CHAPTER XVIII.

1845-1846.

Admission of Texas-Oregon-Letter to his Wife-Discussion in the Senate with Allen-Letter of B. W. Leigh.

R. CRITTENDEN said: I rise to address the Senate

ing that body. The subject under discussion is one of immense magnitude, not only involving the question of the extension of this Union but that of the preservation and duration of the great charter, the Constitution, upon which this confederation rests. I could have forborne the expression of my opinions had it not appeared important to other senators to make known their views. I am not willing to let my silence be attributed to any backwardness to avow my sentiments openly.

Mr. Crittenden then stated the principles of the joint resolution under consideration, and instituted an inquiry into the grand powers of the Constitution upon which the action of Congress was now invoked. He proposed first to examine the arguments upon which it was assumed that the power granted in the fourth article of the Constitution extended to the admission of States, erected out of foreign territory or foreign States already formed. In pursuing this examination, he should confine gentlemen who designated themselves par excellence strict constructionists to their own doctrine. He quoted the provision of the fourth article that new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, and commented upon the construction which alone should be the guide of legislation, and asked how could the express grant be applied as the friends of annexation applied it without opening it up to such a latitudinous construction as would be wholly at war with the nature of the instrument in which it is found and the natural inference of the intention of the framers of the Constitution. Can it be imagined by any candid and dispassionate mind,-a mind divested

of predilections to arrive at a foregone conclusion,-that if it had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument to authorize the admission of foreign States or foreign territory by act of legislation, they would have left such a vast and important power indefinite and hidden in mysterious expressions, wholly dependent upon construction and interpolation? To suppose this is to suppose what is contrary to all reason. Was it to be believed that the wise, jealous, and cautious men who weighed and deliberated upon the grants of power so long and so carefully would, if they intended that foreign States and foreign territory should be admitted by Congress at its discretion, have forborne the expression of their intention in clear and explicit terms which could not be misunderstood?

Mr. Crittenden reviewed at considerable length the arguments urged throughout this debate by the friends of annexation, commenting on each and dissenting from all, and in many instances insisting that gentlemen had wholly misapprehended the authorities upon which they relied. He did not intend to undertake the task of defining the exact line of demarkation between the legislative and treaty-making power; he agreed with the senator from Alabama, Mr. Bagby, "that there is a line." It would be sufficient for him to show that the acquisition of territory was confined exclusively to the treaty-making power. He quoted Justice Story's definition of the power to make treaties. It might be that some part or portions of the subjects enumerated by Justice Story may be regulated by law. Justice Story says the treaty-making power embraces the power of treating for peace or war, regulations of commerce or for territory. Did not, then, the treaty-making power embrace the case of acquiring territory? Mr. C. directed much of his review to the remarks of the senator from South Carolina, Mr. McDuffie. He quoted largely from the Federalist and authorities for the purpose of establishing his position that the power to admit new States into the Union was confined exclusively to the admission of States arising out of the bosom of the old thirteen States and territory in the neighborhood—the neighborhood meaning the territory belonging to the States, but out of the limit of the State confines. He next touched upon the limits of the treaty-making power, with a view of showing that,

from their very nature and their possible effects upon our foreign relations, the power was lodged where it ought to be lodged, in the executive and the Senate; and he argued that the experience of the government before the adoption of the Constitution had proved the inconvenience and impropriety of exercising the power of Congress. He denied the position. assumed by the senator from South Carolina that Congress has the power to declare war and make peace. Where was the power of making peace given to Congress by the Constitution? Would the senator tell him how Congress could make peace? Mr. McDuffie. Yes, sir, by disbanding the army and navy. Mr. Crittenden. That would not stop the war.

Mr. McDuffie. He did not presume the executive and Senate would undertake to carry on the war after Congress disbanded the army and navy.

Mr. Crittenden.-No, sir; but that would be a very good time for the enemy to carry on the war. [Great laughter.]

