SENATE.] Supplemental Speeches.-Distribution Question. tion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing class. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. I might well chal lenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race is among us commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor-houses in the most civilized portions of Europe--look at the sick and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor-house. But I will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There is and always has been, in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than those of the North. The advantages of the former in this respect will become more and more manifest if left undisturbed by interference from without, as the country advances in wealth and numbers. We have in fact but just entered that condition of society where the strength and durabil ity of our political institutions are to be tested; and I venture nothing in predicting that the experience of the next generation will fully test how vastly more favorable our condition of society is than that of other sections, for free and stable institutions, provided we are not disturbed by the interference of others, or shall have sufficient intelligence and spirit to resist promptly and successfully such interference. It rests with ourselves to meet and repel them. I look not for aid to this Government, or to the other States; not but there are kind feelings towards us on the part of the great body of the nonslaveholding States; but, as kind as their feelings may be, we may rest assured that no political party in those States will risk their ascendency for our safety. If we do not defend ourselves, none will defend us; if we yield, we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit, we will be trampled under foot. Be assured that emancipation itself would not satisfy these fanaticsthat gained, the next step would be to raise the negroes to a social and political equality with the whites; and that being effected, we would soon find the present condition of the two races reversed. They and their Northern allies would be the masters, and we the slaves; the condition of the white race in the British West India islands, as bad as it is, would be happiness to ours-there the mother country is interested in sustaining the supremacy of the European race. It is true that the authority of the former master is destroyed, but the African will there still be a slave, not to individuals, but to the community-forced to labor, not by the authority of the overseer, but by the bayonet of the soldiery and the rod of the civil magistrate. [FEB. 28, 1837. Surrounded as the slaveholding States are with such imminent perils, I rejoice to think that our means of defence are ample, if we shall prove to have the intelligence and spirit to see and apply them before it is too late. All we want is concert, to lay aside all party differences, and unite with zeal and energy in repelling approaching dangers. Let there be concert of action, and we shall find ample means of security, without resorting to secession or disunion. I speak with full knowledge and a thorough examination of the subject, and for one see my way clearly. One thing alarms methe eager pursuit of gain which overspreads the land, and which absorbs every faculty of the mind and every feeling of the heart. Of all passions, avarice is the most blind and uncompromising-the last to see and the first to yield to danger. I dare not hope that any thing I can say will arouse the South to a due sense of danger; I fear it is beyond the power of mortal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal security into which it has fallen. IN SENATE, FEBRUARY 28, 1837. Mr. CLAY said that he would trouble the Senate with but two or three words only. As to the question of fact, whether there would be a surplus or no surplus, that must depend on the extent of the assent given by the House of Representatives to the bills which bad gone from this body. As to the land bill, it was doubtful whether that would augment or diminish the receipts into the Treasury; but if the House should not assent to the bill reducing the tariff, and to the various appropriations rendered necessary by the bills which had passed the Senate, some of which were characterized by great extravagance, there certainly would be a large surplus on the 1st of January next. And here (said Mr. C.) let me observe, in reply to the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. CUTHBERT,] that I do not think he does justice to the members of the Senate who are usually designated as the opposition, when he supposes if they were in power they would themselves advocate the very measures which now they oppose. I certainly do not recollect a single measure to which this remark will justly apply. But let me ask the honorable Senator, in return, whether, if he or his friends were out of power, he would not feel himself called upon to oppose some of the measures to which he now yields his support? In reference to the army bill, for example, there is, in my opinion, no emergency which renders so great an increase of our military establishment at all necessary. There is not the slightest call for the numerous arsenals and armories which it proposes to establish, nor is