mr. Walker's able letter, to show that Mr. Jefferson, who acquired the Territory, and the succeeding Presidents, never did confine themselves to the Sabine; but that they claimed beyond it to the Rio del Norte. These historical records are conclusive-and now we ask the N. Intelligencer whether we have not a right to consider it as a re-annexation-and whether we do not owe it to the people of Texas themselves to comply with the Treaty, and admit the State of Texas into the Union:
"Is it expedient (says Mr. Walker,) to reannex Texas to the American Union?-This is the greatest question, since the adoption of the Constitution, ever presented for the decision of the American people. Texas was once our own: and. although surrendered by treaty to Spain, the surrender was long resisted by the American government, and was conceded to be a great sacrifice. This being the case, is it not clear that, when the territory which we have most reluctantly surrendered, can be re-acquired, that object should be accomplished? Under such circumstances, to refuse the re-annexation is to deny the wisdom of the original purchase; and to reflect upon the judgment of those who maintained, even at the period of surrender, that it was a great sacrifice of national interest.
(illegible) as New Orleans itself: and that it was a part of that region, is demonstrated by the discovery, by the great Basalle, of the source and mouth of the Mississippi, and his occupancy for France West of the Colorado. Our right to Texas, as a part of Louisiana, was asserted and demonstrated by Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Q. Adams. No one of our Presidents has ever doubted our title; and Mr. Clay has ever maintained it as clear and unquestionable. Louisiana was acquired by a treaty with France, in 1803, by Mr. Jefferson; and in the letter of Mr. Madison, the Secretary of State, dated March 31, 1804, he says, expressing his own views and those of Mr. Jefferson that Louisiana "extended westwardly to the Rio Bravo, otherwise called Rio del Norte. Orders were accordingly obtained from the Spanish authorities for the delivery of all the posts on the West side of the Mississippi." And in his letter of the 31st January, 1804, Mr. Madison declares that Mr. Laussat, the French commissioner who delivered the possession of Louisiana to us, announced the "Del Norte as its true boundary." Here, then, in the delivery of the possession of Louisiana by Spain to France, and France to us, Texas is included. In the letter of Mr. Madison of the 8th July, 1804, he declares the opposition of Mr. Jefferson to the "relinquishment of any territory whatever Eastward of the Rio Bravo." In the letter of James Monroe of the 8th November, 1803, he encloses documents which he says "prove incontestably" that the boundary of Louisiana is "the Rio Bravo to the West;" and Mr. Pinckney unites with him in a similar declaration. In a subsequent letter-not to a foreign government, but to Mr. Madison-of the 30th April, 1805, they assert our title as unquestionable. In Mr. Monroe's letters, as Secretary of State, dated Jan, 19, 1816, and June 10, 1816, he says none could question "our title to Texas," and he expresses his concurrence in opinion with Jefferson and Madison; "that our title to the Del Norte was as clear as to the island of New Orleans." In his letter, as Secretary of State, to Don Onis, of the 12th March, 1818, John Quincy Adams says: "The claim of France always did extend westward to the Rio Bravo;" "she always claimed the territory which you call Texas as being within the limits, and forming a part of Louisiana." After demonstrating our title to Texas in this letter, Mr. Adams says: "well might Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe write to M. Cavallas, in 1805, that the claim of the United States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo was as clear as their right to the island of New Orleans." Again, in his letter of the 31st October, 1818, Mr. Adams says our title to Texas is 'established beyond the power of further controversy.'
"Here, then by the discovery and occupation of Texas, as part of Louisiana, by LaSalle, for France in 1685; by the delivery of possession to us in 1803, by Spain and France; by the action of our government from the date of the treaty of acquisition to the date of the treaty of surrender, (avowedly so on its face;) by the opinion of all our Presidents and ministers connected in any way with the acquisition, our title to Texas was undoubted. It was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819; but Mr. Clay maintained in his speech of the third April, 1820, that territory could not be alienated merely by a treaty; and consequently that, not withstanding the treaty, Texas was still our own. In the cession of a portion of Maine, it was asserted, in legislative resolutions, by Massachusetts and Maine, and conceded by this government, that no portion of Maine could be ceded by treaty without the consent of Maine. Did Texas assent to this treaty, or can we cede part of a territory, but not of a State? These are grave questions; they raise the point whether Texas is not now a part of out territory, and whether her people may not now rightfully claim the protection of our government and laws. Recollect this was not a question of settlement, under the powers of this Government of a disputed boundary.-The treaty declares, as respects Texas, that we cede to his Catholic majesty.' Commenting on this in his speech before referred to, Mr. Clay says it was not a question of the power in case of dispute 'of fixing a boundary previously existing.' 'It was on the contrary, the case of an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain."- Although, then, the government may be competent to fix a disputed boundary, by ascertaining as near as practicable where it is; although, also, a State, with the consent of this government, as in the case of Maine, may cede a portion of her territory-yet it by no means follows that this government, by treaty, could cede a territory of the Union. Could we by treaty cede Florida to Spain, especially without consulting the people of Florida? and if not, the treaty by which Texas was surrendered was, as Mr. Clay contended, inoperative.
"By the treaty of 1803, by which, we have seen Texas was acquired by us from France, we pledged our faith to France, and to the people of Texas, never to surrender that territory. The 3d article of that treaty declares: "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the Unites States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the religion which they profess." Such was our pledge to France and to the people of Texas, by the treaty of cession to Spain was not unconstitutional and invalid, it was a gross infraction of a previous treaty, and of one of the fundamental conditions under which Texas was acquired.
"Here, then, are many grave questions of constitutional power. Could the solemn guaranty to France, and to the people of Texas, be rescinded by a Treaty with Spain? Can this Government, by its own mere power, surrender any portion of its territory? Can it cut off a territory without the consent of its people, and surrender them and the territory to a foreign power? Can it expatriate and expel from the Union its own citizens, who occupy that territory, and change an American citizen into a citizen of Spain or Mexico?-These are momentous questions, which it is not necessary now to determine, and in regard to which I advance at this time no opinion. Certain, however, it is, that with the consent of the people of Texas, Congress can carry out the solemn pledges of the Treaty of 1803, and admit one or more States from Texas into the Union.
"The question as to Texas is, in any aspect, a question of the re-establishment of our ancient boundaries, and the re-possession of a territory moat reluctantly surrendered. The surrender of territory, even if constitutional, is almost universally inexpedient and unwise, and in any event, when circumstances may seem to demand such a surrender, the territory thus abandoned should always be re-acquired whenever it may be done with justice and propriety. Independent of these views, we have the recorded opinion of John Quincy Adams as President, and Henry Clay as Secretary of State, and also of General Andrew Jackson as President, and Martin Van Buren as Secretary of State, that Texas ought to be re-annexed to the Union. On the 26th of March, 1825, Mr. Clay, in conformity with his own views, and the express directions of Mr. Adams as President, directed a letter to Mr. Poinsett, our Minister at Mexico, instructing him to endeavor to procure from Mexico a transfer to us of Texas to the Del Norte. In this letter Mr. Clay says, "the President wishes you to effect that object." Mr. Clay adds: "The line of the Sabine approaches our great Western mart nearer than could be wished. Perhaps the Mexican Government may not be unwilling to establish that of the Rio Brasos de Dios, or the Rio Colorado, or the Snow Mountains, or the Rio del Norte, in lieu of it." Mr. Clay urges, also, the importance of having entirely within our limits 'the Red river and Arkansas, and their respective tributary streams.'"
"On the 15th of March, 1827, Mr. Clay again renewed the effort to procure the cession of Texas in his letter of instruction, of that date, to our minister at Mexico, he says: "The President has thought the present might be an auspicious period for urging a negotiation at Mexico, to settle the boundary of the two republics." If we could obtain such a boundary as we desire, the government of the United States might be disposed to pay a reasonable pecuniary compensation. The boundary we prefer is that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio del Norte in the sea shall ascend that river to the mouth of the Rio Puereo [sic]. thence ascending this river to its source, and from its source by a line due north to strike the Arkansas; thence following the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42 degrees north; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South sea." And he adds, the treaty may provide "for the incorporation of the inhabitants into there Union."
"Mr. Van Buren, in his letter, as Secretary of State, to our Minister at Mexico, dated August 25, 1829, says: "It is the wish of the President that you should, without delay, open a negotiation with the Mexican Government for the purchase of so much of the province of Texas as is hereinafter described." "He is induced, by a deep conviction of the real necessity of the proposed acquisition, not only as a guard for our Western frontier, and the protection of New Orleans, but also to secure forever to the inhabitants of the valley of the Mississippi the undisputed and undisturbed possession of the navigation of that river." "The territory, of which a cession is desired by the United States, is all that part of the province of Texas which lies East of a line beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, in the center of the desert, or grand prairie, which lies West of the Rio Nueces." And Mr. Van Buren adds, the treaty may provide "for the incorporation of the inhabitants into the Union." And he then enters into a long and powerful argument of his own, in favor of the re-acquisition of Texas.
"On the 20th of March, 1833, Gen. Jackson' through Mr. Livingston as Secretary of State, renews to our minister at Mexico the former "instructions on the subject of the proposed cession. On the 2d of July, 1835, Gen. Jackson, through Mr. Forsyth as Secretary of State, renews the instructions to obtain the cession of Texas, and expresses "an anxious desire to secure the very desirable alteration in our boundary with Mexico." [Illegible] minister at Mexico endeavor to procure for us, from that Government, the following boundary, 'beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, proceeding along the eastern bank of the river Rio Bravo del Norte, to the 37th parallel of latitude; and thence along that parallel to the Pacific.' This noble and glorious proposition of Gen. Jackson would have secured to us, not only the whole of Texas, but also the largest and most valuable portion of upper California, together with the bay and harbor of San Francisco, the best on the western coast of America, and equal to any in the world. If, then, it was deemed, as it is clearly proved, most desirable to obtain the re-annexation of Texas, down to a period as late as August, 1835, is it less important at this period?"
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c4
Governor Briggs of Massachusetts
The Legislature of Massachusetts is now in session, and the new Governor has sent in his Message. The Boston Morning Post analyzes its positions with its usual acumen, and remarks, among other things, that “”His Excellency say not a word of South Carolina, and has disapproved many in not declaring war against that State; but his is probably reserved for a special message.
“The main theme of the address is Texas, and on this the Governor revises the stale arguments which the people voted down in the last election, and shows that Massachusetts is now just as wise and just as liberal as she was when she opposed the annexation of Louisiana. We trust that the Democratic members of the Legislature will not be led from the only true position of the National Democratic Party by his Excellency’s twattle on this topic which he treats like a small caucus lecturer, rather than like a statesman. It seems to be small pickings for a Governor in a State paper to make as much as he attempts to do of Mr. Murphy’s Texas letters.
“His Excellency end his homily on Texas with a right solemn warning, that if we annex Texas, our Republic will turn out just like Rome, and that Texas will bring the barbarians to our gates, as love of conquest did to the gates of the eternal city; which proves satisfactorily, that his Excellency has read Goldsmith’s History of Rome! You can find any quantity of the same sort of prophecy in the old Federal papers and messages about Louisiana.”
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c3
Letter to the Editor, The Question of Annexation [written by Mr. Dromgoole]
We lay before our readers the following letter, received by yesterday’s mail. It presents a new proposition from Mr. Dromgoole, which is entitled to serious attention, not only on account of the high source from which it proceeds, but from the character of its provisions.
The provision in Mr. Niles’s bill, which adopts the line of the Missouri Compromise, excites much observation and some objection. It is said, at Washington, that Texas might reject the offer of Annexation, if it were coupled with such a condition, as to any part of her territory, which is cut off by 36 degrees, 20 minutes, by the Missouri Compromise line.
We cannot but confidently indulge the hope, that some wise and conciliatory compromise may be pursued by the friends of Annexation, before the expiration of the present session. The Globe, of Monday last, cheers us in this expectation. It says, that “It is well ascertained now that majority exists in the House, and probably in the […] also, in favor of re-annexing Texas to the Union. The conditions alone remain to be adjusted.”
The Globe further says:
“The Treaty scheme of last session, as presented in joint resolutions, it is understood will not pass in either branch. The proposition of recognising our obligations to Texas, under the Treaty of Mr. Jefferson in 1803, and entitling it to admission as a State at once, or as a Territory, with a view to subdivision, for admission in several States, with the principle of the Missouri Compromise engrafted, seems to meet with most favor. It is possible, however, that the act of the present Congress may take the shape of that under which Mr. Jefferson secured Louisiana, being an appropriation to enable the President elect to effect at once what he may be instructed to accomplish in some form or other; submitting the alternatives to his discretion, and the confirmation of the next Congress.”- (We trust that Congress may adopt a more prompt and efficient measure than that-[Enquirer.)
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c5
Washington City, Jan. 8, 1845
To-day, another plan for the admission of Texas into the Union was submitted to the House. It was introduced by Mr. Dromgoole, the Representative from the Petersburg District. It was more brief and simple than any yet offered. It is not encumbered or embarrassed by questions of doubtful powers, and difficult constructions. Without complication, it rest plainly upon a single provision of the Constitution-“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.” It gives in advance he consent of Congress to the formation of the new State, with the approbation of the existing Government and authorities of Texas, and with a Constitution to be framed and adopted by a Convention of People. It provides, that on a day certain hereafter (not immediately) the new State shall be received and admitted into this Union. It is understood, that Mr. Dromgoole relies for precedent and authority for this provision, admitting the State on a future named day, upon the act of Congress approved February 4, 1791, enacting and declaring that Kentucky should be received and admitted into this Union on the first day of June, 1792, more than one year after the passage of the act; and also upon the act, approved February 18, 1791, enacting and declaring that, on the 4th day of March, 1791, the State of Vermont shall be received and admitted into this Union, less than one month after the passage of the act. (See Laws of Congress, vol. 2, pages 191, 2, 3.)The acts referred to are very short and simple; and it might perhaps be well to publish them in the Enquirer, for the information of your readers. It is worthy of remark, that all the States except Vermont, had ratified the Constitution, had thus formed “this Union,” and had thereby superseded the previously […] articles of Confederation. Vermont was out of the Union. It is believed, that the Judicial system of the U. States adopted under Constitution, did not embrace Vermont. And the act of Congress of taking the census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the United State, approved March 1, 1790, did not embrace the inhabitants of Vermont. In this condition, Vermont applied for admission as a new State, and was so admitted by the act of February 18, 1790, and then, by an act approved March 2, 1791, effect was given to the laws of the United States within the State of Vermont, by extending the judicial system to the same, providing for taking the census, and for the application and enforcement of the act providing for the collection of duties.
Below I give you a copy of the bill introduced by Mr. Dromgoole. Your’s respectfully.
A Bill declaring that consent of Congress that a new State be formed within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Texas, and admitted into this Union.
Be it […] by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the Congress both consent that a new State may be erected with the jurisdiction of the Republic of Texas, adjoining the States of Louisiana and Arkansas, and bounded also by the Gulf of Mexico, with a Republican form of Government, to be adopted by the inhabitants of said Republic, assembled, by deputies, in Convention, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that said new State may be admitted into this Union.
And be it further enacted and declared, That the foregoing consent of the Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: That the new State shall be formed, and its Government adopted, prior to the fourth day of July in the present year; and that the boundaries of the said new States, conforming to the outlines before stated, and containing an area not exceeding-thousand square miles, shall be defined by the Convention of deputies, and inserted in the Constitution or form of Government; and that the assent of the State shall also be inserted, to such boundaries of the remaining territory, property pertaining to Texas, and to be claimed and held by said new State on superseding the present Government, as may be settled and defined by the Government, as may be settled and defined by the Government of the United States by negotiation and treaty, or otherwise.
And be it further enacted and declared, That on the said fourth day of July, in the present year, the said new State, having been thus formed and defined by the name and style of the State of Texas shall be revived and admitted into this Union, as a new and entire member of the U. States of America.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p4c1 82 words
Marine Journal
The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
High Water this day at 5 o’clock, P.M.
Arrived
Steamer Curtis Peck, Davis, Norfolk.
Sailed
Schr. Marietta Burr, Bamber, New York.
Schr. Oneida, Collins, New York.
Schr. Walter R. Jones, Brown, New York.
Steamer Pocahontas, Hollingshead, Baltimore.
Schr. Curlew, Stone, Baltimore.
Below
Ship Louisiana, off Pagan Creek.
Schr. Bergen, off James Town.
Schr. Nahant, off Windmill Point.
Schr. Lady Washington, off Watkins.
Schr. Cora, in Dutch Gap.
[AMB]
Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p4c1
James River & Kanawha Canal, Richmond, January 7, 1845
The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.
Arrived
Canal Boat Ohio, J.
Gilmore master, with 403/4 tons merchandise from Lynchburg, to
Deane & Brown, John Maben & Co., S. J. Jones and J. R. Anderson.
Boat Metamora, George Newberry master,
with 211/2 tons merchandise from Cartersville, to Deane &
Brown, Warwick & Barksdale, Fords & Woodson and B. Sheppard.
Cleared
Boat Virginia, Wm. T. Minor, master, for Scottsville,
empty.
Boat Thomas M. Bondurant, E. Henry master,
with 21/4 tons merchandise for New Canton.
Boat Exchange, D. Bland master, with 41/2
tons merchandise for Lock No. 9 and Scottsville.
Boat Nanny Perkins, Geo. Cabell master, for
New Market, empty.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i49p1c3
Monday Morning, January 13, 1845
The Richmond Whig […] is most […] Northern Federal allies, in its bitter opposition to the annexation of Texas. It stigmatizes certain resolutions submitted to the Virginia Senate by General Wallace of Fauquier as “reprehensible, detestable and revolting,” and full of “atrocity.” Speaking of the proposed admission of Texas under the Treaty of Louisiana, the Whig thus grossly winds up its Article:
“Such a proposition is now unblushingly advanced, under the influence of Texas pecuniary interests, (not that we mean that Gen. Wallace is anything more than the cats-paw!) to the Senate of Virginia itself. We hope that honorable body, without the least regard to party, and in defiance of party influence, will spurn the proposition out of their hall, never before debased by a proposal so unjust.”
It is a pity that this pure and disinterested Editor, whose sole weapon consists in attacking the motives of others, could not find other arguments against the great measure, than the pecuniary interests.” Which he has so long and so childishly harped upon, and which some of the leading men of his own party have so scathingly refuted. The people are sick of such puerile attacks-without the least foundation, and unworthy of a manly discussion of important principles. The Whig has grossly misrepresented General Wallace. He is no “cat’s paw” of any man or set of men. The able report and resolutions, (which he has submitted on the Distribution Resolutions,) as well as the report on the subject of Texas, are the fruits of his own vigorous mind and unbiased freedom of thought and of action. They speak the sentiments of Virginia and of the Union-and we are yet to see, if the representatives of the people will be bold enough to “spurn out of” either Legislative Hall, the popular will most clearly and undeniably expressed at the late election. The Whig is counting without its host, when it violates all decency and denounces in such gross language-a proposition which a great many independent men of its own party will glory in seeing achieved.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c4
Hermitage, January 1, 1845 [written by Andrew Jackson]
My Dear Mr. Blair:-I cannot forbear, on this first day of the year 1815, to let you know that I am still in the land of the living, although, greatly afflicted and debilitated. My whole family join me in kind salutations to you and yours, wishing you the joys of the season. May you all live to see many happy New Years.
I observe that you have before Congress too many joint resolutions for the reannexation of Texas.-This argues want of unanimity in the Democracy upon this great national and most important subject. I have just received from Maj. Donnellson, a letter dated at Washington, in Texas, from which I would infer, that if Congress expects to annex Texas to the U.S., they must act speedily, or it will be found to be beyond our grasp. The rejection of the advances of Texas has given offence to some, and a handle to others to press the liberal propositions of England upon the Texians, together with the splendid view of Texas independent, growing into a vast Republic, in time to embrace not only the limits of Texas, but all the domain once Montezuma’s. This view, to ambitious aspirants added to the guaranties of England of her independence, and the loan of large sums for ten years, based upon a Treaty that English, manufactures shall be free of duty, is gaining a party in Texas. General Houston is still the leading star; and his influence alone can be counted upon to resist the present influence of England and its increasing power. How long this influence of England can be successfully withstood in Texas, is becoming a very questionable matter. I have taken a view of the whole ground giving to all information it due weight, and I say to you, that, unless Congress acts upon this subject promptly, Texas will be beyond our grasp, and […] to the Untied States forever, unless regained by the sword. What will be the situation of our country, with a British manufactures introduced duty free into Texas? Comment is unnecessary.
I hazard nothing in saying that, if the present Congress does not act promptly upon this subject, the next will not have the power. The consent of Texas cannot then be obtained. Great Britain will have laid the lion’s paw upon her, and bound her by treaty.
I am exhausted; but, from Major Donnellson’s letter, and other sources of information, the danger of losing Texas seemed so imminent, that altho’ feeble, I could not forbear to say this much to you, that you might communicate it to my friends. May God bless you and yours.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c4
To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 10, 1845
Up to 4 P.M., nothing definite had been heard in this city, relative to the affair between […] and […]. At nine o’clock, A.M., one or both the parties were at Barnum’s Hotel, Baltimore.
I send you the following extract from the Houston City Telegraph, received here by the last mail:
“It is probably known to many of our readers, that a proposition is now, and has been for some time, before this Government, to the effect that England and France conjointly, or England alone, […] Mexico, and guarantee our independence, upon condition that we forever renounce annexation to the American Union. The proposition so naturally results from that trans-Atlantic policy which has been long avowed, both officially and by Government journals, that it now appears to be considered as a matter of course, by our best informed citizens. Our information on this subject is […] from those in the confidence of that government.”
I can assure you that from a personal knowledge of the Editor of the Telegraph, as well as the standing of the Journal, (the first in Texas) that the paragraph is entitled to confidence. Thus it appears, that England has moved in the matter. Up to this day I had not dreaded that the failure to consummate re-annexation during the present session of Congress would endanger the chance session of Congress would endanger the chance session of Congress would endanger the chance of effecting it at the next, so far as Texas herself is concerned, because it seemed improbable that England would run the risks consequent upon a direct interference with our concerns. But as Texas has now the alternative of choosing between the chances of annexation on the one hand, and the certainty of absolute and unconditional freedom from Mexico on the other, with the almost certain prospect too, of advantageous commercial treaties with England and France, no rational man can doubt that she will choose “the bird in the hand” rather than the “two in the bush” that she will embrace the liberal offer of those European powers who see in re-annexation nought but additional strength for the institution […] commercial resources of the United States, rather than take the alternative of a fourth of next March goes by without the consummation of the project, argues very little knowledge of human nature.
The lending politician of Texas is both […] and skillful for, he has learned the diplomats art in a hard but sound school-that of adversity. I doubt if Houston’s superior as a diplomatist now lives. You may be surprised at this section, but one unacquainted with the numerous and carried difficulties though which he has guided the Texian bark of State for the last ten years, cannot imagine the trouble by which he has been surrounded. At this moment, […] not President of the little Republic, he holds in his hands, not only its destinies, but to a certain extent those of the United States; and when he advises his Government that the chances of re-annexation are doubtful, it must move in the only line of policy left to secure certain and absolute independence of Mexico. As an Independent Government, its policy to arrive at national importance is too plain to be mistaken. It must form (as it how can at any moment,) a commercial treaty with England, reviving her manufactures either duty free or at the nominal Tariff, and securing in return the advantage resulting from a market in England, duty free, for her […]. It must strive to make Galveston the depot for at least one half the manufactured goods consumed in the Mississippi Valley; to be transshipped and smuggled into the South-western States through the tributaries of the Mississippi river. One who can doubt that such will can be inevitable result of a failure to annex Texas this Winter, as her present relations with Britain stand, has neither eyes to see, ears to hear, nor mind to understand the simples and most natural consequences of national rivalry. A treaty which shall tender the provisions of the Tariff of 1842 inoperative against England, in the consuming half of the United States on the one side, while it makes the cotton of Texas worth per pound the amount of the English duty more than American cotton of like quality on the other hand, offers too great is temptation, both to England and Texas, to allow me a least to believe, that it will not be formed the instant the latter Government finds herself obliged to look out for her own interests, and for them alone. It is into this hazard that the spirit of Federalism is now driving our country.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c2
House of Delegates, Saturday, Jan. 11
A communication was received from the Senate, by their Clerk, stating that they had passed acts “Changing the times of holding the County Courts of Jackson County.”
