Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

a bill for the annexation of Texas, with the consent of Mexico. On the 10th of April, pursuant to notice, he brought in the bill, which authorized and advised the president to open negotiations with Mexico and Texas for adjusting boundaries, and annexing Texas to the United States, on the following bases:

1st. The boundary to be in the desert prairie west of the Nueces, and along the highlands and mountain heights which divide the waters of the Mississippi from those of the Rio del Norte, and to latitude 42 degrees north.

2d. The people of Texas, by a legislative act or otherwise, to express their assent to annexation.

3d. A state to be called “ Texas," with boundaries fixed by herself, and an extent not exceeding that of the largest state in the union, to be admitted into the union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the original states.

4th. The remainder of the territory, to be called “The South-west Territory," and to be held and disposed of by the United States as one of their territories.

5th. Slavery to be forever prohibited in the northern half of the annexed territory.

6th. The assent of Mexico to such annexation and boundary to be obtained by treaty, or to be dispensed with when congress may deem such assent unnecessary.

7th. Other details to be adjusted by treaty so far as they may come within the scope of the treaty-making power.

On presenting his bill, Mr. Benton spoke nearly two hours. He said his was not a new burst of affection for the possession of the country, as his writings a quarter of a century ago would testify. He disapproved the course of the executive in not having first consulted congress. The rejection of the treaty having wiped out all cause of offense to Mexico, he thought it best to commence again, and at the right end—with the legislative branch, by which means we should proceed regularly and constitutionally. As to the boundary, he had followed the basis laid down by Jefferson, fixing, as the limit to be adopted in settling the boundary with Spain, all the territory watered by the tributaries to the Mississippi, and bad made it applicable to Mexico and Texas. He did not attach so much importance to the consent of Mexico as to make it an indispensable condition, yet he regarded it as something to be respectfully sought for. But if it were not obtained, it was left to the house to say when that consent became unnecessary. He wished to continue in amity with Mexico. Those who underrated the value of a good understanding with her, knew nothing of what they spoke. Mexico

[graphic]

and to waylay and attack a friendly power with whom we have a treaty of amity; and as a member of a court martial, I would sentence to be shot any officer of the army and navy who should dare to attack Mexican troops, or ships, or cities, under that order. Officers are to obey lawful orders, and no others; and they are not to make war by virtue of any presidential orders, until congress has declared it.” Mr. B. proceeded at some length to contrast his bill with the treaty, from which, he said, it was as different as light from darkness. It was respectful to Mexico, requiring her to be consulted before, not after the treaty. It assumed her consent to be necessary now, in the present state of the question between her and Texas; but it supposed a time when it would not be necessary, and of which congress was to judge. The ratification of the treaty would have been the adoption, by the senate, of the war made by the president and secretary.

Mr. M'Duffie had taken exception to Mr. Benton's application of the word neophyte to the new friends of Texas. Mr. B. here indulged in a strain of mingled humor and satire. “The word can imply nothing offensive or derogatory. It is, indeed, a chaste and classic phrase, , known to the best writers, both sacred and profane. St. Paul uses it in his epistles, (the Greek copies ;) and, after naming him, no higher authority is wanted for what is gentlemanly and scholastic, as well as what is pious and Christian; but bring me a dictionary, (speaking to a page of the senate;) bring me Richardson, letter N, and see what he Бауѕ.”

The book was brought. Mr. B. read :

“ NEOPHYTE--In French, neophyte; in Italian, neofito; in Spanish, neophyto; Latin, neophytus; Greek, neophutos; from neos, new, and phuton, a plant, a new plant; figuratively, a new convert; one newly implanted (s. c.) in the church; and consequently, newly converted to the Christian faith; one newly initiated, newly introduced or employed."

“This (resumed Mr. B.) is Richardson's definition and etymology; and nothing can be more classic or innocent. It is pure Greek, only modified in sound and termination, in going through six languages; and, both literally and figuratively, has an innocent and decent signification."

After some farther play upon the meaning and application of this word, he proceeds: “But to be done with joking. The senator is certainly a new plant, and an exotic, in the Texan garden; and those friends of his, the defense of phom has called him from a sick bed to do what he has not done, defend them—a task which would indeed require 'angels and ministers of grace,' these friends of his, they are also new plants and exotics and strange plants in the same good garden; and of them I must say, moreover, what I cannot and will not say of him

[ocr errors]

they are intrusive, noxious, and poisonous weeds in that fair garden! I remember the time when they flung the whole garden, as a worthless incumbrance, away. And they enter it now, as the serpent did Eden, with deceit in the face and death in the heart."