there any more justification for the expenditure of the public money on a long list of useless fortifications. There are many other measures of a kindred character to which I do not think, in whatever attitude I might be placed, I could possibly give my assent. But in regard to the fact of surplus or no surplus, the question is perfectly free from all difficulty. Is there a surplus, this amendment provides for the distribution. Is there none, then the amendment is inoperative, and therefore perfectly harmless. And here let me call the attention of the Senate to a view of the subject which I think entitled to great weight. It has been suggested by gentlemen opposed to the amendment, that we had better wait until the next session; and then, if we find that any large surplus has accumulated, we can provide for its disposition by law. Very true. But the difference would be this: by making the provision now, we shall gain one entire year, during the whole of which time the money would bave remained in the possession of the deposite banks. Suppose we come here next session, and we find a surplus of ten or fifteen millions in the Treasury; some FEB. 7, 1837.] Supplemental Speeches.-Cession of Public Lands. [SENATE. vance the public good. In reference to Connecticut, and, indeed, to all the other States, though there has been a great variety in the manner of its application, I am fully persuaded it will be found to have redounded greatly to their benefit. But if any particular State shall prefer to leave the money in deposite banks, at an interest of two per cent., they are free to make such a disposition of it. measure is proposed as a proper disposition of it; be that measure what it may, it may be expected to produce much discussion; and, judging from all past experience, it will be weeks, and even months, before it will have passed through both Houses of Congress and received the executive sanction. Well; the money is to be taken out of the deposite banks, and applied as shall be then determined on. Now, what is the doctrine which was strenuously contended for during the discussion In reference to the objection urged by an honorable of the deposite bill of last session? Were we not Senator from Pennsylvania on my left, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] told that, as the public money had come gradually into I must confess that I do not perceive any great force in the possession of the deposite banks, so it must be per- it. And I must be permitted to observe that he was mitted to go gradually out; and that, if a very large one of the last from whom I should have expected to amount should be suddenly called for, great and ruinous hear an argument of that sort. He says, if we pass this pressure must be the inevitable consequence? The amendment, the effect will be to check the necessary same argument will be urged again. The deposite banks appropriations of the public money for purposes of the must have time, and the result will be that, do what we General Government. That it will, in its practical will, the bill will not in fact come into operation till Jan-operation, tempt gentlemen from the discharge of their uary twelvemonth. To save, then, the loss of an entire year, it is important that we should legislate now. If there is no surplus, the amendment can do no injury; if there is, we shall gain a year. It is, however, objected that there is no fitness, no congruity, in an amendment of this character to a fortification bill. But I ask, what subject was the House of Representatives legislating upon? Was it not an appropriation bill? And does not this amendment provide for an appropriation or disposition of the surplus revenue among the different States, for greater safety, that it may be ready whenever there shall be a necessity to call for it? Surely, then, there is a perfect congeniality between the object of the amendment and the nature of the bill. high duties as representatives of the entire people of the United States. But, I ask, has that been the fact? Has he seen any such influence exerted by the deposite bill of last year? What has been the character of the appropriation of public money by this body during the present session? Have not those appropriations been quite as large as at the last session? I do not object, however, to the fact only which his argument supposes, but to the principle on which it proceeds. Its fundamental principle is distrust in the people, and in their Representatives and Senators in Congress. Can it be doubted by any patriotic man that they will all perform their duty? Let a war come, and does not the honorable Senator believe that the members of this and of the other House will do all which it becomes men to do who The honorable Senator from Connecticut [Mr. NILES] are intrusted with the high duty of providing for the deis extremely unwilling to encounter the discipline of fence of their country? If his argument be well-foundpopular opinion, which he thinks the Senate have here. ed, it strikes at the very root of the Government, and tofore incurred, but that it has now redeemed itself would, if carried out, prevent all taxation. Do we not from the opprobrium of all its past errors, and is in a save to the people what we take off of taxation? His fair way to recover the approbation of public