[Illegible]
Barbour, Marion, and Taylor;”
“Allowing Cromwell Orrick further time to establish his Ferry;” and
“Authorizing a Ferry from the lands of William Jones, in the county of Brooke, across the Ohio River.”
Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:
By Mr. FRAZIER, of Thomas Clarke and other citizens of August, for an increase of the Capital Stock of the Staunton and James River Turnpike Company, to enable them to McAdamize their road; also, of R.D. Hill and others to the same effect; also, another to the same effect;-also, of George Baylor, jr., and J.H. Evans, for the refunding of a sum of money to them;
By Mr. MARSHALL of F., of the President, &c., of the Fauquier and Alexandria Turnpike Company, for a suspension of the act of 1834, with regard to domestic lotteries;
By Mr. O’FERRALL, of sundry millers and farmers of Morgan county, and of mechanics, doctors, merchants, and farmers of Washington county, Maryland, against the right of way to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, except upon certain conditions.
By Mr. CAMPBELL, of citizens of Bedford and Campbell, for authority to religious and benevolent Societies to receive and hold requests;
By Mr. STURM, proceeding of the County Court of Barbour [illegible]
By Mr. VAN BUREN, proceedings of the Bath County Court, for a change of Court day;
By Mr. RAMEY, petition of citizens of Loudoun, for the call of a Convention;
By Mr. POULSON, of Thomas Underhill, for payment for services rendered during the late war;
By Mr. BOLLING, of J.C. Swann, John Pollard, and eight-two other citizens of Petersburg, asking an appropriation for him erection of a public depository of arms in said town;
By Mr. TOLER, documents relative to the petition of Amanda Crow, for a divorce;-also a petition of Sidney S. Baxter and Thomas H. Ellis, Committee of the Stockholders of the James River & Kanawha Company, for aid for certain specified objects;
By Mr. MOSELEY, a remonstrance of sundry citizens of Buckingham against the removal of the precinct election from Goodwyn’s Church, in said county?
By Mr. Fulton of August, a communication from the Superintend of the Western Asylum, for a geographical division of the State in relation to the Eastern and Western Lunatic Asylums;
By Mr. COOTES, a remonstrance of citizens of August against having the Staunton and James River Turnpike Road McAdamized; and
By Mr. TAYLOR of Norfolk Borough, a petition of citizens of Norfolk Borough for an amendment of their character.
By Mr. HOBSON, that the Committee of Propositions, &c., enquire into the expediency of establishing a warehouse for he inspection of tobacco, on the land of Edward W. Sims, in the town of Car Jar, in Cumberland county;
Also, that the Committee of Courts, &c., report a bill requiring the same forms in the transfer of personal estate, held by females before marriage, as are now required in the transfer of real estate;
By Mr. TAYLOR of Loudoun, that the Committee on Finance enquire into the expediency of abolishing the tax on writs.
A message from the Senate by Mr. BONDURANT, that they had agreed to the resolution of this House, for the election of the officers of the Capitol and Penitentiary Institution, with an amendment, changing the day from the 13th to the 22nd January, and including also the election of a Councillor [sic] of State.
The House resumed the discussion of the contested election from Bath-and continued the canvassing of the votes on Van Buren’s poll objected to by Cameron, the contestant.
Mr. STOLVALL moved to reserve the decision of the Committee, and declare legal the vote of James N. McGuffin, who voted upon a title-bond, executed him on the 22nd of October, 1842, for which he paid the money at the time. By the terms of the title-bond, a deed for the land was to be made by the 1st January, 1844, or at anytime he should call for it-“according to his best recollection.” Cameron admits that he has seen said title-bond, and that the deed was to be made on or before the 1st January, 1844.
This motion was sustained by Messrs, STOVALL, BANKS, LEAKE, and BOWDEN, and opposed by Messrs. STOTHER, WITCHER, FULTON of Wythe, EDMUNDS of Halifax, and LEE, and was lost, ayes 57 to noes 67-Mr. Fulton of Wythe having called the ayes and noes.
The vote of said McGuffin was then declared to be illegal.
Mr. BANKS moved to reverse the decision of the committee, and to declare the vote of Thomas Smith legal. That vote was declared illegal by the committee, as there was no evidence that said Smith was twenty-one years of ago, it being objected by the contestant that he was not of age. Mr. B. thought the contestant should prove the objections raised by the contestant, viz: that the voter was not of age.
Messrs. STOVALL, DAVIS of Orange and CARSON sustained and Messrs. GARNETT, BROADDUS of Caroline, Taylor of N.B., BROADUS of Culpepper and STROTHER opposed Mr. Bank’s motion, which was lost, ayes 51, noes 71, Mr. B. living called the ayes and noes-and the vote of said Smith declared illegal.
At this stage of the proceedings, on motion,
The House adjourned.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c2
House of Representatives
Mr. CHOATE presented a petition from Chas. T. Page and other citizens of Boston, against the annexation of Texas.
Mr. HUNTINGTON presented a petition against the annexation of Texas, (place not heard.) Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
One also, from the same place against the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia. - Laid on the table.
Mr. ARCHER presented a memorial from citizens of Pennsylvania, asking for an alteration in the naturalization laws. Also, one from Madison county New York for the same purpose. Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. EVANS asked leave to introduce a bill providing for evidences of the public debt. Granted.
Mr. Johnson's resolution in relation to the claims of persons residing on Homas' grant, noticed yesterday, and asking the Judiciary Committee to inquire whether the Secretary of the Treasury acted in accordance with law in issuing patents to persons having no right to those lands, was taken up. Mr. Johnson spoke at considerable length in defense of his resolution in the competency of the Judiciary Committee to take cognizance of it.
Mr. DAYTON dissented from such a power being vested in the Committee, and offered an amendment giving the Judiciary Committee the right to report on the subject or not; if they should find, on examination, that the power to investigate the action of another department of the Government belonged exclusively to Congress, Mr. Johnson's resolution should be adopted.
SMITHSONIAN LEGACY
Mr. CHOATE asked leave to withdraw a part of his amendment offered yesterday, by striking out the words beginning with the 24th line, in the first section, and after the word "provided." It appeared, upon reconsideration of that proviso, that it made it peremptory on the board of managers of the institution to confine themselves to the purchase of a given description or kind of books. He did not wish to confine them to such narrow limits, but wished to give them a wider field for their operations. In lieu of the proviso was substituted the words "for the purchase of books on the arts, sciences and works in general," but not to confine the purchase to books of this description exclusively.
The question was then taken on striking out the proviso, and it was carried-26 in the affirmative, noes not counted,
Mr. CHOATE then asked to strike out the 7th section, and insert an amendment, to the effect that the managers of the institution should be empowered to employ a competent agent from time to time, to deliver lectures on the arts and sciences, and to pay him an adequate salary therefore; which was adopted. He also moved that the 8th section be struck out, which referred to the duties of professorships, which no longer existed in the bill, and substitute therefore a clause authorizing the purchase of a general assortment of books.
Mr. CRITTENDEN offered an amendment to this, designating such books to consist of those relating to the arts and sciences; which was negative.
Mr. NILES offered an amendment limiting the sum to $5,000 for such purpose.
Mr. BUCHANAN asked the Senate if by such an amendment, it was intended to make a library worthy of the age and nation in which we live? If so, he would oppose it on the ground of its inadequacy.
The amendment of Mr. Niles was also lost.
Mr. TAPPAN proposed the sum to be $91,000; which gave rise to a considerable debate, in which Messrs. Choate, Rives, Crittenden, Morehead, Bagby, Breese, and Niles participated. A compromise was affected finally, by an amendment of
Mr. MOREHEAD, adding $50,000 to the sum proposed by Mr. Tappan; and
On motion of Mr. PIERCE,
The Senate adjourned over till Monday.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
ARMY AND NAVY.
Mr. McKay, from the committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill making appropriation for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1816.
Also, a bill making an appropriation for the support of the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1816;
Which were severally read a first and second time, referred to the committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair) and resumed the consideration of the resolution for the annexation of Texas in the United States.
Mr. E.S. HAMLIN expressed his opinion that never had there been brought before Congress a question of such general interest as the one now before them. The question was, whether our ship of State, our ship of Zion, which had been preserved for many tears, should now be moved from her moorings, and started on a voyage on an unknown sea; but he desired to have wanted no change in any one of them. The first question which stared them in the face was, not has the President and the Senate the power to annex Texas, but had Congress? If so, where was it to be found? He cared not in what form it was presented-whether it stood on the Treaty or on the principles of the treaty of 1819-whether in the bills and resolutions for this purpose-no matter in what form, it amounted to this: a proposition on our part, to be accepted by Texas-which would amount to a contract with a foreign nation. It was in vain to say that Texas was a part of ourselves, "bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh"-for had we no acknowledged her independence-did we not acknowledge it every day, but keeping our Charge d' Affaires located near that Government. Texas, he again asserted, was an independent nation-and he saw no where in the Constitution the power to make a contract, as annexation would be, between nations acknowledged to e sovereign and independent. He referred to the Alpha of this question, and quoted from the correspondence of Messrs Upshur and Calhoun to our Ministers to Great Britain, Spain, &c., to show that the measure had its origin in the endeavor to prevent the abolition of slavery in Texas, and to demonstrate that, it was alleged emancipation would be advantageous to Great Britain and injurious to all other nations of the earth. This stood forth on official papers, in the correspondence with foreign Governments, by speeches made in and out of Congress, in this House, and in the other end of the Capitol. But what if money had been appropriated in England to set the slaves free in Texas? Would to God, that money was heaped up, not only to set the slaves free in Texas, but in all lands! Why should this alarm us? He then stated his views in detail.
Mr. WELLER contended that this question was not one affecting the people of any particular section of our country, but was of a national character, affecting all-the commercial, agricultural, and navigating interests. It was one, on which the Representatives from every section were called to deliberate and judge for themselves. For himself, he would be unwilling to vote for the measure, had not the people, in the late Presidential Election, declared in favor of Annexation. The consummation of this object would open for the West a market for her cattle and breadstuffs, and afford to the North, likewise, a market for her manufactures. If any section of the country should be injured, it was the South, for the rich lands of Texas would thereby be brought into active competition with her own. They were bound not, only to guarantee undisturbed security to the South, but to preserve the compromises and assurances of the Constitution. If it were even necessary to annex the Northern portion of Great Britain bordering on the United States, to give to Maine or Vermont their constitutional rights he would not legislate to give to such a proposition his support. He insisted, and argues, that the extension of our territory would not result in war with any foreign power, and he replied to several gentlemen in the opposition who had preceded him; and, in conclusion, he expressed himself as not wedded to the resolutions for annexation, heretofore submitted by him; but, on the contrary, he did not believe that any of the propositions would violate the Constitution which he, in common with others, had sworn to support, and, therefore, he could vote for any of the measure before the committee.
Mr. BRENGLE opposed the resolutions; and called upon gentlemen who were in favor of them to point to that part of the Constitution which conferred on Congress the power to acquire foreign territory. There was no provision in that instrument which would justify it. That Congress had power to admit new States was clear, but there was no example, no precedent, that would warrant the annexation of Texas in the manner proposed. The Constitution had power not found in it was now sought to be exercised for the first time.
He argued against the admission, ad labium, of new States, by a mere majority of Congress, as calculated to open the way for increasing the number of the representative body, without regard to population, and in violation of the wholesome, just and constitutional principle, that representation and taxation should go together. If it had been intended to admit foreign territory into the Union, there would have stood in the Constitution a provision palpable and indisputable. So far as regarded Texas, she did not ask us to protect her, but we were exhorted to woo her, that she might protect us.
Mr. CAREY, of Maine, addressed the Committee in favor of annexation, and when he concluded his remarks,
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the House adjourned.
IN SENATE
Friday, January 10, 1845
The Senate did not sit to-day, having adjourned over to Monday.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Mr. HALE asked leave to submit a proviso, which he said he intended to urge when the House should come to a vote on the various propositions for the annexation of Texas. He desired that it should take the usual course-be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. [Cries of "Read, read."]
The Speaker informed the gentlemen that it could be received only by general consent.
It was however read for information, and provides in substance that immediately after the boundary between the United States and Mexico shall be definitively settled by the two Governments and before any State shall be equally divided and in that portion lying south and west of the line, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. This arrangement to be considered as a compact, and binding, and forever remain unalterable, unless by the consent of two-thirds of the States of the Union.
Messrs, McCONNELL, BURKE, and SLIDELL objected to the reception of the proposition; whereupon,
Mr. HALE moved a suspension of the rules prescribing the order of business, and asked for the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER said, that the motion could not now be made, in consequence of other business having precedence.
HOUR OF MEEING
The House proceeded to the consideration of resolution heretofore offered by Mr. Thompson, to change the daily meeting of the House to eleven o'clock, A.M., to which Mr. D. L. Seymour had proposed an amendment, as a substitute, that there be a daily evening session of the House, to commence at seven o'clock, P.M.
Mr. HOLMES moved that the resolution be laid upon the table, and
Mr. DUNCAN asked for the yeas and nays-which were taken, and the result was-yeas 78, nays 93.
So the resolution was not laid on the table.
The previous question was moved and seconded; and on the question, Shall the main question be now put?-being on the amendment-the yeas and nays were ordered and taken, and resulted in the affirmative-yeas 90, nays 86.
The amendment was then rejected; and, on agreeing to the resolution the yeas and nays were asked, but not ordered; and
The question was taken by tellers-ayes 72, noes 79. So the resolution also was rejected.
TEXAS AGAIN
Mr. HALE moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to introduce the proviso above referred to, that it might be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and he asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The proviso being again real, at the request of several gentlemen,
Mr. HALE repeated his object in moving for a suspension of the rules. [A voice: "No speech now;" and another, "We understand it very well." "Go on, go on with the call."]
The yeas and nays were taken, and the House by a vote of yeas 92, nays 82, refused to suspend the rules-not being two-thirds.
On motion of Mr. J.W. Davis, of Indiana, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair) and resumed the consideration of the resolutions for the annexation of Texas to the United States.
Mr. SAMPLE opposed the measure, and especially the manner in which it was sought to be effected. Contracts and agreements between this and foreign nations could not constitutionally be made by the Legislature, but by the Executive or treaty making power. Suppose that were should now agree to admit Texas on certain terms, and those were acceded to and accepted by that Republic, and hereafter there should be a majority in both Houses adverse to the act, and should appeal it-what then would become of Texas? What cement would hold us to our contract or agreement? If, then, there was a power in the Constitution to annex Texas, or any other government similarly situated, the manner proposed in the resolution, there was certainly the same power to undo the act: and to what unfortunate results was the exercise of such an assumed power, in either case, likely to lead, should it be exercised! And in a country like ours, where public opinion was unstable, it was not improbably that a law passed by one Congress might be repealed by another. It was not designed by the framers of the Constitution, that any other territory than that acknowledged by the treaty with Great Britain in 1783, should be erected into States and admitted into the Union and he read various extracts from debates in Convention, etc., in support of his argument.
He argued that the position of the country, in its relations to the residue of the North American coast, would be infinitely safer without Texas than with it. In a military point of view, and every other, so far as the protection of the frontier was concerned, that nation, being independent, was a greater protection, than if she belonged to us-without subjecting us to the expense and trouble of fortifying the coast. He opposed the measure, further, that it was calculated to administer to the spirit of aggrandizement and conquest; for, it was observed by a gentleman from Alabama, the other day, that the "lone star" would, at some future time, float from the palace of the Montezuma’s-and that, while it would "extend the area of freedom," as contended, it would, at the same time, extend the boundaries of slavery.
Mr. DEAN regarded this as the most important measure ever brought before Congress for deliberation. The question was had they the power, by the Constitution, to annex a sovereign State to the Union?-and this was, properly, the inquiry involved in the discussion. Gentlemen had insisted that the Constitution did not justify the acquisition of territory, but they had forgotten that in many of the States the Indian had receded before the force of the white man, and his hunting grounds converted into cities and fertile fields.-Our march had been onward, and history demonstrated that our people had not rested contented with the narrow limits to which we were confined at the termination of the war of the Revolution. If this argument of the opposition were correct, how would we acquire Oregon?-But he had no doubt whatever, that Congress had the power to admit Texas either as a Territory or as a State. The Federalists, under the cognomen of Whigs, denied it; for they were always on the wrong side, and never drew lessons of wisdom from the experience of the past, but they pressed on in the errors of their ways, with the tenacity of life, and with the same vigor that the miser clung to his gold.
The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 4th of June last, requesting the President to cause to be communicated to the House a copy of the instructions of George W. Irving upon his appointment as minister plenipotentiary to Spain, in the year 1814, and afterwards during his mission to that court, which have not even heretofore made public. The report and the accompanying papers were very voluminous.
Mr. ADAMS moved that they be laid on the table, and printed; which was agreed to.
Mr. JENKS, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, reported a joint resolution authorizing and directing the accounting officer of the Post Office Department to inquire into, audit, and settle the claims of Alexander M. Cumming, late mail contractor. It was read twice and committed to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. PRATT, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, reported a bill making an appropriation for furnishing, painting, and repairing the Executive mansion, and for other purposes. It was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and was ordered to be printed.
The House then adjourned.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c6
A letter from a Correspondent
The letter of our regular Correspondent form Washington, to whom we are indebted for so many valuable favors, is very able in the views which it takes, and interesting from the facts which it reveals. The quotation which it gives from the Houston Telegraph confirms the last, strong letter which Gen. Jackson has addressed to Mr. Blair. We must act- act, now-or we may lose Texas forever. NOW is the accepted time. We call upon our friends in Washington to hearken to these repeated counsels-to act with decision-and to adopt a conciliatory spirit, which must lead to success.
The signs are more cheering from Washington, in defiance of Hal[ . . . ] from New Hampshire. We are happy to hear that Col. Benton will give up his bill. Instructions are confidently expected from the Legislature of Maine to her Senators. The cause of annexation is gaining ground even in Massachusetts. It is thought that in a few days the members of Congress friendly to the measure will go into caucus, and adopt some available plan.
The Correspondent of the Baltimore Patriot thinks that Mr. Dromgoole's scheme is the most popular. The correspondent of the New York News thinks it will prevail, perhaps with some modifications. The correspondent of the Philadelphia Inquirer (Whig) has changed his opinion, and is now fully convinced that an annexation proposition, in, some shape or other, will pass the House at this session. It is not at all improbable but that the measure may succeed in the Senate. I have this from the best authority. The chances now are that Texas will be annexed at this session of Congress." So be it.
We are sure it is unnecessary to call the public attention to the following manly and thrilling appeal from the Old Hero.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p2c3
"It Is My Thunder!"
Mr. J P. Kennedy the Novelist of Swallow Barn and Horse Shoe took the floor on Saturday last, in the House of Representatives, in opposition to “annexation in any shape or form in which it may be presented.” He cut and slashed in every direction around him – just as boldly as if he had not written a very confident letter before the election, the predictions of which had all passed off in smoke. No Whig follows the footsteps of Mr. Clay more faithfully than the Representative of Baltimore. The moment the oracle pronounced the fiat from his tripod at Raleigh, Mr. K. determined to go against Texas, and he is now opposed to annexation in any form or phasis [sic] whatever. In his Saturday’s argument, he makes an allusion to a letter “he had recently seen from Washington to the Richmond Enquirer, which furnished evidence of the unanimity which prevailed in the Democratic party in relation to the question of annexation. The letter seemed to come from one who had become, by some means or other, well versed in the consultations on this subject. That letter was written before the holidays, and it announced the perplexities which prevailed at that time. It gave the names of parties to whom they had been referred for adjustment, and then prophesied that, by new year’s day, they would be brought into a state of harmony, and then they were to have some ‘thunder’ – Democratic thunder,” &c., &c.
If the anticipated harmony has not yet arrived, it is no reason why it may not yet take place. It is true, that many propositions have been made, (and Mr. K. notices most, and opposes all of them.) They have called forth much discussion among the friends of annexation; but in a spirit of harmony which promises the ultimate selection of some measure of annexation. There has been no want of “harmony” then, as our correspondent predicted – though as yet there has not been any unanimity of purpose. Our friends agree upon annexation – but not yet upon the best mode of affecting it. Every day’s discussion, however, is shedding new light upon the merits of the subject and the opinions of the members – and we confidently trust, that a new consultation among its friends may, in the course of this week, strike out some plan of compromise, which may reconcile its provisions to the Constitution, as well as to a majority of House.
Mr. K. will confess that our Correspondent is fight in one of his predictions. They have “thunder” – and they are likely to have enough of it – not “Democratic thunder” alone, but the mock thunder of the Theatre – not only the explosion of the Jupiter Tonans of the Democratic party, but the mimic thunder of the Whig Salmoneus , who “used to drive his chariot over a brazen bridge, and to dart his burning torches on every side, as if to imitate the lightening.” But Mr. K. may depend upon it, that it will require more than his thunder and lightening to defeat a measure, which the best interests of the country so earnestly recommend to one adoption.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p3c1
Debate on the Texas Question
Speech of Mr. Belser, of Alabama.
1. The House of Representatives, Jan. 3, 1845.
On the joint resolutions reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, proposing to annex the republic of Texas to the United States, and to the amendments offered thereto by Mr. Weller of Ohio and Mr. Douglas of Illinois.
Mr. BELSER having obtained the floor, rose and said that, in his opinion, a great error had accompanied most of our recent discussions. – He had scarcely heard an argument during the session, on any subject in which the speaker had failed to mention some incident connected with the late presidential election. Believing this to be the wrong, he had prescribed a rule for his guidance in future which was, that, whatever might be the topic finder consideration, he would endeavor to keep his vision bounded by the record. Arguments addressed to the popular ear were usually of a peculiar kind, well enough in then place, but when reiterated here they unfit the representative for correct thinking and were a waste of the public time.
The subject on which the House was now called to act had been before the people of the States in their primary assemblies; and without undertaking to say what had, or had not, been decided by them, he would say this: that a sufficient expression of opinion had been given throughout the United States to entitle this people, and the government of Texas, to action on this question. For some time past he had made up his mind in favor of it; and it on any occasion he had evinced an unnecessary zeal for its early consuumation, be hoped that the fact would not be attributed to unjust motives. He was an American in feeling – a native of the sunny South – early taught to admire her institutions – to love her people; and under such circumstances; it was but natural that he should have the warmest, [ . . . ] for her prosperity. Having said this much in the way of introduction, he would next proceed to the examination of the interesting question before the committee.
The constitutional right of annexing a foreign republic to this Government, by a concurrence of the legislative power of both countries, presents for our consideration no common matter; and before such legislation is attempted, the ground on which we stand ought to be fully viewed Candor compelled him to admit, that, so far as his research had been extended, he had discovered no precedent embracing the exact point. Since the commencement of the present century, the Louisiana and Florida Territories had become portions of the United States, and out of the former several new States had been admitted into the Union: but these acquisitions to our national domain had, in the first instance, been obtained by the treaty-making power. There then being no legislative explosion which fully meets the question, we must, at a proper time, look into the character of our Government for its solution.