Mr. Benton then proceeds to the discussion of the treaty; and in the course of his remarks, says: “The senator undertakes to answer my speech, but he avoids all the hard places. He says nothing of the two thousand miles of Mexican territory, (over and above Texas, and to which no Texian soldier ever went, except to be killed or captured,) and which, by the treaty is annexed to the United States. He says nothing about the private engagement for war against Mexico, and sending our troops to join president Houston. He says nothing about this open assumption of the purse and the sword; nothing about the admission of new states by treaty, without the consent of congress; nothing about the loss of Mexican commerce, and the alienation of all the South American states from our cause; nothing about the breach of the armistice, and breach of treaties with a friendly power; nothing about the Duff Green stories for making pretexts for predetermined conclusions; nothing, in fact, to the pregnant indications which show that the treaty was made, not to get Texas into the union, but to get the south out of it. He defends the feelings, not the doings of his friends. The great objections to the treaty are in its encroachments upon New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas; in its adoption of the Texian war; in its adoption of that war unconstitutionally; in its destruction of our trade with Mexico; in our breach of treaties, in the alienation of Mexico and all the South American states from us, our permanent loss of trade and friendship with those powers; and the seeds of disunion (dissolution of our union) so carefully and so thickly planted in it. Above all, he says nothing to the great objection to admitting new states by treaty—an act which congress only can do. These are the great ob. jections to the treaty; and all these the defender of the president and his secretary leaves undefended.

“The senator from South Carolina, in his zeal to defend his friends, goes beyond the line of defense and attacks me; he supposes me to have made anti-annexation speeches; and certainly, if he limits the supposition to my speeches against the treaty, he is right. But that treaty, far from securing the annexation of Texas, only provides for the disunion of these states. The annexation of the whole country as a territory, and that upon the avowed ground of laying it all out into slave states, is an open preparation for a Missouri question and a dissolution of the union. I am against that; and for annexation in the mode pointed out in my bill. I am for Texas—for Texas with peace and honor, and with the union. Those who want annexation on these terms should support my bill; those who want it without peace, without honor, and without the union, should stick to the lifeless corpse of the defunct treaty.”

The president, having been foiled in his scheme of annexation by treaty, appealed to the house of representatives, in a message, dated the 10th of June, two days after the rejection of the treaty, accompanied by the rejected treaty with the correspondence and documents which had been submitted to the senate. The president says in the message, that he does not perceive the force of the objections of the senate to the ratification. Negotiations with Mexico, in advance of annexation, would not only prove abortive, but might be regarded as offensive to Mexico and insulting to Texas. We could not negotiate with Mexico for Texas, without admitting that our recognition of her independence was fraudulent, delusive, or void. Only after acquiring Texas, could the question of boundary arise between the United States and Mexico, a question purposely left open for negotiation with Mexico, as affording the best opportunity for the most friendly and pacific arrangements. He asserted that Texas no longer owed allegiance to Mexico; she was, and had been for eight years, independent of the confederation of Mexican republics. Nor could we be accused of violating treaty stipulations. Our treaty with Mexico was merely commercial, intended to define the rights and secure the interests of the citizens of each country. There was no bad faith in negotiating with an independent power upon any subject not violating the stipulations of such treaty.

In view of the importance of the subject, he invited the immediate attention of the representatives of the people to it; and for so doing he found a sufficient apology in the urgency of the matter, as annexation would encounter great hazard of defeat, if something were not now done to prevent it. He transmitted to the house a number of private letters on the subject, from citizens of Texas entitled to confidence.

Much had occurred to confirm his confidence in the statements of Gen. Jackson, and of his own statement in a previous message, that “instructions had already been given by the Texan government to propose to the government of Great Britain forthwith, on the failure of the treaty, to enter into a treaty of commerce, and an alliance offensive and defensive." He also referred the house to a letter from Mr. Everett from London, which he seemed to construe into an intention to interfere with the contemplated arrangement between the United States and Texas. Although he regarded annexation by treaty as the most suitablc form in which it could be effected, should congress deem it proper to resort to any other expedient compatible with the constitution, and

« PreviousContinue »