sentiment. argument, therefore, might be urged against having any Now, there is no gentleman on this floor who has re- Government at all, for the temptation he speaks of is in curred more frequently than he to the aristocratic fea- perpetual force, and operates alike against all taxation ture of this branch of the Government; and is it not ex- for the general good. But I find myself insensibly entraordinary that, when a disposition of the surplus rev-gaging in the discussion. I forbear, under a hope that enue is proposed and advocated by an aristocratic majority of this highly aristocratic body, it meets with his favor and support? But when the very same measure comes before him as originated by his democratic friends in the democratic branch of the Government, it finds with him no favor. The honorable gentleman will not place himself in an attitude to incur popular displeasure. I submit, then, whether in consistency he ought not to vote for this measure, now that it comes to him from a purer source, in the popular portion of the National Legislature. I hope he will be induced by this consideration to give a different vote from that which he seems to have indicated. As to the degree, however, in which the last distribution bill received the public approbation, there is, I believe, no difference of opinion. Every where that measure was hailed with acclamation. Not a single State has been found which will venture to refuse its quota of the deposites: That some difficulties should arise as to the best disposition of a fund thus suddenly thrown into the State treasuries, was to be expected. Some have given the money to towns, some have given it to banks, some to objects of internal improvement. Whether these dispositions of it were judicious, or otherwise, is, of course, a matter on which the opinions of individuals may differ. In my own State there was great diversity of opinion. But the money has finally been appropriated in a manner which must convince any candid mind that the distribution of the surplus was a beneficent measure, and eminently calculated to ad other gentlemen also will limit their remarks as much as possible, that we may at length get the question. IN SENATE, FEBRUARY 7, 1837.' CESSION OF PUBLIC LANDS. The bill limiting the sales of public lands to actual settlers being under consideration in the Senate of the United States, Mr. CALHOUN moved a substitute, ceding the public lands to the States within which they are situated, to those States, respectively, upon the condition of their paying the United States one third of the gross amount of the sales. In the course of the brief debate on the amendment, Mr. NORVELL observed that the substitute to the present land bill, just submitted by the bonorable Senator from South Carolina, presented a tempting and beautiful offer to the new States of this Union. If he believed, not that the Senator had seriously made the proposition, but that it would be seriously carried into effect by both Houses of Congress, he should be strongly disposed to accept it at once, and to give it his humble support, as one of the representatives from the new States. The bait presented to the new States was a gilded bait; and he, for one, should take it with pleas ure, if he did not apprehend that in the very act of swallowing it, when it would be too late for his safety, it would be withdrawn from him, and leave him in a lacerated condition. But, before he could consent to give up the bill which the Senate were about to pass-to SENATE.] Supplemental Speeches.- Reduction of the Tariff. its third reading, before he should be willing to surrender a certain and moderately good measure, just within his grasp, for the glimmering prospect of realizing a better boon, which might never be obtained, be wanted a guarantee that the splendid substitute presented to the new States would be successfully sustained and carried through Congress. That guarantee would be best secured by the passage of the present bill. Let that be passed; let the honorable Senator unite with its friends in its favor; let him then bring forward his substitute as a separate bill, and add to it a clause repealing all previous laws contrary to its provisions, and he would pledge himself to go with the Senator in the support of his proposition. He was extremely desirous to relieve the new States from the paramount sovereignty claimed by this Government over the territorial domain within their limits. As long as that sovereignty continued to be held and exercised over them, they were not in a condition of equality with the old States of this confederacy. They had not been admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever. They were subject to the paralyzing influence and control of the General Government in all their political movements. IN SENATE, FEBRUARY 24, 1837. Mr. DAVIS, in reply to Mr. RIVES, said he was anx ious to obtain the floor last evening, to set the honorable gentleman from Virginia and some others right in regard to his and their course here. He had listened to the reminiscences of the gentlemen from South Carolina and New York [Messrs. CALHOUN and WRIGHT] with some satisfaction, as to the history of the tariff of 1828, which had been denominated a bill of abominations. He, too, had a lively remembrance of what occurred. It is now