Some there are who contend that Texas cannot be constitutionally annexed to this Government, either by treaty, bill, or joint resolution. They assimilate the Union to a political firm, of which the States are members, and say that any contract of annexation made with Texas, without their entire assent, would be void. They entrench themselves behind the treaty of 1783, fixing the limits of the United States, and publish it as their opinion, that the power to admit new States vested in congress is to be confined to those limits. – They further declare, that slavery is a strain on our national escurcheon [sic], and that the authorities of the Federal Government have no right to increase it by the annexation of new slave territory to the Union: that, by virtue of the compact, it is limited to those States where it existed when the instrument was framed: that, under that compact, a single slave cannot be constitutionally brought into that Union; and yet, by the proposed annexation of Texas, all the slaves in that Republic are to be made to form a part of our population.
Those who hold these doctrines, with a few exceptions, are the abolitionists of the country – the men whose daily vocation is to slander and vilify, as far as they are able, the present administration. They hate the President and his Secretary. (Mr. Calhoun.) because these statesmen have foresight and firmness enough to counteract Great Britain – in a word, to be Americans. They are the same who once desired to see Louisiana remain a desert for howling where wolves to roam over, sooner than it should become a part of this Government. – Their direct influence in the councils of the nation is limited; but still they hold the balance of power several of the largest States. They are never found in any political conventions except their own; and, by strategy in, are endeavoring to circumscribe our institutions. They have their friends on this floor – men of great talent – whose exertions should be reserved for a better cause; for if slavery be the evil of which they speak, they should recollect that Great Britain, with the aid of New England, entailed it on us; and further, that not only our prosperity, but likewise our personal security is involved in the keeping of the two races separate and distinct.
There are others who, to a certain extent, disagree with those whom he had just adverted to. – They acknowledge the right of the Treaty making power to admit foreign territory into the Union, but deny that it can be done by the legislation of this Government and Texas. They maintain that the Treaty-making power must first incorporate the territory, before Congress can [ . . . ] the new States. They say that, by the Constitution, the power of making treaties is vested in the President and two-thirds of the Senate, and, being thus conferred, that Congress had no authority over the subject; that such legislation, if permitted would supersede the written Constitution and substitute for it the omnicontend [sic] of the British Parliament. They further contend, that the United States, having recognized the independence of Texas, by the act made her a perfect nation that every compact between independent nations is a Treaty; and that every Treaty must be made by the President, and afterwards be adhered to the Senate for ratification.
If the views of either of these parties are correct, then the question is concluded; for neither the consent of all the members of the Confederacy, nor that of two-thirds of the senate, can be obtained for the measure; and hence it becomes our duty to examine, with care, their positions.
In the settlement of these difficulties, which have been so eagerly presented by the opponents of Annexation, there are three clauses in the Constitution of the United States to which a fair interpretation must be given.
1st. The legislative power of the Union, vested in congress, and to consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
2d. The Treaty-making power, vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring in any Treaty which he may submit.
3d. The power of Congress to admit new States into the Union, under certain restrictions, intended to guard and protect the States.
From the reading of these several provisions, he interred that there could be but little difficulty in coming to a correct conclusion, provided the character of our government is kept clearly in view. All sovereignties of which history informs us are said to be based on three fundamental provisions executive, legislative and judicial. That mole in which these several powers are to be exercised, focus the main distinction between governments. In those which are unlimited, they are concentrated in a single individual. Sometimes they are lodged in a few select persons, and, when such is the case, it is denominated, an uncontrolled aristocracy. Our Government is unlike either of the foregoing. Sovereignty with us originally existed in the people of the State Governments. For the purpose of forming a more perfect union, a portion of it has been transferred by the Constitution to the Federal head. Congress, then, is the best exponent of the public will; for it is chosen by those who are, to a great extent, the original fountain of all legitimate authority.
The right of every nation to take care of itself, and to provide every thing which may be necessary for its preservation, is a principle too plain to be questions. The authority to incorporate foreign territory with our own is not expressly delegated to the President and Senate, but it attaches as an incident to sovereignty; and this sovereignty is more perfect in the law-making power, than in ay other department mentioned in the Constitution. It, then, sovereignty gives the right to acquire foreign territory, either by conquest or by purchase that right can be most property exercised by that branch of the Government in which it most clearly exists. The language of the Constitution is, “new States may be admitted by Congress into the Union.” How can new States be admitted into the Union by Congress, composed of foreign territory? If to admit new States be a power expressly given to Congress, then all the means which are appropriate may constitutionally by employed to carry the same into effect; and the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion. In such cases, the legislature can mould and model the exercise of its powers as its own wisdom and the public interests shall require. This power to admit new States is not to be found in the Articles of Confederation. Its origin is but coeval with the Constitution; still the debates on the adoption of that instrument clearly indicate, that those who made it a part of our national compact, did not intend to limit its operation to what was then considered the territory of the Union. They were for supplying the defects which manifested themselves during the existence of that confederation; and the task before them was a perilous and difficult one! They did not intend to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but they intended to act for posterity. Their design was not to confer an expanded territory on the Federal Government to be used entirely for its own purposes; but they intended to create a counterpoise to it in the number and independence of the States. Territory, according to their ideas, was made for mankind; and when incorporated into the Union, it was to be guarded by those needful rules and regulations which Congress might prescribe; and as soon as possible this right of guardianship was to cease, States were to be framed out of it, and then to be admitted into the American family. Every Government, then, in his opinion, which possessed the power of interesting its population, had also the inherent right to provide territory for its use.
Another ground, he said, had also been assumed, which was, as he had before stated, that every compact between independent nations is a treaty; and that, for this reason, Texas could not be annexed without the intervention of the treaty-making power. He observed that, since the adoption of the Constitution of the U. States, many compacts by acts of legislation had been entered into between the Federal and State Governments, and also between the former and foreign nations.
On the 4th of March, 1789, Congress assembled under the Constitution which, but a little while before, had been ratified by eleven States. In November of the same year, North Carolina also acceded to it; and in May, 1790, the assent of Rhode Island was likewise obtained. On the 2nd of April following, Congress passed an act accepting from the State of North Carolina a deed of cession of he claims of said State to a certain district of western territory therein named. This compact contained many weighty provisions, and was performed by joint legislation. – (See 21 vol. U.S. Laws, p.85.)
On the 24th April, 1802, a similar compact was formed between the General Government and the State of Georgia, for an amiable settlement of the limits of said State, and for the establishment of a Government in the Mississippi territory. But it Georgia ceded to the Government the country west of the Chattahoochie river. – (See 1st vol. U.S. Laws, p. 488.)
He would here inquire whether these were contracts entered into by sovereigns for the incorporation of a territory into the Union? After the ratification of the Constitution by eleven of the States, and while North Carolina and Rhode Island were deliberating as to whether or not they would come into the Union. Congress taxed their trade the same as it they had been foreign nations. – This early legislative exposition seemed to settle the character of the States while out of the Union; and then admission into it afterwards, with, entitled them, in his opinion, to be considered independent nations, while ceding their territory to the Government by acts of concurrent legislation.
After briefly examining these cases of legislative compacts between the Government and the States, be now would advert to certain legislative compacts with foreign nations; and whether they be for territory, trade, or anything else, this cannot alter the principle, unless in cases where the object is controlled by the Constitution. He observed that all of our intercourse with foreign patrons, to a certain extent, partook of this kind of legislation. From time to time we had said to Great Britain, France, and other countries, if you will move certain restrictions on one branch of trade, we will, upon the principle of reciprocity, do the same on another equally important. And what, he asked, were these, but legislative compacts between independent nations? But a case more directly in point was the establishment of the boundary between this Government and Texas a few years since – one of the highest acts of sovereignty that could be performed by nations; a legislative compact of the greatest import, which, as soon as it was agreed on, vested rights in the citizen of which he could not afterwards be deprived. He was assured that the Senate passed this law of the House unanimously; but still it was not submitted to that body as a treaty, nor legislated on as such by it.
And in his humble opinion, there was another ground on which the legislative power of this Union, with the concurrence of Texas, or without it, could incorporate that country into our own. All writers on national law agree that a weaker power, for the sake of protection, may verge its existence in a greater, and further, that the greater power, to perfect itself, or to guard against danger, may lawfully receive the weaker, or, in certain contingencies, take it by force. It was in pursuance, partly, of this last principle, that Congress, on the 31st of October, 1803, authorized Mr. Jefferson to take possession of and occupy the ceded territory from France to the U. States, embraced in the treaty of Paris; Mr. Madison, on the 15th January, 1811, to take possession of the country, East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia and Mississippi territory; and again on the 12th of February, 1833, to take possession of another tract lying South of the Mississippi territory, and West of the Perdido. In his opinion, the several classes of eases to which he had referred, settled the right of the legislative power of this Government to annex Texas to the United States as a territory.
Mr. B. would here proceed to examine the various propositions before the Committee. He was prepared to support any one of them; still he had a preference. He would take up that one which had been submitted by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Douglass]. He desired to inform the gentleman wherein he thought that his plan was not the proper one. He objected, in the first place, to the preamble. He admitted that, in 1819, Texas had been improperly par tee with. – What had induced our negotiators to violate the obligation given to that people in 1803, we should perhaps never know. He presumed, however, that it was to obtain Florida, which, from her [ . . . ] position, controlled in a degree the commerce of the Gulf, and the trade of the Mississippi. – This was the charitable view of the matter. He further admitted that, according to the law of nations, there was but one case, in which this Government would part with any position of its citizens, and that was a case of actual necessity; they could not be traded away, like cattle, or other property. He also was advised that, wherein subsequent treaty is in conflict with a prior one, the latter is void. But we had, by our own act, incorporated the people of Texas with those of a foreign nation, afterwards recognized them as her own in our intercourse with her and with Mexico, while they are united to the latter under the compact of 1821. He conceived that, on this point, we were estopped by our own act, so far as that doctrine can apply to a Government.
Mr. Douglass, here asked leave to explain. – The resolutions he had offered did not proceed on the principle of denying the validity of the treaty, as far as we were concerned the position he took was, that, though the treaty was void in itself as it respected us, we were bound by it. We could not claim Texas under the treaty of 1803; but he contended that Texas had a right, under that treaty, to demand admission at our hands.
Mr. Belser resumed. He was pleased to learn from the honorable gentleman that there was so little difference in their views as to the treaty alluded to. He agreed with him, that we were still; he thought that the gentleman’s preamble had a tendency to perplex the question.
He further contended, that when, by the treaty of 1819, the inhabitants of Texas were bargained away, it was at their option whether or not they would become citizens of Spain; and if they chose not to incorporate themselves with that government, and had been able to stand alone, they were as independent as any people on earth. These inhabitants of Texas never did become incorporated with any other form of Government, save the Mexican Constitution of 1824. When that Constitution was overturned by the strong arm of the military, and a central despotism, under Santa Anna, was erected in its stead, Texas was not bound by the new Government, and well did she refuse to submit to it. He then put the question on the ground of conquest. Texas had done, with respect to Santa Anna and his government, just as we had done, in the days of the revolution to England and her government; and she had achieved her independence and maintained it just as we did ours. This, he conceived, was the true basis on which the matter stood; and it was one established by the law of nations and maintained by common sense.
He had heard a great deal about an alleged violation of our Treaty with Mexico in 1832, as the inevitable consequence of Annexation. Now, what had been our stipulation with Mexico in that Treaty? It was this: that we would maintain perpetual amity and friendship with Mexico, and with all her territories. Very well; but Texas was now no territory of hers and, therefore, the stipulation of that Treaty did not in the least interfere with our exercising dominion over it. Further, the language of that Treaty was that there should be peace between the United States and the united Mexican States. Texas, at the time it was made, was one of those united Mexican States, and hence the guaranty extended also to her. Again: in that Treaty with Mexico, this Government did not say to her that, if the preservation of the Federal Union should require such a Treaty to be departed from, its authorities would not consult their own safety. No, that was a natural right inherent in nations that could not be surrendered by negotiation.
But he also objected to that position of the honorable gentleman’s proposition which introduced into this discussion the Missouri compromise. In his belief, that act had done more to unsettle American institutions than any other in the history of the Government. It had introduced into our councils a dangerous principle – to writ: that Congress had the right to legislation the subject of slavery. Abolition petitions, tracts, &c., were its fruits, and he feared that they were but the harbinger of worse measures. It was true, that there was but little said here on the subject of abolition now; but the silence which prevailed in regard to it; might prove to be like that which precedes the earthquake.
Mr. B. would next direct his attention to the resolutions of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Weller]. He preferred them to those of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Douglass;] still he thought that they were deficient in some things.
He believed that, as soon as Texas shall consent to become a member of our family, her government should cease; and further, that we should evince to Mexico a disposition to settle the question of boundary on just terms, and to cultivate a friendly intercourse in every other particular.
The original report, emanating from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, he thought also subject to the same objections which he had just urged against the plan of the gentleman from Ohio. – There were reasons, however, why it should be preferred, and a weighty one was that it had once been sanctioned by the representatives of both governments. We are not alone to be consulted about this compact. Texas is to have a voice in it, and, therefore, she should at this time be heard. To those who object to this report because the Senate has already rejected it in the form of a treaty, he had but little to say. If any were to be governed by such motives while a great national negotiation, involving agricultural, commercial, manufacturing, and mechanical interest was pending, those he would remind that the argus eyed people are watching our deliberations with intensity, and will no fail to discover our errors.
He had likewise read the bill and resolutions of his friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Tibbatts,] published in several of the papers, of proposing to annex as a State. He confessed he had more doubt as to the constitutionality of this scheme for annexation than of any other, but even if called on to vote for it, he would pursue the judicial rule, and when, in doubt, give effect to the legislative will.
Mr. B. had a proposition of his own, see appendix No. 1, which, like unto that of his friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Tibbatts,) was not yet before the committee, although it had been printed. He knew very well that men were apt to be fond of the children of their own creation, and he did not plead an exemption from the feeling; but this he could say, if he had ever given to any subject his earnest and undivided attention, it was this. His first resolution was for the annexation of the territory; the second authorized the President (as soon as jurisdiction was obtained by the consent of Texas) to erect therein a temporary government; the third was to settle the difficulties as to boundary, which might arise with Mexico; and the fourth guaranteed to Texas protection during the negotiation. It seemed to him that any true friend of annexation ought not to hesitate to vote for his, proposition. There were precedents to justify it – one of them to be found in the 3d volume of the United States laws, page 562, [see appendix No. 2;] and another in the 6th volume of the said work, page 593, [see appendix No. 3.] He again declared that he was not wedded to any plan which had been submitted. He meant to vote for Texas, it he could. And if gentlemen are in doubt, he would say to them, with Hoyle in his treatise on whist, “When you are in doubt, take the trick.” [Great laughter.]
But, (said Mr. B.,) we are told by the opponents of Annexation, that our citizens settled in Texas; that the United States encouraged them in it; and that it is through their influence that the country has been wrested from Mexico, and consequently it would subject us to improper suspicions if we annex the Republic at this time. – Here arises a home view of this question. How was it that this Government had removed the Indians West of the Mississippi? When the first navigators from the Old World discovered this Continent, it was in the possession of independent nations or tribes. European powers were anxious to annex it to their own dominions, and nautical adventurers were found sailing along the coast, claiming for their rulers certain countries between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. – Since then, in the arrangements of Providence, Indian possession had gradually given way before the advances of civilization. And so it must ever be. Gentlemen might talk as they pleased about their devotion to the thirteen original States – about prescribing limits to the American people. There were none – there could be none! They would go, and go, and still continue to go, until they reached the ultimate boundary which the God of Nature had set to the progress of the human race. He, for one, hoped that the day was not far distant when they would go a little farther. [A laugh.] He meant farther than the point at which his friend from Pennsylvania had fixed their ultimate boundary, when he had so eloquently described it as being marked “in the configuration of this Continent by an Almighty hand;” he was not, he hoped, so impious as to throw out the idea that they could transcend a point fixed for them, by the decrees of God.
After this continent had been discovered, we succeeded to the rights of Great Britain. We inherited the soil by the sword. The country was still ours. We could [ . . . ] trade, in the neighborhoods of Jamestown and of Plymouth, the ancient track of the post boy, as we could, in the great West, the footsteps of the Catholic missionary and of the French soldier. The land was ours but where were the people? Where was that brave aboriginal race which once chased the deer and conquered the bear in its mountains, and valleys? They were gone, and we were in their places. And how had we obtained their country? Talk of cessions and Indian treaties; it was a farce. We had got their possessions by the strong arm of power. We removed these tribes from their hunting grounds, who did not cultivate the land, in order that we might accomplish the greatest amount of good to the human race. And has Texas done any thing more than we did before her? No, sir! – no sir!
Let gentlemen look on those two figures which have so recently been erected in the eastern portico of this Capitol, (great laughter,) and learn an instructive lesson. Gentlemen might laugh at the nudity of one of them; but the artist, when he made Columbus the superior of the Indian princess in every respect, knew what he was doing. And when he likewise placed the ball in his hand, he intended further to represent the power of civilization and what were to be the effects of the discovery of that wonderful man.
And does the history of the past furnish no sight into the future? What is to become of our population in a half century or a century hence? According to a calculation derived from the best of sources, in fifty years it will number one hundred millions; and in double that period three hundred millions. Talk to him about confining the area of liberty! – it could not be done. Freedom’s pure and heavenly, light was here, and it would continue to burn, with increasing brightness, till it had illumined this entire continent.
Why, what did gentlemen suppose was to become of the rising generation to the West? Did they think it was to stay there to vegetate like a plant and die on the spot where it grew? No, you had as well attempted to arrest Niagara. It would go onward and onward; it would fill Oregon; it would fill Texas; it would pour like a cataract over the Rocky Mountains, and, passing to the great lakes of the West, it would open the forests of that far distant wilderness to the light of the rising sun. And whoever should live and visit this continent at that day, might hear the voice of the American reaper on the far shores of the Pacific. The idea thrown out by President Houston, in one of his messages, that the lone star of Texas would yet one day float in triumph over the ancient place of the Montezuma, had been much ridienied [sic]; but, in his apprehension, it was likely to be converted into somber fact.
Mr. B. then did not believe in limiting the spread of liberty, or in checking the migration of our people. Extension, in his opinion was the antagonistical principle of centralization. Our duration as a nation consists in our inestimable institutions, in our expansive territory, in the virtue of the people; and, combined with these, were our noble rivers, our internal communications, the abundance which we raise, and the certainty of bringing into requisition in the hour of need our physical force. On this branch of the subject he agreed with Gen. Jackson. That great man had been misrepresented by his enemies. They had charged him with a want of polish, with a lack of learning. It might be true, that he had not so much knowledge of books as many others less prominent in life; but he knew men, he read human nature, and had that kind of information which was worth more than that of all the bookworms in the country.
The inhabitants of the new States had entered Texas in large numbers with the hope of bettering their condition, and with an honest ambition to occupy elevated stations in the new Republic. This was the genius and spirit of the popular system which distinguished our country. And are we prepared to reject Texas again? In the language of one of her sons. – “What! Reject a proffered territory as extensive as four or five of our largest States, equal in fertility to the most favored, superior to most them in natural advantages; with a thousand miles of sea coast; from its position constituting an unseemly interference with our territory? What [ . . . ] reject a compact which secures to Texas no advantages – save the solitary isolated one of nestling in the folks of the star-spangled banner.”
In conclusion, Mr. B. observed, that he had recently been reading a historical legend which afforded an exemplification of what he thought ought to be our national condition and character. When the city of Corinth was taken, sacked and burnt by the Roman consul Mammius , in the fusion of metals produced by the intensity of the heat, a mixed and compounded one was produced of far greater brilliancy and beauty than any of the materials of which it was composed. It was called Corinthian brass, and was held more precious than gold. He desired to see the day speedily come when our country will, so far as a spirit of brotherhood can exist, resemble just such a metal as was formed at Corinth. And that that Government, whose independence was first proclaimed by the Henrys, the Thompsons, the Adamses, the Middletons, the Rutledges and the Lees, will survive the ghastly glare of an unbridled fanaticism; and that some interceding spirit will yet rise up to check the now wide-spread flames. Long may our country prove itself the asylum of the oppressed. Let its institutions and its people be extended far and wide, and when the waters of despotism shall have inundated other portions of the globe, and the votary of liberty be compelled to betake himself to his ark, let this Government be the Ararat on which it shall rest.
APPENDIX –No. 1.
Mr. Belser asked leave to introduce a series of joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas to the United States, in the following form:
Preamble and joint resolutions for the Annexation of the Republic of Texas to the United Sates of America.
In view of the present peculiar situation of the Republic of Texas, and the influence which she is destined, from her immediate location upon our Western borders, and her intimate connection with the territory, population, and resources of the United States, to have upon our national security, tranquility, and commerce, we, the supreme legislative authority of the American Union, in order to secure the blessings of peace and prosperity to ourselves, and safety, good Government, and liberty to the inhabitants of Texas, do hereby adopt the following resolutions, annexing the said Republic to the United States:
1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, with the consent of the authorities of Texas, so much of the territory as rightfully belongs to the said Republic be and the same is hereby annexed to the United States, and made one of the territories of the same, under the name of “the Territory of Texas.”
2. And be it further resolved, That as soon as jurisdiction over the territory of Texas shall be obtained by the United States, as herein provided, the President of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to take immediate possession of the same; and until other provision be made by Congress to establish therein a temporary Government upon the principles regulating other territories of the U. States, so far as the same may be applicable; and the military, civil and judicial powers are hereby vested in such authorities as he may establish in pursuance of this resolution for the protection and maintenance of the inhabitants of the said territory in the full enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.
3. And be it further resolved, That these resolutions are hereby declared to be the fundamental law of annexation between the United States and Texas, so soon as they shall be concurred in by both Governments; and that if any dispute shall thereafter arise with any foreign power respecting any boundary of Texas, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to open all necessary negotiations for the settlement of the same upon just and honorable terms, subject to the ratification of this Government.
4. And be it further Resolved , That if, during the pendency of these propositions, any attempt shall be made by any foreign power to occupy by Republic of Texas, or to harass or destroy her commerce, the President of the U. States is hereby authorized and directed to afford protection to the same; and for that end may employ such parts of the military and naval power of the United States as may be necessary.
5. And be it further Resolved , That as soon as these resolutions shall have passed the Congress of the United States, and been approved by the President, he shall forthwith transmit a copy of the same to the Government of the republic of Texas for its concurrence.
APPENDIX – No. 2.
An act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April last; and for the temporary government thereof.
SECT. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to take possession of, and occupy, the territory ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth day of April last, between the two nations; and that he may, for that purpose, and in order to maintain in the said territories the authority of the United States, employ any part of the army and navy of the United States, and of the force authorized by an act passed the third day of March last, entitled “An act directing a detachment from the militia of the United States, and for erecting certain arsenals,” which he may deem necessary, and so much of the sum appropriated by the said act as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated for the purpose of carrying this act into effect; to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States.
SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That, until the expiration of the present session of Congress, unless provision for the temporary government of the said territories be sooner made by Congress, all the military, civil and judicial powers, exercised by the others of the existing government of the same, shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct, for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. Approved, Oct. 31, 1803.
APPENDIX – No. 3.
Taking into view the peculiar situation of Spain, and of her American provinces; and considering the influence which the destiny of the territory adjourning the Southern border of the United States may have upon their security, tranquility and commerce. Therefore,
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, under the peculiar circumstances of the existing crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see any part of the said territory pass into the hands of any foreign power; and that a due regard to their own safety compels them to provide, under certain contingencies, for the temporary occupation of the said territory; they, at the same time, declare that the said territory shall, in their hands, remain subject to future negotiation. Approved, 15th Jan., 1811.
An act to enable the President of the U. States, under certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia, and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes.
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the U. States of America, in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to take possession of, and occupy, all or any part of the territory lying East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, in case an arrangement has been, or shall be, made with the local authority of the said territory, for delivering up the possession of the same, or any part thereof, by any foreign Government; and he may, for the purpose of taking possession, and occupying the territory aforesaid, and in order to maintain therein the authority of the United States, employ any part of the army and many of the U. States which he may deem necessary.
Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, That one hundred thousand dollars be appropriated for defraying such expenses as the President may deem necessary for obtaining possession as aforesaid, and the security of the said territory to be applied under the direction of the President, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, That in case possession of the territory aforesaid shall be obtained by the United States as aforesaid, until other provision be made by Congress, the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to establish, within the territory aforesaid a temporary Government, and the military, civil, and judicial powers thereof, shall be vested in such person and persons, and be exercised in such manner as he may direct, for the protection and maintenance of the inhabitants of the said territory in the full employment of their liberty, property, and religion
Approved 15th January, 1811.
An act concerning an act to enable the President of the United States, under certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes, and the declaration accompanying the same.
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this act, and the act passed during the present session of Congress, entitled “an act to enable the President of the U. States, under certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying East of the river Perdido; and South of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes” and the declaration accompanying the same, be not printed or published until the end of the next session of Congress, unless directed by the President of the United States, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
Approved March 3, 1811.
An act authorizing the President of the United States to take possession of a tract of country lying South of the Mississippi Territory and West of the River Perdido.
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President b, and he is hereby, authorized to occupy and hold all that tract of country called West Florida, which lies West of the river Perdido, not now in possession of the U. States.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, for the purpose of occupying and holding the country aforesaid, and of affording protection to the inhabitants thereof under the authority of the U. States, the President may employ such parts of the military and naval force of the U. States as he may deem necessary.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, for defraying the necessary expenses, twenty thousand dollars are hereby appropriated to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise, appropriated, and to be applied, for the purposes aforesaid, under the direction of the President. –
Approved, February 12, 1813.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p3c2
New York Views of Annexation
Mr. “Horse Shoe Robinson” sneeringly points to Governor Wright’s Message, as throwing a cold blanket upon the Annexation of Texas. – Mr. W. does not introduce the annexation by name – and Mr. Kennedy concludes that the Governor is dodging the subject. The New York Herald also relies upon his silence, and upon Mr. Stetson’s speech as conclusive evidences of a disposition which the Herald is pleased to hatch from its own brains, on the part of the New York Democrats to cut the South – to unite the Northern Democracy upon Northern principles – and even to strike up something like a coalition between the Democrats and the Whigs. The whole appears to us to be a gratuitous suggestion – unworthy of the sagacity of its Editor – and scarcely less ridiculous than the fiction of the Richmond Whig, in its most novel and ingenious supposition, that Mr. Polk means to conduct his administration upon Whig principles. We must caution our friends in both sections of the country, against the unfounded visions of the press. We scout the idea of any movement on the part of Mr. Silas Wright, or of any of our Democratic friends in New York, or in the North against the broad interests of the Democratic party. We have an unshaken confidence in the principles and sagacity of Silas Wright – not as warm a friend to the Annexation, perhaps, as some in the South; but as true a friend of the Republican party as any one – and in the ability to serve cause, he is inferior, perhaps, to no man. One slight shade may have come over the brilliant disc of his superior mind – but it will be as slight and as evanescent as the cloud which comes over the sun, if he will only listen to the assurances of men, who were in April last almost as warm friends to Martin Van Buren’s nomination as himself – and men, moreover, who would scorn to deceive him for any consideration upon the face of the earth. Let the political speculators, then, who view those events only through the medium of their prejudices, and count upon a division in the Democratic Party, banish such idle phantoms from their imaginations. The South will listen to no such voice. They will cherish heir long-living and deep-seated sentiment of union with their “natural allies, the Democracy of the North.” In this region of the sunny South, we have no ambitious aspirations to indulge; no narrow and sectional purposes to promote. We go for a New York Democrat as ardently as a Southern – And we claim to have in the South as great and admirable statesman, as any of whom the North can boast. The one to whom the New York Herald alludes, under the name of “the Southern Statesman,” is of this description. – We proved our feelings for a great Northern Statesman in 1836 and in 1840 – and when the Baltimore Convention nominated Mr. Polk, it was not under the intrigues, of the influence of any man. If Mr. P. did come from the South, it was because he was first nominated by the North. It was as in the case of Gen. Washington, when the motion to place him at the head of the army came from Massachusetts.
But we recommend to Mr. Kennedy’s notice the following more emphatic article from the Albany Argus:
“OREGON AND TEXAS.” – The subject of the occupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas was brought before the Senate yesterday, by Gen. Clark, in a serious of resolutions, which will be found in our legislative report.
“It will be seen that they go for Annexation, ‘at the earliest practicable period,’ stripped of all embarrassing questions, direct or incidental. We do not doubt that they express the pervading popular sentiment of the State.”
Yet if Mr. Kennedy is pleased to lay such stress upon the silence of the Governor’s Message, will he turn to the Albany Argus of Saturday last? – He will find its accomplished Editor, (the State Printer,) and the friend of Governor Wright and Mr. Van Buren, calling the attention of its readers to “an interesting article (on the subject of Texas and Annexation) from the pen of an able writer and much respected citizen” – which originally appeared in “The Utica Observer.”
It bears the title of “The Annexation of Texas, considered with reference to the justice of the measure, as respects foreign nations, and it effects on the U. States – by A. B. Johnson.”
We have room only for the conclusion of the article – and it evidently bespeaks a master-spirit:
“Who that has a mind to comprehend these facts, and a heart to feel them, would wish to check this progression by suspicious fears? And especially while now, if such fears are well founded, we are sufficiently extended in territory and numbers, to fall a victim to these elements of destruction, if such they truly are. Nay, if imagination, must govern us, may we not rather suppose that diversities of local interests will be harmonized by the augmentation of our confederacy; just as the turbidness [sic] of separate streams is neutralized in proportion to the magnitude of the recipient river. Some statesman, men of no little acuteness and consideration in public affairs, maintain as the best policy, a species of free trade that would seem to require for its consummation that all the nations of the earth should constitute a single Government.
“But, aside from all geographical jealousies, many persons on principles of abstract moral repugnancy to slavery, oppose the annexation of Texas to our Union, for, if Texas be not annexed, she may be physically coerced by Mexico, or morally by Great Britain, to relinquish slavery. – I admit the contingency. A like result by means of a servile war or foreign interposition might follow the ejection from our Union of the existing slave States. To a man morbidly absorbed by one idea, the above contingencies may be sufficient to make him both reject Texas and repudiate Louisiana, though some persons believe that Texas will be instrumental in suppressing slavery in all our old States, by supplying a more profitable field of operation for the slaves; and that free labor flowing into fill up the vacuum, a state of society will be engendered destructive of slavery; and further, that slavery, thus concentrated in Texas, will, by the proximity of races in Mexico, kindred to the slaves, be gradually allured from Texas, and lost irreclaimably in Mexico.
“But abandoning hypothesis, I would invite such of our citizens as are disposed to balance the good and evil of any measure, and to be governed in their preferences by the preponderance of the good, to look at the certain benefits that must result from the acquisition of Texas. It is in size about equal to six times the dimensions of our Empire State, with a climate said to be salubrious, and giving us the monopoly of the finest cotton land, and of the finest cotton that the world produces an article which is yet in a condition of giant infancy, as relates to its commercial importance to our country and the world, and its many ministrations to the comforts of the poor, and the gratification of all classes. – Under the auspices of our Union, this immense country will become the home of millions of human beings; not drawn from other regions to depopulate them, but by the laws of nature a new growth of immortal, accountable, intelligent beings. In the birth of such an empire, with its ramified consequences to the end of time, land through eternity, can we see nothing but the naked, and perhaps temporary question of slavery? Is the addition nothing of such a territory to our home, such a member of our family circle, with whom we may interchange productions without the obstructions of conflicting nationally? The acquisition of these benefits seem to expand each one of us into something more than our present stature; and to give to every mechanic, manufacturer, merchant and cultivator of the soil, some source of additional activity and prosperity.
“I know, however, that many persons believe our Union is already sufficiently large for strength; and that additional extent will only encumber us. If we examine this notion, we shall find it is founded on analogies that are not an applicable to our condition. When an empire is composed of conquered nations, that are continually struggling to regain their lost independence, every new acquisition but divides the strength of the conqueror, and he becomes exhausted by the division. But our union is voluntary, and like an arch, constitutes a reciprocation of strength which all the members yield to each, and each yields to all. Such at least is the result of our system thus far; and the experience of half a century of peace and war is a safer indication of its nature, than the conjectures of any theory.
“But are we willing that annexation shall be obtained at the expense of a war with Mexico, and perhaps with England? This question is best answered by ascertaining whether annexation is compatible with our duty as a moral and [C]hristian people; for no nation is required to avert war, by any other means than to act justly.
“Next April nine years will have elapsed since the capture of Santa Ann and his army, by the Texans, at the battle of San Jacinto. Mexico has ever since refrained from the subjugation of Texas, from a wan of power or an abandonment of its exercise. In the war of our Revolution, the capture of Burgoyne by our troops, was alone deemed so vital a seal of Independence, that France forthwith treated us as an independent nation; though her obligations towards G. Britain, with reference to us, were doubtless as great as our obligations to Mexico with reference to Texas.
“In the recent struggle between the provinces of Greece and the empire of Turkey, nothing occurred that will compare in decisiveness with the battle of San Jacinto, or the acquiescence of Mexico; still England and the other principal Governments of Europe decided that Greece had virtually freed itself from the authority of Turkey, and they assisted in consolidating her provinces into a separate kingdom. The same sovereigns at the subsequent revolt of Belgium from the authority of Holland, allowed the king of Holland a brief period to reduce to obedience his rebellious province, but prohibited him from continuing in vengeance efforts that were seen to be ineffectual for the purposes of subjugation; and Belgium was organized into an independent kingdom. These results differ from the incidents of remote history, but the difference is claimed by the Government of Europe as a triumph of justice over physical power, whose reign terminated with the overthrow of Napoleon. England, therefore, is mortally estopped by her own practices, from any exceptions against the independent volitions of Texas; and in the judgment of all Europe, as evinced by the foregoing cases; Mexico has no just cause of offense against us our disregard of her latent sovereignty.
We are apt to estimate the right of Mexico to Texas as identical with a man’s ownership of a chattel. The proprietary right in both cases s founded in resulting social benefits; but I deny that social benefits require that the rules of ownership which apply to the sovereignty of one nation over another. In the spirit of our Declaration of Independence, and nearly in its language, all Governments are instituted for the happiness of the governed; hence, the right of Mexico in a mere chattel is for the benefit not of the chattel, but of Mexico. We have the authority of the word of God for a still more restricted estimate of the proprietary right of all nations. The division of the earth into district sovereign ownerships is a contrivance of man, instituted for his social benefits; but revelation declares that the earth is the Lord’s, and the use thereof is for man in common. In this enlarged sense, Texas, so far from being property of Mexico, is not exclusively the property of the Texians, except as their use of it quadrates with its usefulness to all men in common. On this Christian principle, and on this alone was justified the recent successful attempt by Great Britain to constrain the people of China to relinquish the exclusive monopoly which they have usurped for ages over the regions which they inhabit. On this principle alone, we can justify our forcible obtrusion on the aborigines of America; and our compelling them to abandon to us such lands as they could not use themselves beneficially to the common rights of all – in thus acting, instead of being wrong doers, we are but fulfilling the command of Providence to multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it.
“Having thus shown that the natural right of Mexico to Texas is not inconsistent with the right of the Texians to change their allegiance, and that the conventional laws which regulate the intercourse of nations will not under existing circumstances be outraged by the exercise of this right in favor of the United States; I have accomplished all that I intended, having preliminarily shown, that the consequences of the act will produce results grateful to philanthropy every where, and profitable is particular to us, in all our great social interests; and finally all to be attained “without money and without price,” for even in a pecuniary view, (the lowest rational view that can be taken of such a question,) what are the millions more or less, that Texas will cost us, in comparison not with its civil advantages to us, or its military advantages, not with the extent of national domain that may be acquired with the territory, but simply with the perpetual right in claim imposts on all importations of such a country, as it is, and as it will be, increasing and compounding in an onward course of population and wealth forever?”
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p4c3
Marine Journal
The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.
High Water this day at 8 o’clock, A.M.
Arrived
Schr. China, Small, Charleston, S.C., Rice to Davenport & Allen.
New York, Jan. 11. – arrived, Schr. Manchester, Worth, Richmond.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p4c3
James River & Kanawha Canal
Richmond, January 13, 1845
Arrived
Canal Boat Red Bird, Ben Godsly master, with 15 tons mdze., from
Lynchburg, to L.D. Crenshaw & Co., Shields and Somerville, and Ludlam,
Preston & Co.
Boat Buchanan, T. Lenahan master, with 43 tons mdze., from
Scottsville, to J. J. Faris & Co., Blair & Brochenbrough, N.H. Rogland,
Deane & Brown, shields & Somerville, Parrish & Heazley, Fry &
Co., A.T. Harris, S. I. Crump, and Warwick & Barksdale.
Boat Gen. Harrison, C. R. Sheppard master, with 363/4
tons mdze., from Hardwicksville, to Deane & Brown, A. T. Harris, Fry
& Co., and Wren & Macon.
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81plcl
POLITICAL DEBATE ON THE TEXAS QUESTION
In the House of Representatives, Tuesday, Jan. 7.
The house being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the joint resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the annexation of Texas to the United States.
Mr. BAYLY having obtained the floor, spoke as follows. The fate of the annexation of Texas will depend upon the decision of Congress as to its power to accomplish it by bill or joint resolution for it Texas is not annexed in this manner it will not be in any other. No one now hopes for a majority of two-thirds of the Senate in its favor. The great question, therefore, is can foreign territory be acquired by bill or joint […] [unreadable word] of the two Houses of Congress? And I agreed at once (said Mr. B.) to the discussion of it.
Under our political system, there are two leading houses of powers conferred upon the General […] [unreadable word] comment the one relating to our foreign, the other to our domestic relations. In all questions rising out of the former, the interests of the different sections of the country are inseparable. In our domestic affairs, they are as variant as the […] [unreadable word] climate, productions, and pursuits of the people of the several States. In all that relates to the former, the statesmen of every part of the country are equally well informed. The latter are only understood by the people they immediately concern. In reference to the first, the National Legislature can legislate wisely. To the first it cannot, without certain mischief. Hence, in our wise system there is a plenary delegation of power to the General Government in all that concerns our external affairs, and a specified delegation in what relates to our domestic. A different mode of construction, therefore, ought to proceed as the power sought to be exercised belongs to the class or the other- strict construction as the rule in the latter case, and a liberal construction in the former. This distinction grows out of the character of the Constitution itself; was recognized by Jefferson and Madison, and the propriety of it will not, I fancy, be questioned by any one. Bearing this in mind, I proceed to point out the clauses of the Constitution in which the authority of Congress to pass the resolution before the Committee may be found. In my opinion it may be found in two- in the clause authorizing Congress to declare war, and in the one permitting the admission of new States into the Union, and also in the general power which I shall show to exist, to make alliances and confederations. Let it not be said that, in referring the power to two clauses of the Constitution, I make it rag rant and disprove its existence in either; for in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Gibbons and Ogden, “the idea that the time measure might, according to circumstances, be arranged with different classes of powers, was to novelty to the framers of our Constitution. All experience shows that the same measure or measurey , scarcely distinguishable from each other, may flow from distant powers.
It has always been admitted, in the administration of the Government, that the power to declare war carries with it the power of doing whatever […] [unreadable word] directly to prevent it. In the language of Chief Justice Taney, in the Supreme Court, “Everything that concerns our foreign relations, that may be used to preserve peace or wage war, has been committed to the hands of Congress.” I do not say it carries with it the power to do everything which a visionary might fancy would tend to prevent it; but it certainly does everything which immediately and directly tends that way. It was in this manner the constitutionality of the embargo and non-intercourse laws, adopted in advance of the late war, was defended. And the power is derived “in time of peace to prepare for war”. Our Southwestern frontier is exceedingly expected, as I shall hereafter show; and as far as our constitutional authority goes, we might erect fortifications upon its whole extent. This no one will question. Such being the case, cannot be with he consent of the people to whom the intervening territory belongs, extend our boundary to the Rio Grande, which, “in connection with the mountainous desert which skirts it, forms the first class of military obstacles, and which would affect us better protection from invasion in that quarter than a cordon of fortifications from the mouth of the Sabine to our utmost Northern summits.” The importance of Texas, as a means of military defense, and its consequent intimate connection with the war power, I shall show […] [unreadable word].
From the days of the Roman eagle, indeed as before them, to this time, the leading object of war has been to acquire or defend territory. When the power was conferred upon Congress, all general terms, to declare war, it carried with it all of its usual incidents; and it is impossible to believe that the framers of the Constitution meant to withhold from the Government the power to accomplish by it what had been the great object for which most of the wars with which the world [..] [unreadable word] been scourged, has been waged. I infer, therefore, that we can unquestionably acquire territory by conquest. If this be true, the whole question is settled; for, if we may take the territory of the Texans from them by force, surely we may do it peaceably, with their consent. If we can rob them of it, surely we can take it as a gift. If we should march an army [tomorrow] to Texas for the purpose of capturing their country, presume there would be no occasion for fighting, provided the Texans were willing that we should accomplish our purposes without bloodshed.
Mr. Clay, in his celebrated letter from Raleigh, upon the subject of Texas, says:
“If any European nation entertain any ambitious designs upon Texas, such as that of colonizing, or in any way subjugating her, I should regard it as the imperative duty of the Government of the United States to oppose to such designs the most firm and determined resistance, to the extent, if necessary, of appealing to arms, to prevent the accomplishment of any such designs.”
If we might go to war to prevent Texas from falling into the hands of a foreign government, may we not still more effectually provide against it, by her peaceable acquisition?
But the power of Congress to annex Texas by joint resolution may also be derived from the authority given to Congress to admit new States into the Union. The power is general, without any other limitation than that “no new State shall be formed or created within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of Congress.” The imposition of this limitation, upon the most familiar rules of construction, excludes the idea of the intention to impose any other. I know an attempt is made to impose another by implication, and to continue the power to admit new States to such as might be carved out of the territory within the limits of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. But such a construction is contradicted by the plain import and obvious meaning of the Constitution itself, and also by the history of its passage through the Convention which framed it.
“In the resolutions offered by Mr. Edmund Randolph, as a basis for the new Constitution, and which contained the first propositions of that character which were submitted to it, the power in question was described as follows, viz: “that provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether arising from a voluntary junction of Government or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the Legislature; less than the whole. In Mr. Charles Pinckney’s draught, it was proposed that “ the legislature shall have power to admit new States into the Union on the same terms with the original States, provided two -thirds of the members present in both houses agree, leaving out the clause in respect to the character of the territory. Mr. Randolph’s proposition, containing the restriction confining the power to States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, was at one time adopted in Committee of the Whole, and in that state referred with others to the Committee of Detail, the article upon this subject contained the following propositions: 1st. That new, States lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the United States, might be admitted by the Legislature in this Government. 2d. That to such admission, the consent of two-thirds of the members present in each House should be necessary. 3d. That if a new State should arise within the limits of any of the present states, the consent of the Legislature of such States should also be necessary to its admission. 4th. That, if the admission was consented to, the new States should be admitted on the same terms with the original States; and 5th. That the Legislature might make conditions with the new States concerning the public debt then subsisting. The 2d, 4th and 5th clauses were stricken out by the votes of the Convention; and after that had been done, the following was adopted as a substitute for the whole viz: ‘New States may be admitted by the Legislature into the Union; but no new State shall be erected within the limits of any of the present states, without the consent of the Legislature of such States, as well as of the General Legislature’ leaving out that part of the first clause which related to the domestic character of the territory; and this substitute was consequently revised and amended so as to make it conform in its phraseology to the section as it now stands in the Constitution. These proceedings show that the proposition to restrict the power to admit new States to the territory within the original limits of the United States, was distinctly before the Convention, once adopted by it, and finally rejected in favor of a clause making the power in this respect general.”
But it is unnecessary to dwell farther on this point. Mr. Clay, who embodies in himself, according to their own admission, the opinions of the Whig party, admits no such fanciful limitation. The President elect of the Democratic party scouts it. Mr. Van Buren’s argument against it makes a clear education of its absurdity impossible. And the repeated action of every department of the Government, in the most solemn form, settles the question forever.
It is insisted, however, that the power is to admit “new States,” and that it does not authorize Congress to acquire territory. That, it is said, can only be done by a national compact, which is a treaty, the power to make which is confided exclusively to the President and the Senate.
The first answer to this argument is, that authority for the admission of new States carries with it every thing which is necessary and proper to accomplish it; and Congress may take such initiatory steps as may be necessary, preparatory to the admission of the new State into the Union upon equal footing with the rest. There is nothing in the Constitution which shows that the framers of it supposed that it was indispensable that the new State should spring into the Union full armed, like Minerva from the brain of Jove. If they had they would have found no analogy for such proceeding except in heathen mythology. They certainly would not in the natural world, where everything progresses gradually from infancy to age. If we bring Texas under our jurisdiction as a territory by the passage of a bill, in which provision shall be made for its future admission into the Union as a State, what hereafter shall be done, each step in the proceeding, must be part and parcel of the same transaction and constitute but one act. Those who agree that we may admit a foreign State into the Union as a State, but deny that we may bring it in as a territory, involve themselves in an absurdity of maintaining that the lesser power is not included in the greater; and that, although we may exercise the last, we cannot the first.
If it be true that, under the power to admit new States, you may not first in the case of a foreign State, bring such State under the jurisdiction of our laws as a territory, then the whole clause authorizing Congress to admit them in practice would be nugatory. The Constitution of any foreign State, suited for its Government as an independent power, would, for that very reason, be unsuited for its Government as a member of this Confederacy; and with it unchanged, such State could not be admitted into this Union. And it is exceedingly improbable that an independent State would consent- as it is very certain Texas will not – to break up her form of Government and adopt a Constitution not suited for her Government as an independent State, upon the uncertainty which always attends all future legislation of her admission into the Union.
But it may be said, admitting this argument to be sound, yet it only proves that the foreign State must, of necessity, be brought under our jurisdiction as a territory preparatory to its admission into the Union; but it does not prove that this may be done by a joint resolution. On the contrary, it is insisted by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Winthrop,) that this can only be effected, if at all, by an international arrangement, which is a treaty, the power to make which is exclusively vested in the President and Senate.
This argument is founded upon the assumption, that an agreement or arrangement can only be made between nations by treaty. If this shall turn out to be untrue, and we shall find that compacts and agreements are constantly made by legislation, the whole argument falls to the ground.
The idea of the gentleman from Massachusetts, that every agreement between nations is technically a treaty, is contradicted by the highest authority, and, in our case, by the Constitution itself.
The subject of international compacts is referred to in three distinct clauses of the Constitution. In the first clause of the 10th section of article 1st, it is declared that “no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.” In the last clause of the same section, it is also declared that “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.” In the second clause of second section of second article, the President is empowered, “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”
It must always be borne in mind, in construing the Constitution that it is almost as remarkable for the literary execution as for the profound political statesmanship displayed in it. The meaning of every word seems to have been deliberately weighed: every word, therefore, must have its due weight and appropriate meaning, and not one can be rejected as superfluous. In the language of the Chief Justice of the United States, (in the case of Holmes vs. Jennison et al., 14th Peters, 571) concurred in by Messrs. Justices Wayne, McLean, and Story- the last two of whom, I presume, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Winthrop) will admit as authority:
“No word in the instrument, (the Constitution,) under consideration, after it has been adopted by us, would continue it an alliance, or confederation, or agreement, or compact. And surely it would be doing no violence even to technical language to call it either.
If it were necessary to fortify by precedent, what seems so plain, that Congress may make agreements and compacts with foreign nations, it could be done from every part of our commercial code. We have been constantly saying in our legislation, since the formation of the Government to foreign nations, if you will do particular things, we will do others. Examples may be found of this in the law regulating our intercourse with the British West Indies, and in our embargo and non-intercourse laws.
It is thus shown that, as far as our constitution authority is concerned, there is no obstacle to the annexation of Texas to this Union.