In the course of Mr. Crittenden's remarks, he referred to Mr. Jefferson's opinions concerning the power of acquiring territory. He maintained that if it can be acquired by this government, it must be exclusively through the treaty-making power. It was admitted by the senator from South Carolina that territory might be properly acquired by treaty; but it was denied by him that the acquisition of it belonged exclusively to the treatymaking power. Now he (Mr. Crittenden) held that if foreign territory can be properly acquired by the treaty-making power, it is exclusively by that power and that alone in this government that it can be acquired. He admonished the Senate to hold fast to the Union as it is,-not to attempt expanding its territory,--not to risk anything by hazardous experiments. He denounced the idea of grounding any course of policy upon apprehensions of the grasping power of England. He feared nothing from England or any other power: his fears were of the destruction of our own constitution and institutions by novel and dangerous experiments. His objections to the annexation of Texas were founded upon public considerations; some of these were passing away, they may yet be wholly removed. He feared at present this measure would disturb our foreign relations. It seemed to him unwise to act upon it now,-the peo

ple have not had an opportunity of expressing their will upon the subject at the ballot-box. The question was started for purposes of the presidential election since the people last appointed their representatives. Let the matter be postponed till the people can speak,-let its consummation be reserved for the incoming administration. To do this in an offensive way, at an improper time, and by unconstitutional means can excite nothing but hostility to the whole movement and its authors. This was a measure of the most vital importance to the country. Be patient and be just, and all may be well. The hand that grasps ambitiously, dishonestly, or unlawfully at the plunder of others, particularly when they are in a defenseless condition, is sure to be festered with the leprosy of dishonor and disgrace.

The question being taken on the motion of Mr. Berrien, Mr. Crittenden rose and said:

I wish to make a few remarks, and will not detain the Senate five minutes. According to the arguments which gentlemen on the other side had urged here, Congress has the power to admit new States into the Union, acquiring thereby not only the people, but the territory which they occupy. It is said that under the provision to admit new States Congress can admit foreign States; and if the argument of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Henderson) is correct, this power has been exercised in several instances, and North Carolina and Rhode Island were foreign States, admitted by the same power that could admit Texas or Mexico. The gentleman had traced the history of their admission, and the Senate had learned from him that no law was passed for their admission,-that they merely signified their approbation of our Constitution, elected senators and representatives, who appeared in Congress and took their seats; and from that time these States acted as portions of our Union. The argument from this was, that we may do the same thing in regard to Texas. Now, I call upon the gentleman to say of what manner of use is all this legislation upon this subject. Let Texas make a republican constitution; let her appoint senators and representatives, and she has a right to come into this Union and participate in our legislation and all the affairs of the government. This is the argument of the gentleman from Mississippi: "North Carolina was a foreign State; Rhode Island was a foreign State; Texas cannot be more than a foreign State." This was the inference: let Texas do just exactly as they did, and the work is complete. The syllogism is perfect, according to the rules of logic. The whole fallacy

consists in the utter groundlessness of the fact that these two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island, were foreign States. Let Texas read our history and the history of North Carolina and Rhode Island, and follow in their footsteps, and their senators and representatives may come here and take their seats by our sides. There was no occasion for her to ask for any law upon the subject,-none at all. "North Carolina and Rhode Island were foreign States; Texas is a foreign State;" and all that is necessary for her to do, according to the honorable senator, is to appoint her senators and representatives and come at once! He who could imagine that North Carolina and Rhode Island were foreign States, might easily imagine, if his imagination was true to itself, that Texas was a domestic State. To him legislation did not appear at all necessary; it would be derogatory to the rights of Texas, California, or any other State that had nothing to do but to send her senators and representatives here and become forthwith a member of the Union.

In the Senate, on 16th of December, 1845, the subject of advising the President to give immediate notice to Great Britain of the termination of the joint occupancy of Oregon Territory was under discussion. Mr. Crittenden saw no objection to the resolutions themselves, but he did not share in the apprehensions of the senator from Michigan, Mr. Cass, as to a war. The honorable senator, Mr. Cass, makes his inference as to war contingent upon the happening of other events,-upon the concurrence of other circumstances; his conclusion to be complete requires other facts, such as that Great Britain will at the end of the year take hostile possession of the whole of Oregon. Mr. Crittenden thought it might be fairly inferred that such a course would lead to war; and if Mr. Cass desired to make out a somewhat stronger case, let him suppose that Great Britain should land her forces and take possession of the city of Charleston, or Norfolk, or Baltimore. The meaning of the senator seemed to be that war would inevitably take place, provided grounds for war were hereafter supplied. Mr. Crittenden thought the diplomacy and wisdom of the country could certainly settle the boundary of a distant strip of territory without the shedding of blood; it was no question of honor or national character. If we are to give the notice, let us give it to take effect two years hence. Let us not, like a spiteful landlord, limit our tenant to the shortest possible time, but give