said by those who ought to know about the matter, for they were parties in the transaction, that there was a political bargain made between the South and the Jackson party of the Middle and West, to frame a bill in such a manner as to force the New Englanders to vote against it, and then to throw on them the odium of defeating a measure of protection. The bill of 1828 was the fruit of this extraordinary compact. He was rejoiced to have this fact published from this place, that the country may be well assured of what it has hitherto hesitated to believe. [FEB. 24, 1857. condition than before they were touched, by imposing a heavy duty on wool. We were the more surprised, be cause nobody asked for increased duties on iron, steel, hemp, duck, ardent spirits, or any of the other articles, for they had most ample and liberal protection before, and the manufacturers appeared to be prosperous and happy; and while this was apparent, the suffering interest was neglected. The manufacturers of woollens asked for bread, and the committee offered them a stone. But our eyes began to open, and to be filled with light, when we saw the anti-tariff members of the South resist at every step all propositions to reduce these high and unnecessary duties; when we saw the singular anomaly of such persons recording their votes in favor of these extravagant rates; and when we saw the authors of this bill, and the persons who demanded its provisions, because they avowed themselves the warm friends of protection, resisting every proposition to place the woollens upon any better foundation. We must bave been worse than blind if we had failed to see that the design of all this was to compel us of the East, by the singular and obviously unjust and injurious provisions of the bill, to vote against it, and thus expose ourselves to be denounced by the press as the enemies of protection. We did see and understand that we were selected for political victims. The intrigue was too apparent not to be comprehended, and I am heartily rejoiced that the Sena tor from Carolina from this day forth makes it a part of the history of the country. The bill was to be defeated, he says, and by our votes. It was made for that purpose. The navigating interest, in its iron, cordage, and duck, was loaded with duties to attain that object. The woollens, for the same reason, were neglected. The South, to administer this unpalatable drug, voted to keep it as it was reported; believing we should be compelled, by the injustice to our interests, to vote against it, and then should be overwhelmed by the indignation of the Middle and the West, for killing a bill so eminently favorable to those sections of the country. Believing such to be the character and objects of the measure, our friends began to inquire whether it was not wiser to defeat the supposed intrigue by voting for this bill, and thus carrying it; for the power to do this lay in their hands. The Middle and West must vote for it, and the South against it. Our votes, added to either side, made a majority. For one, I did just as the Senator from Carolina says it was designed I should do; I voted against the bill, because, upon most mature reflection, I In 1827, the manufacturers of woollens found that they considered its provisions highly objectionable, because had lost a large portion of the advantage given to them, of the extravagances which marked its character, and I and designed to be secured by the act of 1824, by an act could not reconcile it with my views of public duty to of the British Parliament reducing the duty on wool; and support it. But enough of our friends differed from me the business declining under this unexpected state of to carry it, and I well remember the disappointment of things, they came here and requested Congress to place the South at this unexpected result. I well remember them on as good a footing as it was their purpose to do by that it was then openly said by some members, that they the act of 1824. This was all that was prayed for, and had been deceived and misled; for the bill was to be dethis was the only interest which asked for relief. Noth-feated if kept in the form in which it was reported. The ing was matured in 1827, and, therefore, they came with conjectures, as well as the declarations at that time, corthe same request in 1828. This year began a new Con- responded exactly with the disclosures of the Senator. gress, in which was a Jackson majority. It was com- Sir, I have adverted to this extraordinary piece of his. posed of all interests, tariff and anti-tariff, and the ques-tory for two reasons: first, to show that, while I have tion was, how should such a majority co-operate harmo been the steady friend of American industry, I am for niously? It was the public duty of some to advocate no exclusive policy, no unjust or extravagant measures. and others to oppose an increase of duty on wool. It has, in truth, been urged against me that, in the votes lens. The Senator from Carolina, who concurred with which I have given here, I have been found in bad comthat majority, now publishes as history what then was pany, because I stood on the record with the anti-tariff conjectured. We looked on with surprise and astonish- interest. The same accusation has been made against ment. The Senator from New York was one of the me that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Brows] Committee on Manufactures, and assisted to report that now makes against the Senator from South Carolina memorable bill. It came in loaded with duties on hemp, [Mr. CALHOUN] because he votes with us, and I suppose iron, steel, duck, ardent spirits, lead, molasses, grain, with about the same measure of justice. and many other articles; while woollens, though they had a nominal increase of duty, were left relatively in a worse Second. To prove to you that when political expediency calls for a victim, we are uniformly sacrificed. MARCH 1, 1837.] Supplemental Speeches.