I proceed at once (said Mr. B.) to the next question which presents itself: Is Texas competent to assent to a union with this country by her own act, without consulting that of any other nation? When I can refer to the unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that she is a free independent and sovereign State, it does seem to me, that all argument upon the point is at an end. The independence of Texas has been acknowledged by England, France, and Holland – all the great Powers of Europe and ourselves. And all of these nations are clearly estopped from questioning her right to do whatever any sovereign State may of right do. But, it is said, this acknowledgment is of her independence “de facto,” and not de jure.” The conclusive answer to this is, the distinction between a Government “de facto” and a Government “de jure,” in the sense in which it was originally used, is obsolete. In this nineteenth century there is practically no such distinction. It originated in the monstrous dogma that Kings rein by divine right and the expression “de jure” is but a contraction of “de jure divine.” Since our Revolution, the will of the governed has ever been regarded as the only legitimate foundation of Government. And when, therefore, foreign nations find in any country an organized Government, in possession of the administration, with such evidences of stability and order as excludes the idea that it is the result of a mere temporary revolutionary eruption, such as would authorize them, according to the old notions, to treat with it as a Government “de facto,” they are compelled to admit that it has the will of the people, the only rightful foundation of Government, as its basis, and it becomes at once a Government “de jure.” And even where this distinction prevailed between a Government “de jure” and de facto,” I defy gentlemen to produce an instance where, under the law of nations all the contracts and engagements of the government “de facto” were not held binding upon all subsequent administrations of the same country. But in truth, sir, the doctrine in which this distinction between a government “de jure” and “defacto” originated was exploded long before our revolution. At the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, the legitimacy of the English revolution of 1683 and the cause of the Stuarts was finally abandoned by France, and with it the principle of hereditary indefeasible right on which it was founded. When, therefore we find such evidence, of stability in the Texan Government as authorizes foreign nations to treat with it as the Government “de facto” of he country, we find such as shows that it is founded in the will of the governed, and it becomes at once a Government “de jure.” No one supposed that engagements entered into by Cromwell were not binding upon the English nation, because his was not, according to the notion I have referred to, a Government “de jure.” Nor that France was not bound by those made by Napoleon, even after the Bourbons regained possession of the French throne. It is in this way only that our title to Louisiana is sustained. I could illustrate this argument but it would only consume my time, without perhaps making my position stronger. It is shown, therefore, that the Texan Government is independent “de facto” as well as “de jure,” and that it may do whatever independent nations of right may do, and of course unite its destinies with ours.
It might be shown further, if necessary, that the present Government of Mexico never had any authority in Texas, and that if it had, it has acknowledged her independence in a manner obligatory upon it. But my time will not allow me to press this view of the subject. I state the position, and I shall adduce the proof of it in the full report of my remarks.
It is thus shown, that we are capable of acquiring Texas, and Texas of uniting with us. Is it desirable that we shall do so? This is the next question. Texas is a fine country, as everybody admits; it is as large as France, and is peopled by our race- by bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. Prima facie, its acquisition is desirable. Let us therefore, look to the objections to it. But, before I do that, I must be excused for interrupting the course of my argument for a moment meant to notice a remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Winthrop.) I consider this due to the duties of private friendship and the memory of the dead. The gentleman was pleased to say:
“He could not help feeling some sympathy with the people of Texas under the precise circumstances in which they were now placed, betrayed, as they had been in so humiliating a posture by false pretences and false promises. Where has been the fulfillment of that promise which a President of the United States, speaking through his Secretary of State had dared to hold out to them: ‘Measures have been taken to ascertain the opinions and views of Senators upon the subject, and it is found that a clear constitutional majority of two-thirds are in favor of the measure.’ Mr. W. began to entertain some hope that the people of Texas would awake to some respect for themselves under the treatment they had received, and would no longer suffer themselves to be duped and trifled with either by Presidents or Congress.
Sir, said Mr. B., I knew the late Judge Upshur well. He was my neighbor, my friend. He was a man of honor, who, in the most immaterial transaction of life, would not have lightly given assurances which should regulate the conduct of others. And in so important a transaction as an official negotiation, to say nothing about the solemn dignity of the one in question, I am perfectly certain that he would not have given such an assurance as is referred to by the gentleman, unless he felt fully authorized by such information as would satisfy the most cautious man that he might with propriety do it. Indeed, he expressly says in the dispatch referred to, that every necessary step had been taken to procure accurate information of the disposition of the Senate. And, Mr. Chairman, if departed spirits could be permitted to revisit this world, and the lamented Gilmer, by whom the duty of sounding the senate was undertaken, as I am told, could appear among us again—if Upshur were here to explain a memorandum found among his papers too meager to be understood by others, in which a list is given of Senators “certain for” and “certain against” the former comprising two-thirds, perhaps it would be found that the small politicians of the country were not the only persons who suddenly changed their position upon the Texas question after the appearance of the Raleigh letter. The memorandum may not have referred to the Texas negotiation; but it is known that at the time, the subject was uppermost in his mind, and absorbed all his thoughts. It was, I believe, the only negotiation he was conducting at the time, and I do not know to what else it could refer. But, be that as it may, of one thing I am certain, that however he or the President might have been deceived, I am certain both of them are incapable of betraying others by “false promises and false pretences.” But to return from this digression from the regular course of my argument, which I felt it due, as well to the living as the dead, to make.
It is said Texas is still at war with Mexico; and that by annexation we instantly adopt that war and make it our own; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. J. R. Ingersoll) to excite the alarm of navigating interest of the North, said, that in that event our commerce will be destroyed by the depredations of privateers commissioned by the Mexican Government. The ready answer to this is, that, according to the law of nations, two-thirds of the crew of a privateer must be citizens of the country which commissions it, or it becomes a pirate, and, in the event of capture, liable to be treated as such. Now, I ask (said Mr. B.) where is the Mexican marine from which two-thirds of the crews of enough privateers are to be found to harass seriously our commerce? Gentlemen know that there is none such.
I deny, however, that by annexation, we adopt the war with Mexico, if any such exists. I deny that, in that event, we will take our law from Texas. On the contrary, I insist she will take her’s from us. The United states are not to be merged in Texas, but Texas in them. The United States are at peace: after annexation, Texas will be at peace too. When we purchased Louisiana of France, France being at war, we did not assume the French war: on the contrary, Louisiana, which was a part of the French territory, and as such at war with England, was at once placed at peace. It is true, Mexico may regard, if she choose, annexation as an act of such unfriendliness as to make it the pretext for [missing page].
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81plc3
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Tuesday, January 14, 1845
A communication was received from the Senate by their Clerk, that they had passed the Acts “Changing the times of holding certain Courts in the Second Judicial Circuit” and “Amending the Act passed January 18, 1837, concerning roads in the county of Rockbridge:” and also, with amendments, the act “Incorporating the Bower’s Hill Turnpike Company.” The House concurred in said amendments.
The following resolutions were adopted:
By Mr. McPHERSON, of Greenbrier, that the Committee of Propositions, &c., enquire into the expediency of incorporating the White Sulphur Springs Company in the county of Greenbrier;
Mr. O’FERRALL, that the Committee of Privileges and Elections enquire into the expediency of providing by law, so as to prohibit Clerks of Courts and Constables from acting as Superintendents of elections, or personating candidates at the polls.
Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:
By Mr. BASSELL, proceedings of a public meeting of citizens of Harrison county, in support of the prayer of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad for the right of way;
By Mr. EDMUNDS of Fauquier, a petition of Wm. W. Wallace, for an act authorizing the sale of real estate belonging to his wards; also, of James McLeaven asking remuneration for his services for tuition of poor children in 1844:
By Mr. TOLER, of Nelson Tinsley, to be permitted to bring back to the State of Virginia certain slaves belonging to him, and which were some time since removed to the state of Missouri;
By Mr. MAYO, of officers of 92d Regiment Va. Militia in Lancaster county, for the reinstating of battalion musters.
The engrossed bill “to prevent the destruction of oysters in Nasswadox creek, in Northampton county,” being on its passage, Mr. BOWDEN moved its indefinite postponement; which motion prevailed, ayes 68, noes not counted; and the bill was rejected. Afterwards the bill was reconsidered, on motion of MR. POULSON, who moved a ryder , providing that it should not apply to the county of Accomack. Mr. WITCHER moved to amend the ryder by striking out “Accomack,” and inserting “the citizens of this Commonwealth.”
Mr. YERBY opposed Mr. WITCHER’S amendment, as it was the law now, and was a dead letter; Mr. PITTS seconded the views of MR. YERBY. Mr. WITCHER’S amendment was then adopted.
On motion of Mr. YERBY, the bill was then recommitted.
The act providing for the payment of the interest upon certain lands guaranteed by the Commonwealth, and the semi-annual annuity due to the old James River Company, with the amendments proposed by the Senate, was taken up, and the said amendments agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. GARNETT, a Resolution from the Committee of Rads, &c., against the petition of Robert Faver for authority to erect a wharf on the Rappahannock river in Essex county, was laid on the table, not be called up this session.
The followed engrossed bills were read a third time and passed:
“To incorporate the Augusta Female Seminary;”
“Authorizing the County Court of Morgan county to re-build the Courthouse of said county, and for other purposes;”
“To incorporate the Virginia Collegiate Institute;”
“Incorporating the Good Spur Turnpike Company;”
“Incorporating the Buchanan and Clover Dale Turnpike Company;”
“Amending the act passed March 23d, 1843, concerning roads and bridges in Brooke county;”
“Concerning the commissions of sheriffs and other officers upon executions;” (Mr. HALL moved its indefinite postponement, which was lost, 43 to 67, Mr. STOVALL having called the ayes and noes- and the bill was passed;) and
“Concerning the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company.”
Many bills were read a first and second time,
On motion of Mr. NEWLON,
The House adjourned.
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p2c3
SENATORIAL ELECTION!
Snap Judgement !
In compliance, most probably, with the mandates of a Whig caucus, held in the Capitol on Wednesday night, a motion was made in the House, yesterday, to go into the election of U. S. Senator, on Wednesday, the 22nd of the present month. The Republican party opposed this resolution, for the very satisfactory reasons, that, 1st, there was no sort of reason for hastening the election, because some thirty or forty days, of the session would remain after the 22d, within which period, the election could be fixed on some more satisfactory day: 2d, Because some of the members were absent, and could not possibly receive notice in time to be here on the day of election. Though some of the absentees were Whigs, yet the Whigs stood in a different situation from the Democrats; for, the Whigs, being in the majority, and of course, taking the lead in the subject, knew beforehand that the movement would take place about this time, and could have sent notice to their members days ago, so as to insure their attendance by the time of the election: 3d. The day mentioned in the resolution was strenuously opposed on the following ground: The contested election from the county of Bath had been hastened to a decision by the Whig House, and the only Democrat whose seat had been contested had been ejected. The seats of two Whigs were contested- and the House had not only not decided the claims of the contestants, but the rights of all were still pending before the committee of Privileges and Elections. Should the election take place on the 22nd, the Whigs would enter the contest with the certainty of having every member to whom they laid any claim, and possibly two more than they were entitled to; whilst, on the other hand, the Democrats would be forced to join battle under the disadvantage of having the claims on their side unsettled- and, when settled, it might result in a decision, that two Whigs, whose votes had given Virginia a Senator, were not properly entitled to a voice in the election – and that one, and probably two, or more, Democrats had been denied the exercise of their rights by the haste with which the House seemed determined to have a Senator elected.
But these reasons produced no effect on the trained majority in the House, and the 22d was fixed as the day. Thus has it been decided by the Whig Party, that they would not only palm on the State a Senator to oppose, rather than to accomplish her will; but they have further decided, that in the perpetration of the deed, they would afford no opportunity to the representatives of the people, necessarily absent, from the city, to return and give a full expression of legislative Sentiment on this vital question; and they have proceeded further, to declare that this election shall be held without deciding the preliminary question, Who are the representatives of the people, and, as such, entitled to cast the votes which are to decide the momentous result? We are yet to see whether the people of Virginia will permit their rights to be thus trampled under foot by a party wielding the powers of an accidental majority, and exercising their little “brief authority” to advance the petty schemes of party, rather than the great interests and recorded will of the State.
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p3c1
Twenty-Eighth Congress-2nd Ses. Wednesday, Jan. 15, 1845,
IN SENATE
Wednesday, January 15.
Eight bills were received from the House of Delegates, which were committed to their proper Committees.
Mr. McMULLEN, from the Committee of Internal Improvements, reported the bill concerning the Valley Turnpike Company.
Mr. McMULLEN explained the provisions of the bill.
Mr. STANDARD withdrew his opposition, and was in favor of the passage of the bill.
Mr. GALLAHER also spoke in favor of the bill. It passed –ayes 21, noes 8.
Mr. WALLACE moved to proceed to the election of Printer to the Senate, which had been delayed. Mr. W. nominated John Warrock, who received the unanimous vote of the Senate.
On motion of Mr. WILLIE, the bill incorporating the Broadmeadow Mining Company was taken up.
Mr. McMullen moved an amendment, which was opposed by Messrs. WALLACE, STANARD, COX and SHINN. Lost-ayes 12, noes 17.
Mr. POULSON brought a message from the House of Delegates, announcing their readiness to proceed to the election of Judge, to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Judge Thomas H. Bayly- and that George P. Scarburgh was alone in nomination.
Whereupon the Senate proceeds to vote as follows:
For George P. Scarburgh- Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Cox, Sutton, Thompson of Amherst, Wallace, Peyton, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Caperton, Dennis, Penn, Stanard, Carter, Moffett, Sloan, Shinn, McMullen, Crump, Taylor, Guerrant, McCauley, Newman, Thompson of Kanawha-25.
For En. P. Pitts- Messrs. Bondurant and Rogers—2.
Joint Vote: G. P. Scarburgh, 128, E. P. Pitts, 14; Geo. W. Southall, 1.
James River and Kanawha Company.
A message was received from the House by Mr. Garnett, communicating the passage of a Joint Resolution for appointing a Joint Committee to examine the affairs of the James River and Kanawha Company.
Mr. STANDARD presented a memorial of the James River and Kanawha Company to the Legislature, asking for a re-investigation of its affairs, &c. Laid on the table.
TEXAS
The resolutions of Mr. THOMPSON of Kanawha, concerning the annexation of Texas, were taken up, on motion of Mr. McMULLEN.
Mr. THOMPSON of K. sustained the resolutions.
Mr. SHINN opposed them.
Mr. STANARD offered the following amendment:
“Having a due regard to the obligations of the Constitution, the internal peace and tranquility of the country, and the national faith and honor.”
Messrs. WALLACE and McMullen opposed the amendment- and Messrs. STANARD and GALLAHER advocated it.
The amendment was lost – ayes 10, noes 19- as follows:
AYES- Messrs. Sutton, Thompson, Jr., Peyton, Bondurant, Gallaher, Stanard, Carter, Shinn, Grump and Rogers- 10.
Noes-Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Cox, Wallace, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Dennis, Penn, Moffett, Sloan, McMullen, Taylor, Guerrant, McCauley, Newman and Thompson of K.-19.
Mr. BONDURANT moved to lay the resolutions on the table. Lost-ayes 12, noes 17.
After some further discussion, Mr. BONDURANT moved an adjournment, which was carried.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
Wednesday, Jan. 15.
Mr. Henry Frantz, the newly elected delegate from Roanoke county, took his seat.
On motion of Mr. TOLER,
Resolved, That the Committee on the Militia Laws enquire into the expediency of authorizing a majority of the officers of the three regiments in Campbell county to designate the places of training in said county.
Mr. TAYLOR of Loudoun moved a resolution, which was lost, instructing the committee on the Militia Laws to enquire into the expediency of dispensing with all music or military Paredes, except for the volunteer companies, and also of reducing their pay.
Mr. BOWDEN presented the Report of the Superintendent and Directors of the eastern Lunatic Asylum for the year 1841 watch, on his motion, was laid on the table, and 1000 copies ordered to be printed.
The SPEAKER laid before the House the 17th Annual Report of the President and directors of the Western Asylum, which was laid on the table- and, on motion of Mr. FULTON of Augusta, 1000 copies were ordered to be printed.
Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:
By Mr. PARRIOTT, of citizens of Marshall county, for the right of way to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
By M. FULTON of Augusta, memorial of Robert Wade and other citizens of Augusta county against any change in the location of the contemplated McAdamized road from Staunton to James River, on that part of the road which lies between Staunton and Waynesborough.
By Mr. TAYLOR of Loudoun a petition of the officers of the 56th Regiment of militia, for the restoration of the office of Brigade Inspector;
By Mr. CAMERON, of citizens of Bath county for authority to James Paine to erect a dam across the Cow pasture river at McDonnell’s falls in said county.
On motion of Mr. SMITH, a joint resolution from the Committee on Courts, &c., was agreed to, for the protection of Virginia inspected salt against the inspection laws of other States.
On motion of Mr. FULTON of Wythe, the Committee on Claims was discharged from the consideration of the petition of Andrew Crolley, which was ordered to be laid on the table.
The House then proceeded to execute the joint order of the day, being the election of a Judge of the General Court and of the Circuit Court for the 3d Circuit and 2nd district to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Thomas H. Bayly.
Mr. POULSON, in handsome terms, nominated Geo. P. Scarburgh.
There being no other candidate, Mr. Scarburgh received in the House 103, Edward P. Pitts 12, and George W. Southall 1.
The joint vote with the Senate stood, Scarburgh 128, scattering 15. So Mr. Scarburgh was declared duly elected judge, &c.
On motion of Mr. TOLER,
Resolved, That the Board of Public Works report to this House as early as practicable, whether any, and if any, what contract, conditional or unconditional, has been entered into, or proposed to be entered into between the Winchester and Potomac Rail Road Company, and the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company, for the sale by the former to the latter, of their corporate rights and interests in their said improvement, and the terms and conditions of such contract or proposed contract: also, that said Board report at the same time to this, House a copy, or copies of any such contract, or other communication, made to them by said Winchester and Potomac Rail Road Company, touching the same, if any such has been made; also, whether the assent of said Board has been given, or promised to any such contract now made, or hereafter to be made; also, that said Board in like manner report the amount of the several debts now due from said Winchester and Potomac Rail Road Company to what person or persons, or body or bodies corporate, said debts are severally due, when they became due, and how and by whom, other than said Company, the same are secured to be paid.
On motion of Mr. STEPHENSON, the engrossed bill “Providing for taking the sense of the people upon the propriety of calling a Convention to amend the Constitution of the State,” was laid on the table, and made the order of the day for Thursday, 23d January.
The following engrossed bills were read a third time and passed:
“For the construction of a Canal from the North Landing to Elizabeth River.”
“Establishing the county of Gilmer of parts of the counties of Lewis and Kanawha.” (Opposed by Mr. EDGINGTON, and sustained by Messrs. HAYS, SMITH, JACKSON, and NEWLON.)
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the President and Directors of the James River and Kanawha Company, enclosing a memorial; which was, on motion of Mr. ANDERSON, laid on the table.
Mr. ANDERSON then moved the following resolutions:
The President and Directors of the James River and Kanawha Company having presented a memorial to the General Assembly, requesting an investigation of the affairs of the said Company by a joint committee of the two Houses of Assembly.
Resolved, That a joint Committee be appointed, in conformity to the prayer of the said memorial, and that said Committee be charged with the duty of visiting the line of works, of examining the books and papers in the office, and of investigating the affairs and management of the Company, from the commencement of its operations to the present time; and that the said committee have full power and authority to send for persons and papers.
Resolved, That the said committee shall consist of --members from the House of Delegates, and -- members from the Senate.
After some conversation between Messrs. STEPHENSON and STROTHER, the resolutions were adopted; the first resolution having been amended, on motion of Mr. STROTHER, by striking out the words “of visiting the line of works;” and, on motion of Mr. GOODSON, by adding thereto, “and that said Committee report on or before the 25th instant;” and the blanks in the second resolution having been filled respectively, on motion of Mr. GARNETT, with “five” and “four.”
The following resolutions we adopted:
By Mr. FARLEY, that the Committee on Courts, &c., enquire into the propriety of allowing to witnesses, who travel more than ten miles within their county to the place of attendance, mileage.
By Mr. MARTZ, that the Committee on Privileges and Elections enquire into the expediency of so amending the election laws, in regard to the duties of commissioners or superintendents of elections, as to make it illegal for them to sub-duct or erase from the polls any vote or votes after they shall have been recorded.
By Mr. BLACKWELL, that the Committee on Courts, &c., enquire into the expediency of passing a law authorizing Orlando M. Smith, Committee of John N. Bell, of Lunenburg county, to sell certain lands belonging to said Bell.
By Mr. BOLLING, that the Committee on Courts, &c., enquire into the expediency of exempting from jury service, for a limited time, the jury now engaged in the Randolph will ease, pending in the Circuit Court for the town of Petersburg.
On motion of Mr. WITCHER,
The House adjourned.’
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i8lp3c3
PLANS FOR ANNEXATION
We published in our Wednesday’s paper the plan of Mr. Foster, a Whig Senator from Tennessee. We hail the spirit which he displays, with great pleasure- and we concur with the Madisonian, in regarding it “as more just and practicable than some others which have been proposed- and if the regular propositions should not succeed, we should joyfully hail its adoption.”
The bill of Mr. Dromgoole in the House of Representative is calculated to command great attention. It admits Texas, in the words of the Constitution, as a “new State” – allowing it certain dimensions not disproportionately large; and the residuary territory would, of course, belong to the “new State” until ceded by it to the U. States, in pursuance of the words of the Constitution: We are disposed to think, upon high and very respectable authority, that admission as a State is the only form in which it can pass Congress-and that if we are distracted by a diversity of views as to a compromise about slavery in this residuary territory, we may fail in the annexation- if not, that we shall succeed. “All (a correspondent writes us) depends upon this.”
If this be the case, who can hesitate about it? What politician, who regards the great interests of his country, can pause for one moment amid the multitude of counselors, and the multiplicity of projects? Give us, then, Texas as a State, according to Dromgoole’s plan. Let us have admission in its simplest form, and in conformity with precedents. We would not hesitate a moment about the measure. The views upon this matter are so strongly presented in the N. York Morning News of the 13th inst., that we lay them at once before our readers:
“ANNEXATION AT THIS SESSION.- We earnestly trust that the present Congress will not adjourn without settling this question. Constitutional obstacles are now out of the way, which stood before like a lion in the path, against the earlier forms which were proposed for the action of Congress. The admission of Texas as a “new State” into the Union, with stipulations as to her surplus territory, solves all that difficulty. This is the fundamental idea common to the three several plans of Mr. Niles in the Senate, and General Dromgoole and Mr. Tibbatts in the House of Representatives. We take it as pretty well settled now, that the action of Congress on the subject, in one form or another, must and will take this direction. Dromgoole’s is the briefest and simplest of the three, and so far the most desirable- independently of the question of slavery. It makes no stipulation, indeed, in regard to the surplus territory of the new State to be admitted, though it proposes to fix certain limits to the dimensions of that State; leaving that surplus territory, of course, to the continued ownership of the State, precisely as some of our own original States, at the time of the formation of the Union, held vast tracts of Western territory, which they afterwards ceded to the Federal Government. It also leaves untouched the whole debt question. The United States assume no more liability for the debts of Texas than they now have for those of Pennsylvania or N. York. This feature is a capital recommendation of Dromgoole’s plan. After the admission of the new State is consummated, it will be time enough to negotiate with her simultaneously about her lands, and the debt chargeable on them. Niles’s plan is defective in this respect, that it provides for the cession of the lands without a corresponding assumption of the debt. Both, or neither, is but fair play. With General Dromgoole, we prefer the latter, decidedly. It simplifies the measure. It removes from it all semblance of that stock-jobbing character which is fastened upon it in the prejudices of many of its opponents. And it will leave time for a more deliberate survey of the whole ground of the questions we so often hear blindly mooted in the dark- How much is the debt? and, what is the extent and value of the unappropriated lands? There remains, then, but one serious difficulty in the way- the question of slavery. Mr. Niles’s plan compromises that at once, like Col. Benton’s, by making the 100th meridian of longitude a dividing line, on the East side of which slavery may be allowed, and on the West side prohibited. This is about an equal division of the territory, though slavery gets all the coast. Corresponding to the natural laws of the climate and soil, this appropriates to Free Labor the portion less adapted to the negro race, and leaves to slavery the portion suitable for cotton and sugar culture. General Dromgoole’s bill leaves this question, like that of the debt, open for future adjustment.”
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i8lp3c4
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Thursday, January 16, 1845
SENATE
James River and Kanawha Company
The resolution for the appointment of a Joint Committee to examine the affairs of the James River and Kanawha Company came up for consideration, upon which arose a lengthy and warm discussion, in which Messrs. McMULLEN, COX, NEWMAN and SHINN, in opposition, and Messrs. STANARD, CAPERTON, BONDURANT, WALLACE and GALLAHER, in favor, took part and passed, ayes 18, noes 11, as follows:
Ayes- Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Sutton, Wallace, Thompson, Jr., Peyton, Bondurant, Gallaher, Caperton, Dennis, Stanard, Carter, Moffett, Sloan, Crump, Guerrant, Rogers, McCauley and Thompson of K.- 18.
Noes- Messrs, Cox, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Penn, McMullen, Taylor, and Newman- 11.
The SPEAKER announced the following as the committee on the part of the Senate, viz: Messrs, Stanard, Guerrant, Thompson of A., and McCauley.
A message was received from the House, by Mr. Broaddus, of Culpepper, announcing the passage of a resolution, fixing Wednesday, the 23d instant, for the election of a Senator of the United States from the 4th of March next.
Laid on the table, on motion of Mr. NEWMAN.
Mr. PEYTON reported a bill for the incorporation of the Virginia Collegiate Institute. Laid on the table.
Also, to incorporate the Augusta Female Seminary. Laid on the table.
Mr. SLOAN reported a bill authorizing the County Court of Morgan to re-build the Court-house. Passed.
Mr. CARTER moved an adjournment, Lost- ayes 12, noes 13.
TEXAS.
On motion of Mr. NEWMAN, Mr. THOMPSON’S – of Kanawha – resolutions in regard to Texas came up.
Mr. STANARD delivered an argument against the constitutional power of the Senate to originate the resolutions, concluding with the following substitute for the first resolution:
Resolved, by the Senate, That the annexation of Texas to the United States ought to be effected at the earliest period that may be practicable, consistently with the obligations of the Constitution, the internal peace and tranquility of the country, and the faith and honor of he nation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Kanawha replied.
Mr. McMULLEN also made some remarks.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. GALLAHER participated. Mr. STANARD moved to lay the whole subject on the table.—Lost –ayes 10, noes 19.
Mr. STANARD’S substitute was lost by the following vote:
AYES-- Messrs. Sutton, Thompson of Amherst, Peyton, Bondurant, Gallaher, Caperton, Stanard, Carter, Crump, Rogers – 10.
NOES—Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,)
Cox, Wallace, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Dennis, Penn, Moffett, Sloan, McMullen, Taylor, Gueriant, McCauley, Newman, Thompson of Kanawha- 19.
The original resolutions were then passed—ayes 18, noes 7—as follows:
AYES—Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Cox, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Dennis, Penn, Moffett, Sloan, McMullen, Taylor, Guerrant, McCauley, Newman, Thompson of Kanawha—18.
NOES—Messrs. Bondurant, Gallaher, Caperton, Stanard, Carter, Crump, Rogers-7.
On motion of Mr. GARRETT.
The Senate adjourned at 5 ½ o’clock.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Thursday, January, 16, 1845
A communication from the Senate by their Clerk, that they had passed the acts, “Amending the act passed January 29, 1844, appropriating a sum of money to the Price’s Turnpike and Cumberland Gap Road;” and “To change the place of training of the Officers of the 165th Regiment of Virginia Militia;” and also the act “concerning Mary Battle of the county of Brunswick,” with amendments, in which the House concurred.
Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:
By Mr. FRAZIER, of Peter Moore’s administrator, (with accompanying documents,) for an appropriation to satisfy his judgment for half pay as a Captain in the Revolutionary war;
By Mr. TYREE, of Geo. Hughart of Fayette county, asking compensation for service as a private soldier of Virginia, in 1793;
By Mr. DENISON, two memorials of certain citizens of Shenandoah, against the formation of a new county out of parts of Rockingham and Shenandoah;
By Mr. POWELL, a petition of sundry citizens of Bedford and Amherst counties, that James River may be made a lawful fence from the upper end of Roach’s Island to the mouth of Otter Creek.
On motion of Mr. WATTS,
Resolved, That the Committee of Roads, &c., enquire into the expediency of authorizing all the creditors of the Portsmouth and Roanoke Rail Road Company to convert the debts due them from said Company into stock, and of making such further legislative provisions upon the subject as may be deemed necessary.
Mr. BROADUS of Culpepper offered a resolution, that this House will, by joint vote with the Senate, proceed on Wednesday, 22d instant, to the election of a Senator of the United States, to supply the vacancy to occur on the 4th March next, by the expiration of the term of service of Wm. C. Rives, Esq.:
Mr. LEAKE moved to lay it upon the table.
Mr. BROADUS of Culpepper asked for reasons for so doing.
Mr. LEAKE said, he made the motion to lay the resolution upon the table, so that notice might be given to all the members of this House, who felt any interest in the election. Some members were absent, and if the 22nd of this month was fixed on as the day for the election, they could not be here to represent their constituents. There was a plenty of business before the House for them to act upon, and much more than could be attended to between this time and the day selected by the gentleman from Culpepper. If there were not important matters before them claiming their attention, and some absentees, who would not be here at as early a day, he would not desire the delay of action on this subject. The gentleman supposing himself and party ready to proceed with the election, was for dispatch, whilst the Democrats had heretofore received no intimation of the necessity of getting ready speedily for the contest.
Mr. GOODSON hoped the gentleman would not force us into the election until we were ready. The Whigs had had their meeting last night and came here organized. It was known a meeting of the Democrats was to be held to-morrow night. He thought it reasonable to allow them to get ready in the same way- That was all he asked.
Mr. DANIEL of Prince George said, he would assign some additional reasons why the resolution should be laid upon the table at this time. He believed that it had been usual for the House to decide all the contests about elections of members, before they proceeded to such an important election as that of Senator of the United States. This had been the practice heretofore, and from which he saw no good reasons for a departure. There was now pending before this House a contest from Caroline county, which had not been disposed of; and also a memorial against the eligibility of the gentleman from Fairfax concerning which there had been no final action by this House. Until, therefore, this House had decided who were, and who were not, entitled to seats in this body, he thought the all-important election of Senator should be deferred.
Mr. BOWDEN enquired of the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges and Elections, whether the Committee had taken action upon the case from Fairfax.
Mr. WITCHER said they had not had a meeting since the last papers were sent to the Committee; but he believed, and the Committee also believed, that it was the business of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, in Fairfax, to proceed against persons violating the anti-dueling act. He believed that was the proper forum, and not this house. He thought the Committee would not change their opinion relative to this contest. He intended yet to look into that matter; - other business, and his own health, had, heretofore prevented the investigation: but, after examination, from what he understood, he thought the opinion of the Committee would be, that the delegate from Fairfax should retain his seat.
Mr. BOWDEN said he referred to the condition of the gentleman from Fairfax with pain; but he thought, until the House had decided his right, that he held at least a doubtful tenure- and he did not believe the election ought to be gone into until all the members had undisputed rights to their seats. All he asked was fairness; and he did not believe his opponents here would force us into the election until it was apparent that fairness could be attained.
Mr. EDMUNDS of Halifax said the member from Franklin was absent, and there was not time to write a letter to him and have it answered in time, or to get here after hearing of the election. He did not know that other members were in the same situation; but he knew the case of the member from Franklin, and he knew the distance to that county was such as to forbid the member’s return in time.
Mr. WITCHER said he had not a shadow of doubt of the result in the Caroline case- he believed the member now in his seat would retain it. He explained why the Committee had not reported sooner. He knew, also, that there were two members on his side of the question absent; but there was time for all to be here. Perhaps if you postpone the election longer, some members who are now here may be absent forever. He knew that the members who had the seats, had all the rights of members until they were evicted, but he did not believe it possible to change the result by evicting those members.
Mr. EDMUNDS of Halifax said there was not the slightest probability of the member from Franklin getting here in time—he had gone home without expecting this election to be brought on so soon, and it would be wrong to hurry the election before information could reach him. The other members who were absent might get here.
The motion to lay on the table was [negative] [unreadable word?].
Mr. GOODSON moved to amend to Wednesday, the 29th inst.
Mr. BOWDEN called the ayes and noes.
Mr. McPHERSON of Page, asked the gentleman to withdraw his amendment. He saw the predicament in which his party would be placed. It would pledge the party to go into the election. He thought this House ought to strengthen the majority in the other House.
Mr. GOODSON withdrew.
Mr. STOVALL moved to amend, and go into the election on to-morrow, the 17th inst.
Mr. McPHERSON of Page, could not vote for the amendment. He would not indicate any disposition to go into the election at all. He was opposed to it entirely. The State of Virginia was decidedly Democratic, and if we went into the election, it was evident that we should be beaten.
Mr. GOODSON hoped the amendment would be withdrawn. And he would tell the gentleman from Page, that he thought him a very good General, but he did not see the necessity of telling the enemy exactly what he would do.
Mr. McP. said he only told what he was aware the enemy already fully knew.
The Resolution was then adopted by the following vote, Mr. EDMUNDS of Halifax having called the ayes and noes:
AYES—Messrs. Southall, (Speaker,) Pitts, Brown, Fulton of A., Frazier, Cameron, Scruggs, Pendleton, Myers, Flood, Moseley, Beubting, Fox, Toler, Broaddus of Caroline, Lacy, Broadus of Culpepper, Hobson, Wood, Garnett, Marshall F., Edmunds of F., Tyree, Payne, Brooks, French, McPherson of Greenbrier, Winston, Lee, McRay of Henrico, Wonton, Turner of J., Towner, Smith, Wallace, Mayo, Farley, Ramey, Gruld, Taylor of L., Parriott, Billups, Hall, Baskerville, Preston, O’Ferrall, Kilby, Cabell, Taylor of N. B., Watts, Happer, Yerby, Oliver, Edgington, Turner of P., Bolling, Witcher, Lanier, [C…] [unreadable name] Dey, Strother, Moore, White, Stephenson, Rice, Jackson and Fulton of W.—67.
NOES—Messrs. Poulson, Layne, Harvie, Powell, Thompson of B., Hays, Miller, Blick, Harrison, Marshall of C., Winfice, Thompson of D., Carson, Lovett, Leake, Parks, Batte, Edmund of H., Stovall, Blue, Ward, Bassett, Godwin, Bowden, Davis of K.& Q., Hawes, Flanagan, Gordon, Blackwell, Banks, Kidwell, Pool, Hamilton of Monroe, Wade, Middleton, Davis, Orange and Greene, McPherson of P., Hines, Gay, Hamilton of P., Anderson, Daniel of P. G., Macrae of P. W., Sturm, Frantz, Cootes, Sebrell, Hedgman, Dillard, Freeman, Newton, Perry, Funsten and Goodson—60.
A bill “Concerning bail in civil cases was taken up on motion of Mr. STEPHENSON, and being amended on his motion, Mr. JACKSON moved its indefinite postponement.
Messrs. JACKSON and TAYLOR sustained and Messrs. LEE and STEPHENSON opposed the motion.
The bill was indefinitely postponed, ayes 62 to noes 52; Mr. JACKSON having called the ayes and noes.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Governor, enclosing resolutions of the Legislature of New Hampshire, to the immediate re-annexation of Texas – also protesting against the imprisonment of Thomas Wilson Dorr of Rhode Island.
Mr. STEPHENSON moved to lay the communication on the table.
Mr. LEAKE moved to amend the motion and ordering it to be printed.
Mr. STEPHENSON hoped no member would agree to the printing of at least a portion of the resolutions – especially, if it was not expressly declared, that the House did not thereby meanly endorse them.
Mr. LEAKE said, that the printing would to amount a sanction by this House. At the commencement; of the session, the House had without objection, ordered the printing of resolutions from Massachusetts, protesting against the annexation of Texas, as being tantamount to a Resolution of the Union. The same course should be pursued now.
Mr. STEPHENSON meant no disrespect to a sovereign State. All that he desired was that the House might not be understood as endorsing, the course of New Hampshire.
Mr. PRESTON hoped all the resolutions would be printed; so that the House and the [c…] [unreadable word] might understand them.
Mr. GOODSON thought a large number these of resolutions, as well as those from Massachusetts, should be printed for the information the people of Virginia.
Mr. Leake’s amendment was adopted and the papers ordered to be printed.
On motion of Mr. LANIER, the House adjourned.
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i8lp3c5
ANOTHER VOICE FROM THE GRANITE STATE!
We lay before our readers another proposition on the annexation of Texas. It is offered by Mr. Burke of New Hampshire to the House of Representatives. It breathes a fine spirit, and we thank him for it. It breathes a spirit, which becomes the man, the State, and an American statesman.
Whilst on this subject, it is impossible for us to pass over another gentleman from New Hampshire, whose noble devotion to principle and to his country is on a par with his distinguished talents. The Tariff—Texas—all the great questions of the day, have been met by him like a man and like a statesman. Whom can we mean but Levi Woodbury, Senator of the United States? If the thanks of one humble Virginian- (one? – let us rather say of every Republican in Virginia,) be of any account in his eyes, they are justly his. He does not fritter away his strength in struggling with imaginary monsters. He does not higgle about little or factitious difficulties, but marches up to his object with the wisdom of a statesman, and the firmness of a man. He declares himself openly and boldly for Texas, because he believes its acquisition necessary for the good of his whole country. He considers her independent, and is willing to receive her into our bosom, without asking the consent of any other power. If Mr. Woodbury had done no more, than stand up for the immediate annexation of Texas, he would have been entitled to the gratitude of the people; but combined with this question his luminous views and efficient services on the other great problem of the day, the Tariff, and we for one are willing to say, “Good and faithful servant, go on and do your duty.”
But, to return from this digression to Mr. Burke’s proposition. We have not the pleasure of his acquaintance; but we learn from those who know him best, that he is a Republican after our own heart. The Washington “Constitution of yesterday morning calls attention to his bill- the admirable “bill offered by Mr. Burke of New Hampshire. If we are not, greatly mistaken, this bill will be found to contain almost every good feature of each bill and resolution which has heretofore been presented. This is the point to be attained, and which we probably shall attain at last. This day’s debate shows that the spirit of conciliation and harmony is rather increased than diminished; and, as we have said elsewhere, augurs the best results.”
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p4c1
MARINE JOURNAL
PORT OF RICHMOND, JANUARY 17.
High Water this day at 10 ½ o’clock A. M.
ARRIVED
Steamer
Curtis Peck, Davis, Norfolk.
Brig
Clarissa, Watts, New Orleans, sugar and molasses to Dunlop, Moncure &
Co.
Schr.
Martin L Smith, Wilson, Port Deposit, lumber.
SAILED
Schr.
Hannibal, Parker, New York.
Schr.
Heroine, Hollingshead, Baltimore.
Schr.
Cora, Groves, Philadelphia.
Schr.
Lady Clinton, Cramner, New York.
BELOW
Schr.
Orator, off Wind-mill Point.
Schr.
Arcade, at Dutch Gap.
Schr.
General Washington, at the Ferry.
Schr.
Celerity, at the Ferry
Schr.
John Thompson, at Ward’s Reach
Baltimore, Jan. 15—arrived, schr. A. A. Penderzast Stephens, from Richmond
[AMB]
Mr. YANCEY commenced by expressing his regret that between the great political parties which divided our people, and which must ever exist under a free and popular Government, and animosities become so deeply seated, that what might otherwise have proved a blessing to the Government, by tending to guard and preserve its purity, had in fact proved its bane . Instead of estimating measures according to their bearings upon the best interests of the country at large, there were but too many who judged of them simply according to their probable effects on the party to which each belonged. That spirit, he lamented to see, had crept into this Hall, and he could not but give expression to his deep and unfeigned regret that the gentleman from Ohio over the way, (Mr. Vinton,) distinguished as he was in the possession of such keen and searching intellect, enlightened by so brilliant a wit, and graced by every accomplishment which could give luster to a public station, should have lent himself to lower the character of an American Representative, which he was so well qualified to adorn. – The consequence of the prevalence of the spirit to which he had alluded was, that we were fast becoming, if we had not already become, a nation of partisans. It was under the influence of convictions like these that he had rejoiced at the fact, that now, at length, a great question had presented itself, a question of such momentous magnitude, and of such pure and noble associations, as were calculated to elevate the soul, to warm every patriot heart, and to crush beneath its unparalleled importance all the contemptible machinations of partisans – of men capable of knowing, of feeling, and appreciating nothing but the mere bubbles which were ever found to float in the wake of party. Such a question was this of the annexation of Texas; a question so purely American, and addressing itself so directly to the honor and to the interests of the entire Republic, that all party feuds shrunk at its approach. Like that mysterious star which led the shepherds of old to the birth-place of the Savior of the world, this question was now culminating over the Republic, calling on all who loved their country to lay aside their wranglings , and arise and abet a cause whose spirit and whose tendencies were “peace on earth and good will to men.” Mr. Y. thanked God, that there were still among us men whose hearts leaped and fluttered at the waving of a banner on which their country’s honor was inscribed, and who like the ancient Jews, when their sacred trumpet sounded to arms, arose, and forgetting all party distinctions and party interests, girded themselves for their country’s cause. Not so the member from North Carolina. With him the momentous associations of this question; its bearing on the interests of our entire country, on its commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing prosperity; its effects, for weal or for woe, on the present and on the future – effects which were now agitating patriot hearts upon two continents – had not in them sufficient worth or dignity to draw his mind from the question whether he did not dine with a distinguished politician in N. York; and whether the sailors of the ship North Carolina voted in the city of New York, and not in Brooklyn. Such were the gentleman’s views of a question which was agitating this entire Union, and which, more than any question which had been started among us for half a century, was calculated to string the nerves and agitate the bosom of every honest man.
We were all, said Mr. Y., in the habit of estimating the character of a person whom we had never seen, by reading his productions and by hearing from others what he said and did. Mr. Y., on such grounds, had formed an estimate of this gentleman; and he must confess that, for himself, he was not much surprised at the dimensions of intellect and qualities of heart which he now found the gentleman to posses. In that part of the Union which Mr. Y. had the honor to represent, that Representative was every where viewed as the betrayer of his country. He was looked on by every one as a renegade, recreant to the principles and the interest of that portion of the Union. With this estimate of him beforehand, even Mr. Y. himself was astonished when that gentleman got up to taunt his brothers of the South because their strenuous efforts and earnest and continued exertions had not been able to prevent the repeal of that rule of this House which prohibited the presentation of abolition petitions. The motives which he attributed to their conduct on that subject were such as could have been found only in the heart of him and going over to the ranks of the enemy, turned and flouted the colors of that enemy in the face of his own friends. Mr. Y. knew that such had been the estimate entertained by nineteen-twentieths of the men of the South respecting this gentleman; but he must confess his surprise when he rose in this House and bragged of what he termed the dishonesty and rascality of the State he had the honor to represent.
Mr. CLINGMAN here rose and wished to explain.
Mr. YANCEY: No, Sir; I want no explanations. Explanations elsewhere.
It was not for Mr. Y. to decide on the true character of such conduct: the people of North Carolina would decide that question. But surely it might have been supposed that every honorable heart would have paused and would have shrunk back within itself before it could consent to drag the disgrace of his own native State before the world. The unwelcome task, if it must be performed, should at least have been left for other hands. And well might North Carolina, thus wounded and gored by her native son, exclaim with the falling Caesar, “Et tu Brute!” Mr. Y. should pass no sentence on the gentleman; he should not undertake to pronounce what conduct like this deserved, but the Bible, [if the gentleman ever read that book] might teach him the fate of the man who forgot what was due to himself and his family. Let him look at the Patriarch Noah, betrayed in an unguarded hour and lying exposed in his lent. One of his sons saw his parent’s shame, and went forth and ridiculed the spectacle before his brothers; but those brothers took a mantle and without daring to turn their eyes or to look for so much as a moment on a father so exposed, walked up backwards and cast the mantle – the broad mantle of filial charity – to cover his indignity from his wine and heard what his younger son had done, and, gifted with the spirit of prophecy by God himself; pronounced upon him a curse which had come down upon him, and upon his seed, and upon his seed’s seed, to this every hour, witnessing and proving to all men the truth of the Scriptures, “A servant of servants shall he be, and shall dwell in the tents of Japheth on his western shore. Oh, had the departing spirit of the pure, the wise, the patriotic Macon been hovering in these Halls and among these stately pillars, and here had heard a son of North Carolina utter language such as had fallen from that Representative, he might have stopped an instant to gaze in astonishment, but full quickly would have descended in sorrow to the sepulcher:
Mr. Y. said he should be pardoned if, in taking these views of the subject which the Representative from North Carolina had discussed, or rather had avoided, and of the character which he had attempted to give to a debate otherwise eminently dignified and worthy of that Hall, he should not follow him into the dark purlieus of party with which that gentleman seemed so disgracefully familiar; but should now address himself to the great question before the House.
The first question to be settled was this: are the several propositions which have been presented for the annexation of Texas to this Union constitutional in their character? For himself, Mr. Y. preferred one of them which was not now immediately before the committee. He referred to the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Tibbatts) because it more exactly met Mr. Y.’s view of the Constitution. The reasons of his preference were these: that proposition confined itself to the very letter, as well as to the spirit of that sacred instrument. It would be remembered that, under the Confederation which held the States together previously to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, it was found in practice that too few powers were conferred on the General Government, and that those which were given were too limited and restricted to allow sufficient scope for the just action of the Government of so large a Confederacy. Remembering this state of things, (which had then become a subject of general complaint) if gentlemen would turn to the Articles of confederation, they would find that the 11th article was in these words:
“Canada, acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the U. States, shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.”
In this was found the origin of the present article in the Constitution, conferring on Congress the power to admit new States into the Union. – The article, it would be perceived, was specific in its terms, and yet it had compass enough to allow the Confederation to admit a foreign State by act of Congress. The spirit of that enactment of the patriot fathers had been preserved in the Constitution which they afterwards adopted, and was founded in the 4th article of the 3d section: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”
Now, what was the history of the transformation of this article? And how could it be shown that the general power then given was preserved in its new form? If gentlemen would turn to the 4th volume of Elliott’s Debates on the Constitution; they would find that, in the Convention which sat for the formation of the new Constitution, Mr. Randolph offered the following proposition:
“That provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of Government and territory. Or otherwise with the consent of a number of voices in the National Legislature less the whole.”
This proposition directly contravened the spirit of the previous article in the Confederation. – That allowed the admission of foreign States, this did not. And moreover, it was equally opposed to the whole view and purpose of the people, in calling the Convention and demanding a new Constitution, which was to augment the powers, and enlarge the scope of the Federal Government. And what was the fate of this proposition? Did the Convention approve of and adopt it? No. It was voted down. But, further, in page 163, it would be found that, in the draught of a constitution by a committee of five, which was reported on the 6th of August, 1787, the 17th article declared that –
“New States, lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the U. States, may be admitted by the Legislature into this Government,” &c.