-Recognition of Texas. was so in 1828, in 1832, and is so now; we are not regarded as belonging to the great American family, unless our interests spread beyond our territory; what is local, or nearly so, may be traded away as emergencies require. The injustice of the bill of 1832 was not so glaringly manifest as that of 1828, but it was so strongly marked that I could not support it. I hope this piece of history will be borne in mind, and be an admonition that contracts marked by injustice, and recommended only as political expedients, may fail of their purpose, and bring down the injury designed for others upon the authors of the injustice. I will here dismiss this subject, and call the attention of the Senate to another matter, which it was my chief object to notice. Much has been said in this debate of the compromise act, and its obligations. My course or remarks here can never be very important, and therefore may well be forgotten; and I certainly would not allude to them, if I had not been personally appealed to in more than one instance, and reminded that this side of the House had given no pledges that it would adhere to that act. This had been put forth almost in the language of taunt, as if we were not frank and manly. Whoever has or will give himself the trouble to inquire, will find that my sentiments are not concealed. My vote upon that act is recorded, and my sentiments then delivered are in print among the debates of the day. I was among those who differed from the distinguished Senator of Kentucky; and while I have made no profession of a change of opinion, I have so far acquiesced in the provisions of the law as to yield to its provisions as the sense of the country. I am not aware of having given countenance, by acts or opinions, to any disposition to disturb it, nor have those who usually co operated with me. We are not, therefore, chargeable with bad faith in any point of view. We yield our obedience to the work of others, leaving the measure to work out all the good it may. It has thus far produced tranquillity, and raised hopes of a steady course of legislation, which in itself is one of the great elements of prosperity. We make no complaints-no movement for changeand give countenance to none. Why, then, are we called upon for pledges? Are not our acts satisfactory? Have we made any declarations in conflict with them? If so, let them be pointed out. But who is it that demands pledges? The Senator from Georgia [Mr. CUTHBERT] has repeatedly observed that he hears no pledges from this side of the House. The Senator from Virginia turns to me, and to the chair of my colleague, (for he was not in it,) and says he hears none. The Senator from Georgia is one of the committee who reported this bill, acknowledges the paternity, and gives it a warm and zealous support here. The Senator from Virginia told us, in his place, that it had his approbation and support. The chairman [Mr. WRIGHT] and another member [Mr. BENTON] have distinctly avowed that they wholly disregard the compromise. They tell us, also, what we should know without their declarations, that this bill does violate the compromise in the most explicit and unequivocal terms. Nothing can be plainer than the truth of this declaration, as I fully proved the other day. How stands the matter, then? We observe the law make no propositions to alter it-express no dissatisfaction--while those who ask for pledges have come to the deliberate determination to disregard and violate its provisions, and bring forward a bill for that avowed purpose, giving it a zealous support. What do these gentlemen want of pledges? Are they anxious to have us pledge ourselves to support a law which they wish to prostrate? Are they so absurd as to ask for pledges to VOL, XIII,-138 [SENATE. a course the opposite of their own sentiments? Do they desire to array opposition to a bill they approve? Do they demand pledges of us to observe the compromise act, while they declare here, in the face of the country, that nobody is bound by it? If such be the object of demanding pledges, the gentlemen are singularly absurd and inconsistent with themselves. If they turn their reflections upon their own conduct and opinions, they cannot be insensible as to the position in which they place themselves. They voted for the bill--I against it; when I propose to violate it, let gentlemen make their arraign ment. That will be seasonably enough. But, sir, I have another answer to this demand for pledges. I have no power or authority to pledge Massachusetts to any course of policy which is prospective. She does not send me here to make bargains to dispose of her great interests for a term of