This, too, was voted down, and in its’ stead the existing provision of the Constitution was adopted by a vote of six States to five. Now, when gentlemen went to the root of the matter, they would perceive that the original article, which specifically provided for the addition of one foreign State and left an open door for the admission of others, was in the Constitution finally adopted, so enlarged […] to provide for the admission of new States generally. The phrase was indefinite, and who was he that had the authority to declare what were its limits? None could point them out; it had none but such as might be found in the good sense of the people, and in the guaranty, elsewhere given, that every new State should have a Republican form of Government. If this article was, as some gentlemen contended, confined to the reception of new States formed within the boundary of the Union, why was the proposition of Mr. Randolph voted down in the Convention? And why did that Convention adopt in its place a different article, more enlarged in its terms? Obviously it was intended that the power of congress to admit new States should be left an unlimited power.
The proposition therefore, of the gentleman from Kentucky, came up, as he had said to the very letter, and, what was better, to the very spirit of the Constitution. This prevision was inserted as one great means of providing for the common defence and the general warfare. And Mr. Y. preferred the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, because on that plan we could get possession of Texas by Texas ceding to us territory, just as Virginia and many of the other States had ceded theirs. This resolution provided for her doing the same thing, and that strictly within the purview of the Constitution. Mr. Y. would say to the friends of the measure on that floor that, however their partialities might incline towards some other of the several projects which had been presented, and however well convinced some gentlemen might be that congress now possessed the power to receive foreign territory into the Union, (and Mr. Y. entertained no doubt that by a long process of reasoning that position might be logically established,) they had still better adopt this proposition, because it effected the same purpose in a more direct manner, and more in conformity with the letter of the constitution. Other plans might perhaps be plausibly objected to, but no man could so cut down the power contained in the words of the Constitution, that it would not apply to States lying confessedly without the existing boundaries of the Union.
Considering the cultivated mind, clear understanding, and enlarged views of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Winthrop,) Mr. Y. had been astonished to hear him say that the constitution adopted by our patriot fathers was by them intended to apply only to the territory then within the United States. This, surely, was too narrow-minded a view of things to be worthy of the mind of any true friend of our American liberty. The Constitution applicable only to what were the bounds of the Union when it was framed? Why were, then, must Louisiana, and Arkansas, and Missouri stand? At the adoption of the constitution, these were not within the limits of the United States. And would the gentleman from Massachusetts maintain that these three States were now unconstitutionally within the limits of the United States? Had the people of Louisiana and the people of Arkansas and Missouri not share in the guarantees of the Constitution? Did they posses no rights by it and under it? The gentleman would not say so. Yet these were States which lay, without and beyond the territory of the United States when the article was framed which empowered Congress to receive new States into the Union. They had come into the Union – they had received a cheerful welcome. And what Republican freeman would close the doors of this, our fellowship of freedom, to any who in a proper spirit came and knocked for admission?
It appeared very singular to Mr. Y. that there were only two instances in our history where treaties had been made by which foreign countries were allowed to diminish the extent of our territory. And the negotiators of both happened to come from the State of Massachusetts. Where ever our territory had been clipped, and privileges enjoyed by our citizens had been taken from them it had been done under the auspices of two gentlemen from Massachusetts. Why was this? – Was it that their hearts were so narrow, and their views so contracted, that their sympathies could not go an inch beyond that precise area of territory possessed by us at the framing of the Constitution? Or, did it not rather arise from the old Federal leaven which yet worked in the hearts of the children of that Commonwealth, and which, to this day, was ever ready and disposed to curtail the liberties of mankind? Which was ever prone to circumscribe them within as small a space as possible, and which seemed to have an inborn proclivity towards bestowing on a few the monopoly of rights and blessings which God had given alike to all?
Mr. Y. should forbear dilating on the merits and bearings of the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, but would leave them to be better said, and more clearly set forth by that gentleman himself.
And now, to the second point. It would, he presumed, he admitted, whether the admission had an auspicious bearing on ourselves or not, that the honor of a nation was the brightest jewel it possessed, and that its character before the nations of the world should be guarded by its representatives with all that sensitive solicitude and watchfulness with which they would guard their own. Now, what were the facts in our relation to the people of Texas? Mr. Y. was not going to argue for re-annexation, for on that point doubts might be and were entertained; he was speaking to the proposition to annex Texas to the United States. By the treaty of 1819, if we had any right or power or claim over Texas, we ceded them all to the Government of Spain. - Whatever our title was we yielded it to her; but Spain had not perfected her title; she never had taken possession; the people of Texas resented and resisted our act; they rose in arms against it; they complained that their will and wishes had not been consulted in the matter, and indignantly denied that they could be ceded away like a herd of beasts. They complained that we had forgotten their rights - and they declared with one voice, that they would not abide by our act; and they accordingly resisted the power and possession of Spain till 1824, when they conformed themselves to the terms of a general confederacy, which ignited the Mexican States. - What was the condition of Texas under that confederated Government? Had they lost their rights? Surely not. Though our mouth after the treaty of 1819 was stopped, and we could no longer claim any tide to their territory or right over their persons, yet the rights of Texas were not estopped : they never had consented to our deed. The treaty of 1803 had secured their admission into our Union, and this act never had been annulled as it respected them. They held themselves still justly entitled to the rights that treaty had conferred. We ceded Texas it is true, but we ceded her when she was sovereign, and while she maintained her sovereignty. Our [ . . . ] gave no title to Spain, and Spain took none by it; but Texas was thrown back upon her original sovereignty, and she continued to maintain it. When she entered the Mexican confederation, under the treaty of 1824, no foreign State had any claim upon her, and when that confederation was dissolved she was remitted back to that sovereign she never had lost, and there she stood a sovereign State to this hour. We had given up our title by treaty; Spain had yielded her's by recognizing Mexican independence including that of Texas. Mexico had no claim upon her when she freely entered the confederation; Coahuila none. Texas agreed to become one member in a confederation States like our own - composed distinct sovereignties, meeting together secure certain definite objects for good all. 1834 history - country informed us military usurper dissolved force, drove Congress from their hall force arms, and violated trampled rights of people to revolution, establishing ruins central Government most despotic character. What did do? It been said raised rebellion with view annexation; but gave lie charge. met formed provisional under banner Constitution 1824, sent forth invitations sister [the rest is illegible].
[AMB]
Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p3c7
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Statistics of Texas
On the motion of Mr. PRATT, it was
Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate to this House such information as he may possess, or may be able to procure, of the whole amount of the debt of Texas the amount for which bond or scrip has been issued: and the present market value of subscript or bond in Texas, in the United States, as in Europe; the amount in value of the exports from, and the imports into, Texas, for the year 1813 and 1814, with the amount of revenue accruing and collected for the same years, with the expenditures for the same time; also, the present population of Texas, distinguishing in number between free and slaves; also, the quantity, acres of land, which it is supposed is covered by valid grants from the present and former Governments of that country; and the estimated quality in acres of good and arable land suitable for cultivation which remains ungranted with the undisputed and acknowledged limits of Texas as the same existed prior to the year 1831.
RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
Mr. HAMMETT moved that the rules be suspended, that the House might resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.
The motion was agreed to; and the House went into Committee of the Whole on the State the Union, (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair, ) and assumed the consideration of the resolutions to re-annex Texas to this Union.
Mr. HOLMES, who had the floor from yesterday, commenced with some remarks on the importance of the question which now occupies the attention of the committee. He contends that this was not a sectional, but a great national question; and to this complexion it had […] [unreadable] last; annexation, or rejection now and forever. And on this he based the proposition, and calls to it the attention, not of a section, nor of a part but of every man who had in his heart the loved union and confederation, viz: Annexation objection was salvation or destruction to the New Atlantic States, to New England and to the manufacturing community, and he admitted, […] [unreadable word] the inevitable destruction of the South, and he sustained his position by showing the deleterious effect which would be produced on the productivity and manufactures of the various sections of the country by Texas remaining independent and commercial league with England, and in possession of the guarantees promised to her by […] [unreadable word] Aberdeen on condition of her preserving her government separate from ours. Her treaty with Great Britain would preclude exportations […] [unreadable word] our country to that republic, and under the […tive] [unreadable word] policy our entire Union would be injured […] [unreadable word] degree now not to be determined.
Mr. WM. J. BROWN was wedded to no particular plan. He was like the young man in his own native West, with stout arm and high principles, who, when he first sets out from the maternal home, gets himself a wife. When united to one whose smile serves the purpose of the rainbow of hope and promise, he begins to build his cabin, and lay out his fields, until his barn of plenty is filled to overflowing. Just so with him he was first for his country, and next for Texas and, having obtained her, all things else will be added thereto. Let us then have Texas […] [unreadable] and hereafter all the details could be settled At as this question was decided in the late election he called upon gentlemen to obey the will of the people.
Mr. GARRET DAVIS would not be displeased; on the contrary, he would be glad if Texas could be annexed without a violation of our Constitution, and our neutral rights, and with the general assent of the people. It was with a view to the distant future that he should desire the consummation of this measure. The natural […] [unreadable word] cities of Texas for the production of cotton and sugar, rendered it of immense importance to the inhabitants of the United States. But his wish to see Texas annexed was subordinate to other considerations. His attachment to the Union as it existed, rather than endanger its continuance led him, nevertheless, to oppose annexation in every possible form. He spoke of the question as one of power- contending that the legislature was not, by the Constitution, empowered to acquire foreign territory, &c.
Mr. BOWLIN next obtained the floor; but
The Committee rose, and reported progress; and
The House then adjourned.
EXTRACT of a letter from Madison county, Jan.
“Mr. Goggin has declined becoming a candidate for re-election, as you have seen. The Whigs are AWFULLY troubled about it here. I do not think there is the least doubt about the election of a Democratic member of Congress from this district, unless there be some discord in the convention proposed to be held in Charlottesville to nominate a candidate.”
[We will listen to no such apprehension. We take it for granted, that the Convention will be well attended, as it ought to be- fairly organized as it ought also to be- and that its nominate will meet the immediate and cordial support of every Republican in the District.] – Enquirer.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82plc3
LATER FROM MEXICO
By the arrival last evening of the steam ship New York, Capt. J. T. Wright, 42 hours from Galveston, we are in possession of later intelligence from Mexico. The progress of the revolution seems to be onward, and the star of Santa Anna appears to pale before his victorious foes.
We copy the following interesting particulars from the Galveston News, of the 7th inst.
By the arrival on Saturday last of the sloop H. L. Kinney, Capt. Lewis, direct from Corpus Christi, through the politeness of her commander, we have been furnished with letters from which we have gleaned the following, later and important news, in relation to the movements among the revolutionists.
From the latest official news at Matamoras, from the interior of Mexico, it appears that Gen. Paredes at the head of 8,000 men, marched against Santa Anna, who at that time had under his command 13,000 troops. On the approach of Paredes, Santa Anna immediately retired, great numbers of his soldiers deserting his cause. This retreat extended to the city of Puebla, where he was attacked by Paredes and defeated.
Gen. Santa Anna, who made his escape, was compelled to disguise himself and take conveyance in a common coach of the country. The particulars of this battle are not given, but we presume the victory was achieved by Gen. Paredes at great expense of life, as is usually the case in Mexican warfare.
In Northern Mexico the revolution has been general throughout the country. At the last accounts, Gen. Canales in conjunction with Gen. Arista, were marching at the head of a large force against Gen. Wool, who still held out in favor of centralism.
The revolution broke out in the city of Matamoras on the 19th ult. On the reception of the news in Matamoras, of the success of the Federal party, the citizens opposed to centralism and in favor of Federalism, assembled at the most public places and immediately denounced the Tyrant, and publicly proclaimed for the Federal cause. Great excitement prevailed in the city during the outbreak- Gen. Celia was seized, and imprisoned- the shout for liberty and down with centralism became general in all quarters, until the revolution became triumphant.
In Monterey the same scenes were enacted as in other cities, but of a more sanguinary character. The particulars we have not received, further than an account of the death of Gen. Jose Maria Ortega, Governor of the city of Monterey, who was publicly butchered for his faithful adherence to the cause of Santa Anna.
We are informed, says the same paper of the 7th inst., that on the 27th ult, upwards of fifty horses were stolen from Corpus Christi. It is not known by whom the theft was committed; but an expedition had been fitted out and sent in pursuit, who had not returned at last accounts. We also learn that the Caronkawa Indians have collected a large body and are committing depredations upon the property of the inhabitants surrounding Aransas Fay.
When the H. L. Kinney left, trade was considered at Corpus Christi, brisk. Several Mexicans were in from Mexico, but there was a great scarcity of goods, not an assortment sufficient to meet their demands.
From the seat of Government we received no papers, and the following from the News comprises all the information received:
The steamer Dayton arrived on Monday the 6th inst., but brought no mail from Washington; this is more to be regretted on account of several rumors which have reached us in relation to the movements at the seat of government.
The most important rumor afloat is in reference to Gen. Duff Green, the U. S. Consul at this place, who it is reported, has been harshly treated by the Executive. If so, Uncle Sam will have more difficulties to arrange besides those of a Mexican character.
We know nothing of the particulars thereof and shall calmly wait for further developments.
From what we can glean from private sources, we are led to believe that Dr. Jones is going to renounce Houstonism and come out strong in favor of western measures, provided the west will sustain him. The western people have never asked more than their rights – these have been denied them – protect them from the predatory incursion of Mexicans, and the repeated depredations of Indians – refit the navy and restore her noble commander, and Dr. Jones would soon become the most popular President in Western Texas.
Capt. Jacques of the brig Rover, arrived at Galveston on the 3d inst. From Havana, reported that when he sailed; a rumor had reached that city of the capture and imprisonment of Santa Ana at Vera Cruz.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p2c3
THE TEXAS QUESTION
We trust that a majority of the House of Delegates will yet be found in favor of the Texas resolutions? As a party, the Whigs in Virginia and in the South have a deep interest in its adjustment. They have more to lose by it than we have. Indeed, they must lose by its suspension. We must gain by it. They lost by it considerably at the last Fall Election, and they will lose more by it in the Spring Elections. It is impossible to exclude it from the canvass, if it still be kept open. It will, indeed, be the prominent issue in the canvass, and will override every other. Every Republican candidate will take it in his hand, and will appeal to the people of Virginia for their support. It is in vain to deny the fact – but many able and honest Whigs are in favor of annexation – and if they do not assist the Republican Party, they can lend but a feeble assistance to their own party on such a question. Let us then unite, and strike it out at once from the party issues of the day. Every one for sees, that if the question be not settled at the present Congress, the question is only adjourned. It must come up again, unless Texas should slam the door directly in our faces. It will continue to mingle in our political struggles – rising every day into more gigantic consequence, so long as any hope exists of its permanent adjustment. We will not abandon the scheme, unless Texas does. But it is obvious, that delay only increases the danger – that Great Britain will multiply her intrigues, present more and more seductive offers to obtain her independence, and form an advantageous commercial connection with our greatest commercial rival – and that there is a serious danger lest her people should become dissatisfied with our obstinate refusal, and turn to Great Britain for co-operation and succor. In that event, with Texas lost to us, except at a great sacrifice of blood and of treasure, whom will the Southern people hold responsible for its loss? The bolt will fall upon the Whig Party, and it must inevitably strike them down in the South.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p2c4
EDITORIAL
Will some member of Congress be kind enough to send us a copy of the map of Texas lately published? We wish to see the boundaries of the territory, &c., &c.
Meantime, we must frankly confess, that Mr. Haywood’s speech, ingenious as it is, has failed to convince us of the propriety of establishing the 34th degree of latitude as the new Compromise line between the slave and he non-slaveholding States. The line of the Missouri Compromise was the 36 ½ degree. Even that line, we recollect, was very seriously resisted by many of the Southern people. They contended that such a restriction was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution - which permitted States to come into the Union without any restriction relative to slavery. They contend, too, that the line is unequal – because it allows the non-slaveholding States a much greater scope of territory, extending to the Pacific, and embracing Oregon, than what lays to the South of the line. It was also the established line of Texas at the time when the Florida Treaty was ratified, and when we exchanged that country for Florida. We humbly conceive, therefore, that we have a right to call upon our Northern brethren, if we are to abide by the Missouri Compromise in all future time, to respect its boundaries now when we are attempting to regain the territory which we possessed at the time of the ratified cession. For one, therefore, with all respect to the Senator from North Carolina, we object to his bill, because it relinquishes 2 ½ degrees of latitude which ought to belong to the weakest portion of the Union. We prefer Mr. Foster’s bill to Mr. Haywood’s which preserves the principle of the Missouri Compromise, which takes in Texas as a State without any delay – and which presents the proposition of annexation in a simpler form, and [stripped] of a variety of details which may perplex the judgment, distract the vote, and perhaps defeat the measure.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p2c4
EDITORIAL “ANNEXATION – MR. RIVES”
[from the Charlottesville Jeffersonian]
The Richmond Whig thinks that Mr. Rives will still oppose the annexation of Texas; that it is not to be imagined, that he so lightly made up his mind six or eight months ago, as to be prepared to change it. Who doubts if the question was put directly to the people of this Commonwealth, that an overwhelming majority of them would be for immediate annexation? Should not our Senators then vote for what they have every reason to believe the people of Virginia would instruct them to do?
Charlottesville Jeffersonian.
There is great force in the remark of the Jeffersonian. Will the senator carry out the acknowledged will of the people of Virginia? There was a majority of near 6,000, (and if the bona fide voters only had been counted, of at least 8,000, ) Republican voters in favor of Annexation. Will Virginia then, appeal to her Senator in vain? Why does the Whig talk about Mr. Rives changing his mind? He voted against the Treaty, it is true, and now the question will be about admitting a new State into the Union. He does not change his argument at all upon the general question of annexation. That argument still remains as a monument of his talents in favor of the Truth. He ought never to vote against Texas, until he is prepared to answer his own argument.
We cannot yet reconcile ourselves to the idea, that Mr. Rives will vote against the bill. We hope yet, that he will strike one blow for his country. He has complied with the supposed obligations of the letter in which he unfortunately pledged himself to go for H. Clay. He spoke and he voted for that candidate – and the deed is done. The scene has now shifted. Texas comes forward now under different auspices. The voice of party ought to be hushed – that of the country alone should be heard. Will Mr. Rives turn a deaf ear to her demands; and spurn Texas once more from that door, through which he has so irresistibly proved she ought to be admitted into the Union? Far better be in honorable retirement at Castle Hill, than strike such a blow against his own country. But if his retirement should be turned into banishment, by the Whig party, what consolation will soothe an exile which is preceded by a vote fatal to the South, mischievous to Virginia, and injurious to the whole Union? [ Enquirer.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p3c2 76 words
Marine Journal
The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond, January 20th.
High Water this day at 11 o’clock, P.M.
Arrived
Schr. H. W. Grandy, Egg Harbour, Ballast.
Schr. Maragaret Ann, Godfry, Egg Harbour, Ballast.
Schr. Whig, Scott, Philadelphia, sundries.
Newport, Jan. 14 – arrived, schr. Candace, Brightman, Fall River, from Richmond.
New York, Jan. 18 – Cleared, schr. Richard Thompson, Carson, Richmond.
Baltimore, Jan. 19 – Cleared, barque R. H. Douglass, Norville, Richmond.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p4c1
Congressional, Debate on the Annexation of Texas
Speech of Mr. Bayly, of Virginia.
(Concluded.)
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Winthrop) informs us that a hope is entertained by the Republican party, that the Northern Whigs would exhibit, on this occasion, their anti-slavery feelings to such an excess as to embarrass their Whig friends at the South in the coming elections; and from a remark he made at the opening of his speech, he seemed to think that such was my wish. I assure the honorable member, said Mr. B., that, as far as I am concerned, he is mistaken. But although he told us that such a hope would be disappointed, yet he could not refrain from saying that, upon the ground of slavery alone, he would oppose the admission of Texas now and always. It will remain to be seen whether the tender mercy shown for the Whig friends of the gentleman from the South – which is so great as to cause him at abstain from pressing a leading head of his argument, and the one which is known to constitute the principal objection to annexation with Northern men – will not be as injurious to those friends and allies, as if free vent had been given their anti-slavery feelings; whether the embrace of friendship will not be as fatal as the blows of hostility?
The honorable gentleman informs us, that the South, before the Revolution, remonstrated against slavery being forced upon them by Great Britain, and he expressed his surprise that we should now complain that she should express a desire to see slavery abolished among us. Does not the honorable gentleman know that the very fact he mentions is, in part, the ground of our complaint? When we were colonies of England, and she had an interest in the matter, she forced slavery upon us; but now, when we are no longer so – when we are rival of hers, and she is interested in our downfall – according to her own official declaration, she is constantly exerting herself to destroy the very institution which her cupidity forced upon us. Is it possible that there could be a stronger ground of complaint?
The honorable gentleman is mistaken in supposing, that Great Britain has gone no further than to express a wish “to see” slavery abolished in Texas. In the very despatch from which he quotes, Lord Aberdeen says: “It is well known, both to the United States and the whole world, that Great Britain desires, and the whole world, that Great Britain desires, and is constantly exerting herself to procure, the general abolition of slavery throughout the world; but the means which she has adopted, and will continue to adopt, for this humane and virtuous purpose, are open and undisguised. With regard to Texas, we avow that we wish to see slavery abolished there as elsewhere. But, although we earnestly desire, and feel it our duty to promote such a consummation, we shall not interfere unduly, or with an improper assumption of authority, with either party, in order to ensure the adoption of such a course.” Here is something more than the expression of a wish to see slavery abolished by the Government itself, that it is constantly exerting all of its tremendous power to compass this end.
But gentleman answer, although she is thus exerting herself, she does not mean to interfere unduly and by an improper assumption of authority. Now, sir, the meaning of these words depends upon the character of the person by whom they are used. What one might consider very proper another would think very improper. Paul Clifford, designed as a sarcastic portraiture of a British statesman, drawn by one of themselves, thought it not improper to rob upon the highway, and doubtless would have assured, with cold impudence, an unfortunate traveller [sic], in the very act of rifling with him unduly or by an improper assumption of authority. The probability is, the traveller [sic] would have looked upon his conduct in a very different light. But we are not left to conjecture as to what England will regard as proper means to effect the end she has in view. She did not consider it an undue means of effecting a dissolution of this Union, an object which has ever been near her heart as the effectual means of destroying our prosperity and power, to burn, in a vandal-like spirit, the Capitol of this nation. The heathenish act was not understood at the accomplished by it, and the motive of it was not understood, until since the war. A publication made since, by an English officer engaged in the expedition, explains it.
It was vainly hoped, at a moment when there was so much discontent between the different sections of the country, that, if the Capitol were destroyed, when the proposition was made to rebuild it, a movement would be set on foot to remove the seat of Government, and that, adding to the discontent already existing, would lead to a dissolution of the Union. We shall thereafter see that, for the purpose of abolishing the slave-trade, with motives of aggrandizement similar to those, which actuates her now, she did not hesitate to expend millions of money and cede away important colonies. She does not consider it as an improper means of effecting her object to invite the Abolitionists at the North to an agitation of the subject of slavery, with a view of its abolition here; nor in her World’s Convention, as it was ambitiously called, held in her metropolis, to lay down the plan for their operation. In 1832, prior to which time there was no agitation upon the subject of slavery in this Hall, no hue and cry about the right of petition, there was raised in the British Parliament a committee to Mr. Ogden, the American Consul at Liverpool:
“To Mr. OGDEN: If you could suppose that the slaves of Louisiana were generally able to read, and that angry discussions perpetually took place in Congress on the subject of their liberation, which discussions, by means of reading, were made known to the slaves of Louisiana, do you think that with safety the state of slavery could endure there?”
The result of the answer to this question was seen in the World’s Convention. The Benefits as they were pleased to call it, of the agitation of the subject of slavery on this floor, is thus explained:
“The interest which they themselves will take in the discussion. In spite of all precautions, the slaves will become acquainted with what so deeply interests them; and so far as they do, self-respect will be generated – an excellent and profitable sentiment for a free laborer, but ruinous to the slave. It was the testimony of the planters of Jamaica before the British Parliament that their slaves became acquainted with all that passed in respect to them in the mother country, and were thereby too much excited to [ . . . ] the places of slaves with slavish obedience.”
“The knowledge of the slave that a portion of the white are exerting themselves for his emancipation, upon the ground that he is illegally held in bondage, will make him, they say impatient in his servitude. It will make him sullen and moody. It will incite him to indulge dreams of freedom in another land which he can never enjoy in his own. He will be reduced to a condition in which his master cannot rely upon his labor. He will be disposed to run away, and at a time when his services can be least spared. – The master will be subjected to constant and heavy expense to re-capture him. He will thus become to his owner a source of vexation rather than comfort, of trouble and expense rather than profit.”
Another means which England will not consider as undue to effect her object, is to take advantage of the present condition of the guaranty of her independence. At this time, when Texas is weak and threatened with invasion by inhuman barbarians. England does not hesitate to take advantage of this sort of duress to force Texas to consent to abolish slavery. As proof of this, I refer to a late article which I cut from a late article which I cut from a late number of the organ of the British Government, and to speak its sentiments. That article is in these words:
“It is possible, that the intelligence of Mr. Polk’s election may suggest a more guarded course to the Mexican General; but on the other hand, the vehement threats of annexation with which the Democratic party have brought in their candidate, may induce the Mexicans to strike a blow in the next few months, before the new Government is installed at Washington.
Under these critical circumstances, it is not unreasonable to contend, that the European powers which have recognized the independence of Texas, are bound in good policy, as well as in good faith, to demand of Mexico, as well as of every other Power, that this new State be acknowledged and unmolested. If we had a sufficient interest in this question to recognize Texas at all – if we, in common with other States of Europe, are prepared to resist the annexation of Texas to the United States as an act of rapine, calculated to deprive us of a useful ally, to perpetuate slavery, and to create a rival maritime Power in the Gulf of Mexico, it would appear to be no more than just to maintain the independence of Texas against Mexico itself, and, above all, by a declaration of the principal States of Europe to terminate this state of uncertainty and menace. Had Texas consented to abolish slavery, all her political difficulties would long since have been terminated; and, instead of being an object of mingled contempt and desire to the population of the U. S., she would have placed her whole social condition on a higher and more secure basis than theirs, and would be prepared to play a conspicuous part in the history of the new world.”
Here it is distinctly enough admitted, that “had Texas consented to abolish slavery,” England would have guarantied her independence; for, how otherwise can we understand that that event would have terminated all of her political difficulties, and ‘placed her social condition on a higher and more secure basis than ours? And the zeal of England for the abolition of slavery in Texas so great, she is willing to risk to attain it as is shown by her insisting upon that condition, the loss of “a useful ally,” and the creation in the United States of “a rival maritime power in the Gulf of Mexico!” The country will judge who probably understands the purposes of the British Government best – the Whigs of this House, or the English Ministerial press.
But the honorable gentleman’s own argument impliedly admits that the institution of slavery is in danger, from the machinations of the British Government. He assures us, it is true, in the teeth of the fact, as is shown by the agitation of the subject on this floor by Northern men, and by none more than by members from his own State – he assures us, that Northern Statesmen do not desire to interfere with this institution in the States as it is, and that we have nothing to fear from them. If this be the case, and foreign nations let us alone, slavery is secure; for I assure him it is in no danger from ourselves. How, then, will the annexation tend to perpetuate it? It can only be by securing us against Great Britain, the only one of all the foreign nations which is agitating this question.
Having thus shown that England is exerting all her energies to abolish slavery in Texas, and that she will stop at no means to accomplish it, let me ask what is her object? Lord Brongham, one of her leading statesman in the House of Lords answers the question:
“The markets from whence they obtained their supply of slaves were Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia, which States constantly sent their slave population, which would otherwise be a burden to them, to the Texan market. No doubt it was true, as has been stated, that they treated their slaves tolerably well, because they knew that it was for their interest to rear them, as they had such a profitable market for them in Texas. This made him irresistibly anxious for the abolition of slavery in Texas; for it were abolished there, not only would that country be cultivated by free and white labor, but it would put a stop to the habit of breeding slaves for the Texan market. – The consequence would be, that they would solve this great question in the history of the United States, for it must ultimately end in the abolition of slavery throughout the whole of America.”
And why does England desire the abolition of slavery in the United States? Sir, it is to cripple our prosperity; and the blow is aimed as much at the North as the South; as mush at that portion of the country which is her most formidable rival in commerce and manufactures, as at us, who are profitable consumers of her productions, and her rivals in but little.
If there are any here, who may be deluded by the idea that England is actuated by philanthropic motives, if he will attend for a few moments. I will show him that, so far from that, her purposes are the most selfish and heartless. A short recital of authentic historical facts, will establish this position.
We all know, that for more than two centuries, that African slave trade was carried on by the British nation under the patronage of the Government, and was protected by charters of monopoly and public treaties. Under the Stuart Kings, charters were granted endowed with exclusive privileges for carrying on the African slave trade, and they were sustained by all the power and patronage of the British Government.
At the celebrated treaty of Utrecht, in1713, by which the Spanish succession war was terminated, the British nation obtained, by what was called the Asiento contract, the exclusive privilege of carrying on the slave trade for thirty years, at the rate of 4,800 slaves yearly; and Lord Brougham said in the House of Commons in 1815, the English nation had obtained “the whole price of the victories of Ramillies and Blenheim, in an additional share of the slave trade” and Mr. C. Grant, in 1818, informed us, that “she higgled at Aix la Chapelle for four years longer of this exclusive trade, and at the treaty of Madrid clung to the last remains of the Asiento contract.”
In consequence of the activity of the marine of England, and her own colonies. Desiring the monopoly of the securing it, and to prevent the supply of labor for the Southern colonies of other nations, she commenced agitation in favor of the abolition of the African slave trade. But it was only the African slave trade. It was necessary that the subject of it should have a black skin and a wholly head to enlist English sympathies. It is notorious, that slave fairs are regularly held in the regencies of Tripoli and Morocco, and they are transported thence up the Levant, where they are again in exposed to sale like cattle in the market. But these people did not come into competition with English colonies in the production of the rest articles of commerce, and of course they do not enjoy her disinterested philanthropy, which had its beginning and end in the profits of trade.
In the abortive attempt at negotiation for peace by Mr. Fox, in 1806, an effort was made to induce France to join in the abolition of the slave trade. The French Minister replied, “that England, with her colonies well stocked with negroes, and affording a large produce, might abolish the trade without inconvenience; but that France, with colonies ill stocked, and deficient in produce, could not abolish it without conceding to England the greatest advantages, and sustaining a proportionable loss.”
Upon the restoration of Louis XVIII to the French throne, (who acknowledged that he owed it to Great Britain,) his gratitude was appealed to abolish the slave trade; and that being ineffectual offers of sums of money and the cession of a West India Island were made but without success; the same answer being given substantially which had been given before. In August, 1815, England restored to the Dutch Government their colonies, excepting the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana, in consideration of the entire abolition of the slave trade by the latter.
During the negotiation of the treaty concluded at Madrid on the 5th of July, 1814, Great Britain attempted to prevail on Spain to prohibit to her subjects both the general slave trade and their importation into the Spanish colonies, and went so far as to offer to continue the pecuniary subsidies which the deplorable condition of the Spanish financiers made so necessary. But she failed, the Duke of San Carlos remarking that when the trade was abolished by Great Britain the proportion of negroes to the whites in the British colonies was as twenty to one, while in the Spanish colonies there were not more blacks than whites.” And he refused to take a step which “he considered would be fatal to the very existence of the colonies.”
In January, 1815, Great Britain obtained from Portugal, for pecuniary equivalents, the prohibition to its subjects of the slave trade on the Western coast of Africa, North of the equator. Further than this Portugal would not go.
The island of Guadeloupe , conquered from France, was ceded by Great Britain to the Swedish Crown, upon condition of abolishing the slave trade; and at the treaty of Madrid, of the 22d of September, 1817, she purchased from Spain the immediate abolition of the slave trade North of the equator, and a promise to abolish it altogether, after 1820, for the sum of $400,000.
Up to this time, we had not heard a word about the abolition, of slavery. Indeed, as late as 1824, Mr. Canning said in the British Parliament, “that, if he were asked which he would prefer, permanent slavery to immediate emancipation =, the incapacity of the negro to enjoy, from the want of mental and moral cultivation, the sweets of liberty; and “his duty to guard the interests of those who, by no fault of their own – by inheritance – by accident – by encouragement of repeated acts of the legislature, find their property invested in a concern exposed to innumerable hazards and difficulties which do not belong to property of another character – such as, if they had their option, as their ancestors had, they doubtless would have preferred.”
But, while these events were transpiring, a great change was taking place in the British empire . There was found in the counting house of the East India Company an obscure boy (afterwards Lord Clive) who turned out on of Britainnia’s gods of war. By the power of his genius, a small English trading post in India was expanded until it comprehended an empire of one hundred millions of souls.
In the mean time, great changes were going on in England. From being an agricultural produce by the inventions of the power loom and spinning jenny, the improvements in science and the introduction of the steam engine, she was converted into a great manufacturing nation. To sustain her great manufactures, a secure market was necessary for the productions of them. The same causes which had stimulated manufactures in England had also done the same thing in the United States and upon the continent of Europe. Besides, those markets, even if they were open, were not within the exclusive control of Great Britain. This was indispensable, and the desideration was found in India, if her people could be raised up to the condition of consumers. To do this it was only necessary to destroy all her rivals in the productions of the growth of the tropics. These rivals were the United States, the West Indies and Brazil. The staples of each of these countries were cotton, rice, tobacco, sugar and coffee. These were the staples of British India. England had seen the island of San Domingo converted, by the single act of the negro emancipation, from the most flourishing of all the West India Islands into the most unproductive; and the culture of the indigo plant, which was its staple, transplanted to the banks of the Ganges and Barrampooter . And it was at once inferred, that if African slavery could be abolished, British India would possess a monopoly in the production of the plants of the tropics, and her prosperity be established upon a secure basis. – England considered the sacrifice of her West India colonies but a small price for so great a good. The $20,000,000 which was appropriated for the indemnity of the planters amounted to nothing, as scarcely a dollar of it left London, it being received by British mortgages of West India plantations. And an agitation was at once commenced, in the hypocritical name of philanthropy, in favor of the abolition of slavery. And as soon as it was accomplished in the West Indies, the theatre of operations was transferred to this country in the manner I have very briefly noticed. – The fact that philanthropy had nothing to do in the matter is shown, if other proof were wanting, by the emancipation act of the British Parliament itself. By the 44th section of that act, it is declared that “it shall not extend to any of the territory in the possession of the East India Company, or the Islands of Ceylon or St. Helena.” And yet this is precisely the country where slavery exists in its most horrid form, and where the British Government is itself the greatest slaveholder in the world, and hires out its slaves for profit.
“GOVERNMENT OF SLAVES IN MALABAR. – We know that there is not a servant of Government in the South of India, who is not intimately acquainted with the alarming fact, that hundreds of hundreds of his fellow-creatures are fettered down for life to the degraded destiny of slavery. We know that these unfortunate beings are not, as in other countries, serfs of the soil, and incapable of being transferred, and the pleasure of their owners, from one estate to another. No; they are daily sold like cattle by one proprietor to another; the husband is separate from the wife, the parent from the child; they are loaded with every indignity; the utmost quantity of labor is exacted from them, and the most meager fare that human nature can possibly subsist on is doled out of them. The slave population is composed of a great variety of classes. The descendants of those who have been taken prisoners in time of war; persons who have been kidnapped from the neighboring states; people who have been born under such circumstances as that they are considered without the pale of ordinary castes; and others who have been smuggled in from the coast of Africa, torn from their country and their kindred; and destined to amore wretched lot, and; as will be seen, to a more enduring captivity than their brethren of the Western world. Will it be believed that Government itself participates in this description of property; that it actually holds possession of slaves, and lets them out for hire to the cultivators of the country, the rent of a whole family being two farms, or half a rupee, (about $3.50, the hire of a slave and his whole family) per annum?
“But why dwell on these comparatively free slaves? The whole of Hindoston [sic], with the adjacent possessions, is one magnificent plantation, peopled by more than one hundred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of gentlemen in England, called the East India Company, whose power is far more unlimited and despotic than that of any Southern planter over his slaves; a power upheld by the sword and bayonet, exacting more and leaving less of the product of their labor to the subject race than is left under our own system, with much less regard to their comfort in sickness and age.”
[Asiatic Journal for 1838, p.221.]
As startling as these disclosures are, the whole story is not yet told. England has not only engaged in a hypocritical crusade against slavery at the time she is herself the greatest slaveholder in the world, but she has absolutely made the act of her Parliament for the abolition of the slave trade the means of converting her national navy into slaves, as I shall show. For the following facts I am indebted to an article on the Southern Literary Messenger, written by Lieut. Maury, of the U. States Navy:
“We have the authority of Mr. Barreyer, of he French Chamber, who stated it in a recent speech, that in June of last year, the British Government issued an ‘Order in Council’ to authorise [sic] the importation into Demarara of one hundred thousand hired negroes from Africa. And, in confirmation of this statement, late arrivals bring us in the ‘Semaphore de Marseilles,’ the report of the master of the French merchantman who, not four months ago, saw in the river Gambia an English vessel of 500 tons take in a cargo of 500 Africans for the English colonies. – These poor ignorant creatures engage for they know not what, and ship for they know not where. Charmed with a hawk’s bell, and dazzles with a string of glass beads, they are enticed sway beyond the seas; and the ties which bind them to kindred and to country are as effectually severed, though, perhaps, not as rudely broken, as if they had fallen in the hands of the kidnapper. Being ignorant of their rights in a civilized land, they are liable to the most cruel wrongs; as slaves, their owner would have the inducement to self-interest to preserve them, his property, from wanton injury; nay more, with the master, who, in his conduct to his slaves, is governed by no higher motive, there are inducements of a pecuniary nature to secure that consideration in the treatment of slaves which will preserve their health so as not to impair their efficiency as laborers. But as bondmen and apprentices, the object of such an one, and there are many such, obedient to the mercenary disposition of man, is to get out of them all he can. What then is the condition of the hired savage during his long and cruel apprenticeship, many times worse than that of the slave? And, when he has cancelled his indenture, wherein is he better off? He has then but just made the last payment for the privilege of being brought over for hire in a ship crowded to suffocation. Our laws will not allow a ship to bring into the country more passengers than two to every five tons of measurement. But the humane ‘Orders in Council’ can find in a vessel of 500 tons, with more than half her room monopolized by her officers and crew, ample accommodation for five hundred wild Africans who have never known restraint. Tell us not that it is ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ that moves that Government to action.
“To show that the motives which operate with the officers are no better than those ascribed to their Government, we subjoin an extract from a paper published in the last Maryland Colonization Journal. It is from the pen of Dr. Hall, an eminent philanthropist, who has been much on the African coast in connexion [sic] with the business of the Colonization Societies of this country. He tells what he saw:
“The late commandant of the station, Lord George Russell, was most of the time in a state of intoxication, consequently unfit for the transaction of any business; and with such a head it cannot be supposed that the under officers would deport themselves over correctly. The prize money received by the officers and crew, in case of a successful capture, operated as a strong inducement to seize whatever came in their way. The apparent object of all the officers of the squadron under Lord Russell was the making successful and rich captures, rather than suppression of the slave trade. An instance in proof came under our own observation. The commander of a cruiser (either the Forester or the Wanderer,) boarded a small schooner which lay at anchor near our vessel, and afterwards boarded us. He stated that the schooner had enough on board to condemn her, but she was old and would not pay him for taking her to Sierra Leone; he would wait and watch her until she had taken on board her slaves, which would much increase their prize money, and then capture her. She lay off for a day or two for that purpose, but in the night the schooner took on board her slaves, and went to sea. Our brig., the Trafalgar of this port, was boarded by a boat from the Forester, our papers examined, and a permit demanded for having on board oil casks. – We informed him, that our port regulations required no such permit. He disputed, and said, when the Forester came up, the brig. Should be captured and taken to Sierra Leone. It was thought best to leave the cruising ground of the Forester before she came up, and we accordingly put out. A few weeks after, on visiting that section of the coast again we discovered a vessel early in the morning, close in shore, getting under way. She soon made sail, headed for us and fired a gun. There being many vessels in sight, we were not sure the gun was for us, and being within three miles of our anchorage ground, and the light land breeze gradually dying away, thought best to keep under weigh, having hoisted our ensign. The vessel then passed an 18-pound shot directly under our main yard, within a few feet of the man at the helm. We then laid too until the officer boarded us. He again examined our papers, demanded the same permit for the casks which he had before informed him we were not required to obtain. He examined the hold, found one hundred bushels of rice, and declared the brig. a prize, the rice a sufficient evidence of her character as a slaver. The Forester came up, and the commander came on board, examined papers and hold likewise, and a council was held whether or not to declare the whole a prize. We stated to them the abundant evidence before them that we were the owners of the vessel, that we were well known as regular American trader, that we had been in an important public station on the coast to their knowledge, and they well knew from many sources other than the papers of the vessel that she was bonafide [sic] American property and engaged in lawful traffic. The answer was, we well know that; but the only question is, cannot we get her condemned on account of the rice?”
Now, (said Mr. B.) I assert, with a perfect knowledge of the subject upon which I am speaking, that this species of the slave trade, introduced by the English Government, in the form of apprenticeship, is the more profitable to the master, and more galling to the slave, than any which can possibly be imagined. Let us look at the operation of it. It has been seen from the publication made by Dr. Hall, that the English, in carrying on their slave trade, do not purchase the negroes, as other slavers do, but they capture them. Under the English act abolishing the slave trade, $7 is given to the captors for every slave taken. They are taken in and condemned, and then carried to Brazil and the West Indies, and sold as apprentices, for a term of seven years. These poor creatures are taken to a country whose laws they do not understand, and whose language they do not speak, and for a long time will be incapable of learning. Who is to see, during their apprenticeship, that they are treated well, and care taken of them in sickness? The master has no interest in them, but for seven years, and his object will be to get as much out of them as possible, in the mean time, and incur as little expense as possible in taking care of them. And, when the apprenticeship expires, who is to identity them, and see that they are discharged? I may be told that a registry is provided for. But what registry can protect them? Let me illustrate: There is a plantation with one hundred of these wild Africans upon it. Who can distinguish one from another? They will be so much alike it will be impossible. A stranger had just as well undertake, after the lapse of seven years, to distinguish the different sheep in a large flock.
Sir, this is not speculation. The impossibility of the thing has been tested in our own courts. – The following are the facts in the case of the Antelope: A privateer, called the Columbia off the coast of Africa, captured an American vessel, from Bristol, in Rhode Island, from which she took twenty-five Africans; she captured several Portuguese vessels, from which she also took Africans, and she captured a Spanish vessel called the Antelope, in which she also took a considerable number of Africans. All of the Africans captured were shipped on board the Antelope. Thus freighted, she was found hovering near the coast of the United States, was captured by the revenue cutter Dallas, and taken into Savannah for adjudication. The Africans, at the time of her capture, amounted to upwards of two hundred and eighty. Claims were set up to the Africans by the Spanish and Portuguese vice consuls respectively and by the United States. – The claim of the United States, under the law for the abolition of the slave trade, was sustained as to the portion taken from the American vessel. The residue were divided between the Spanish and Portuguese claimants. About one-third of the negroes had died. It was impossible to distinguish the several classes of Africans; and the court decided that the loss should be averaged among the three different classes, and that sixteen should be designated by lot from the whole number, and delivered over to the Marshal of the United States, as a fair proportion of the twenty-five proved to have been taken from the American vessel.
Now, Sir, what will be the operation in practice? Whenever one of these apprentices shall become disabled, or die, they will be sure to make it out that he was one whose apprenticeship was expiring; whereas, the apprenticeship of such as shall continue valuable will never expire. The consequence will be the master will always hold the profitable, and get rid of such as may be otherwise. And, I repeat, it will be the most profitable slavery which has ever been introduced; and this British philanthropy. Here Mr. B. was cut short by the fall of the chairman’s hammer, and he concluded by saying that, at his leisure, he should make a full report of his argument.
[AMB]
Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p4c6
PLAN TO DEFEND TEXAS, AND TO DIVIDE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEW YORK
The election of two senators of the United States from the State of New York is to take place this day. The contest among the candidates produces great excitement at Albany. The result is everywhere anticipated with great anxiety. The fate of Texas materially, perhaps essentially, depends upon the selection.
It is impossible to shut our eyes also to the fact, that the Whigs are busily engaged in an intrigue, to employ this question to divide the Republicans of New York. The following letter speaks for itself. We extract it from one of the rankest. Federal papers in the Union – and the reader will see with what anxiety a Coalition is pressed between the Whigs of the New York Legislature, and a portion of the Democrats, (whom he calls by the cant term of barn burners,) for the purpose of electing “two Anti-Texas Loco” Senators. The objects of this movement are, 1st, to defeat Texas in the Senate altogether, by substituting two Anti-Texas Senators instead of two friends of Texas; 2d, to defeat Texas in the House, by encouraging the trimmers and Doctor Doubters in that body to go against it; and, 3d, and not the least desirable object to the Whigs, is to sow dissension and division in the Republican Party, and prepare the way for their defeat in New York – and next in the Union, and usher in the thrice defeated, but only “postponed,” Harry of the West, four years hence. But here is the significant letter – let it speak for itself:
[Correspondence of the New York American.]
“Washington, Jan. 11, 1845.
“My dear Sir: -- I have seen no occasion thus far this winter to trouble you with any of my excogitations about Texas. All those channels of information are now open to you, and I know you think and write rightly on this subject. My only purpose now is to throw out a few hints which I took the liberty to communicate to a friend, now a member of your House of Assembly, and which have occurred to me from observing what has passed here during two or three days.
“We are now at the great crisis in this controversy. It is not enough that the Senate is sure to block any game of annexation that may be played in the House. That they are certain to do. But two things are necessary to ensure us a permanent triumph.
1st, the defeat of the measure in the present House; and 2d, the election of Young and Barker, or two men of kindred opinions, for Senators from your State. The first I am most happy to believe will be accomplished; and perhaps that will be enough. The Locofoco majority in the present House is said to be 65. I may over-estimate the moral effect of a victory of the right against such a party preponderance as this, but I cannot but believe its effect on the next Congress as well as on the party in the country will be tremendous,- most especially if the Legislature of your State shall throw its weight in the manner I have indicated. The conclusion from these suggestions is, that the whole matter now rests with New York. On her alone depends the great question of Texas or no Texas. Is it possible, that on a question of this magnitude, the mandate of a Legislature caucus is to be obeyed? Look at it. Your House has 128 members, I believe. Thirty-five is a majority of the party in caucus. These 35 nominate in caucus two Senators, and by the rule of that body they control the whole 128! Can it be that Silas Wright will permit the Legislature of your State thus to speak on the Texas question, if he has the power to prevent it?
“Is there no such thing as a coalition between the Whigs and Barn Burners, by which two anti-Texas Locos can be chosen? If I were a member of the New York Legislature, it seems to me I would coalesce to elect the ---- himself, if he would go against annexation. The great thing is to cut the party cord which it has been feared would bind this issue to a Locofoco reign. The Locofocos from your State in the House are going to behave well with; at most I understand, some 5 or 6 exceptions – 18 at least are relied on. Will not this state of things here, when it comes to be understood at Albany; encourage the anti-Texas men of the party there, in standing out against the system of caucus dictation? Can it be, that there is any question of State policy that can weigh a feather, with the Whigs, in deterring them from any sort of affiliation for the time being, which may have the effect to throw rightly the weight of New York on this great national issue?
“I am uninstructed in regard to the state of feeling in your State, and these notions may seem very raw to you. Rely on it, however, that the crisis is at hand, and that New York is the great arbiter.”
We shall not repeat the statements which are published in the New York Herald, in its letters from Albany. These too speak of intrigues which we cannot believe to exist. These profess to name distinguished men, who are to be open-mouthed in their hostility