years. She holds herself at liberty to approve or disapprove of my acts, as she may deem them wise or unwise; and if I were to make pledges, she would hold herself in no respect bound by them. In addition to this, I knew her Legislature had this subject under consideration, and that the sentiments of that numerous body just elected from the people would probably be expunged. Under such circumstances, it would be singular assumption in me to attempt to speak for the State; and even if I had seen a propriety in sending in pledges under other circumstances, I should have felt myself restrained while the subject was agitated in the Legislature. Since the adjournment of last evening, I have received an official copy of the doings of that body, in the form of a protest, which, at a proper time, I shall present to the Senate, and Massachusetts shall speak for herself. My colleague can speak for himself in this matter. I have deemed it my duty to repel this demand of pledges, and to inform the Senate and the country of the circumstances which belong to it; and I entertain no doubt that we shall hear no more of the matter, for I have nothing to disguise, or conceal, or retract. There is no want of the most explicit frankness. If it be the pleasure of gentlemen to violate that act, let them not seek an apol ogy in my opinions. They have taken their own course, independent of me. I am not answerable for this act, or the principles it involves. Its paternity is certain, and those who ask for pledges have made their minds up to carry it forward without regard to us. Their course is in no respect influenced by my conduct, and if I were now to give pledges of adhering to the com. promise act, not one of them would change his course, or make his opinions dependent on mine. Let them not seek to find an apology for their course in my not giving in pledges. If they are willing to be governed by my opinion, let them say so; but no one places the matter on that ground; no one says he will stand by the pledges; but, on the contrary, all avow the purpose of sustaining the bill. IN SENATE, MARCH 1. RECOGNITION OF TEXAS. The following resolution, moved by Mr. WALKER, coming up for consideration as the order of the day, viz: "Resolved, That the State of Texas having established and maintained an independent Government, capable of performing those duties, foreign and domestic, which appertain to independent Governments, and it appearing that there is no longer any reasonable prospect of the successful prosecution of the war by Mexico against said State, it is expedient and proper, and in perfect conformity with the laws of nations, and the practice of this Government in like cases, that the independent political existence of said State be acknowledged by the Government of the United States" SENATE.] Supplemental Speeches.-Recognition of Texas. Mr. WALKER said that no one could be more conscious than he that it would be unpardonable to take up the time of the Senate unnecessarily, at such an hour of the session, and he should therefore be as brief as possible in the remarks with which he deemed it his duty to accompany the resolution he had had the honor to submit. He should confine himself strictly to those points which it was necessary to touch, without indulging in a train of remarks to which they would very naturally lead, and which at another time, and under different circumstances, might with propriety be made. In the first place, he would call the attention of the Senate to the position in which Texas had been placed by the action of Congress at the last session. After considerable discussion at that time, the subject had been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, who had reported to the Senate a resolution declaring that the independence of Texas ought to be recognised as soon as authentic information should have been received, by the Executive, that it was possessed of a civil Government, and was capable of assuming the responsibilities and discharging the duties of an independent Power. This resolution had been deliberately and with perfect unanimity agreed to by the Senate, the yeas being 39, and the nays none. The same resolution had been agreed to in the House of Representatives, by a vote of 128 to 20. It was, therefore, the opinion of this Government, at that time, that the independence of Texas ought to be acknowledged so soon as the information referred to should have been received. This (said Mr. W.) renders it unnecessary for me to go into the merits of the difficulty between Mexico and Texas; that resoJution put the question on the proof of a fact. It is now, therefore, a mere question of fact; and as such I shall treat it. Let me call the attention of the Senate to the origin of the existing state of things in that country. After the downfal of Iturbide, a republican constitution was put in operation in the Mexican confederacy, and Texas, as one of the members of that confederacy, was included under it. A colonization law was passed, which invited persons from all parts of the globe to come and partake of the privileges of citizenship in this new republic, especially the inhabitants of the United States. In the preamble to that law it was given as a reason for passing it, that it was very important to secure the frontiers of Mexico against the irruptions and ravages of the savage tribes in the vicinity. It was, therefore, for the advantage and benefit of Mexico herself that foreigners should enter the territory; and they did so, under the most solemn guarantees of civil and religious liberty. They went there in the faith of these assurances; they conquered the wilderness; and they expelled the Indians, and drove them to a great distance from their settlements. In process of time they became a State, and elected a Legislature. But what was then done by Mexico? By the audacity of a military dictator, the free constitution of that republic was subverted, and the Congress, who represented the people, and sat by their authority, was, by force of arms, turned out of doors. Another Legislature was set up in their place by the dictator, consisting of a single House, and prepared to comply with whatever might be his pleasure. The people of Texas resisted this usurpation; but they were not alone in withstanding it. The banner of freedom was raised at the same time by the people of Zacatecas, who inherited the same noble blood. They were, however, overthrown in the contest, and consequently removed to Texas. After the Congress had been forcibly turned out of doors, a proclamation was issued, ordering the disarming of the population, and requiring an unqualified submission, on their part, to a military despotism. They resisted the enforcement of this order and never [MARCH 1, 1837. would I have uttered a word in favor of their recognition if they had not. Had they tamely submitted to such an act of oppression, they would have been unworthy of the name of Americans. Had they bowed their necks to the yoke, and submissively yielded up their limbs to the chain, I would never have voted to welcome them among the nations of the free. Suppose the President of these United States should enter the halls of Congress, seize our persons, and drive us from our seats, and occupy them with his creatures; suppose he should then send out a band of mercenaries into Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, should disarm our citizens, and demand of them, with threats, an unqualified submission to his absolute will; I ask whether there lives a man so abject as not to resist? No. I know, all men know, that the people of those States would maintain their freedom, or perish in the struggle. The citizens of Texas have done just what would have been done, in the like case, by citizens of the United States. We did so in circumstances far less intolerable. The colonial oppression of the Government of Great Britain was mild, was paternal, in comparison with the despotism that was sought to be fixed on the necks of the citizens of Texas. Their resistance of it was justified by all laws, human and divine. The next question is, whether, having resolved on independence, they have been able to maintain it. What have we seen? We have seen two successive invasions of their territory, and both successfully resisted. The first was under General Cos; he was taken prisoner, and liberated on parole. Then came the enterprise of Santa Anna, who entered Texas at the head of eight hundred fine troops, the elite of the Mexican army. After the conquest of Goliad, and the sanguinary battle at the Alamo, he was overthrown by a handful of Texian troops under General Houston, and remained a captive in the hands of those whose friends and relatives he had treacherously and inhumanly murdered. This happened twelve months ago, and yet no hostile foot has trodden the Texian soil, nor has hostile fleet appeared upon its shores. Their army has complete possession of the seaports and of all the interior; nor has any attempt been made by the Mexican forces to rescue their favorite chief or to redeem their honor. Why? Has not sufficient time elapsed? How much longer must we wait? For twelve months more? Or till Mexico shall recognise their independence? Or do not justice and truth demand that we should, without further delay, admit the fact of their independence? What greater evidence of it do we ask? They possess the entire territory; the laws are regularly administered; the Congress which enacts them have met twice; and all things are as peaceful and orderly as within our own happy and favored republic. What, then, is the question of recognition? It is a question of fact. We must answer yes or no--either that Texas is independent, or that it is still a part of Mexico. Are Congress prepared to spread such an untruth upon their records? Would you now negotiate with Mexico on the ground that Texas constitutes a part of that country? Here let me call the attention of the Senate to one important fact, viz: that the present central Government of Mexico never has exercised any authority whatever in Texas. No, not for an hour. It is a despotism which she has resisted; she has never for a moment obeyed it. Why should we refuse to acknowledge what is true? We have been told by the President that another invasion is threatened by Mexico. True. But are we to be governed by threats? Are threats to constitute a reason why we may not recognise the independence of a revolted province which has maintained its freedom? If so, then we should never have recognised the independence of Mexico; for she has, so late as within three years past, been threatened |