"Hamilton's Speech.--Continued From Our Last.," Telegraph and Texas Register, February 10, 1837

Summary: Summarized remarks made by several politicians concerning Texas annexation. Most of the article tries to refute arguments that Texas should not be annexed for reasons of slavery or their own decision to be under a despot government in Mexico. The speakers mainly argued that Texians have always been under republican institutions and only revolted after Mexico abandoned those principles. Therefore, they deserved to be able to join the United States with all of their property, including slaves. The editor also summarized the exploits of some of the speakers, especially Mr. Poinsett and Mr. Ward.

Before calling for the question, he would say one word in regard to the Report he had had the honor to present to the senate. It would be seen that it was drawn in the most guarded manner. It neither recommended the recognition of the independence of Texas or her admission into the Union. These subjects were referred and left to the departments of the Federal Government, to which they appropriately belong.

On these points he did not feel himself called upon to express an opinion. But he would ask those who were disposed to pursue a narrow and selfish policy towards Texas; he would ask the planters of the South, who may apprehend the extreme peril of another gigantic competitor in the production of cotton, whether by refusing at the proper moment, when Texas was entitled under the law of nations, to the recognition of her independence and to have her application considered to become a member of our confederacy--they supposed that this would obviate all the difficulties and evils of this competition?--Would one refusal to recognize her independence, or admit her into the Union, in the language of the Report, "strike her from the map of the physical globe?"--Would it curse with an irreversible sterrility[sic] the teeming fertility of her exuberant soil? Would it cover with a blight the cotton plant which in that favored country grows almost with the perennial magnificence of a tropical production? Would our refusal check the current of her rivers in their journey to the ocean, freighted with the richest staples of the finest agricultural country, probably in the habitable globe? Would, in one word, our refusal to receive her as a member of this confederacy check that disastrous stream of emigration, that, without a reflux, is steadily setting west? No, no one jot. Let Texas once establish her independence, and a separate Republic, and throw open a series of free ports to the commerce of the world, and he would ask, whether the dangers of her competition would not be vastly augmented from the fact that, whilst her planters would make one third more cotton to the acre, than is produced on the richest Mississippi bottom, the exchanges on the commodities, destined to purchase the staples of Texas, would come into that country burthened with 30 per cent less of taxation.

In this view, the subject is scarcely less important and interesting to the merchant and manufacturer at the north. For what would become of their respective trades with millions of untaxed British navigation crowding the ports of Texas, and millions of British manufactures introduced through Texas, flooding the vast valley of the Mississippi. These momentous considerations would have, he believed, to be presented one day or other, and that perhaps not very distant, to the deliberations of the American people. He trusted that their decision would add fresh stability and harmony to the Union. It is true, that from the fact of Texas having engrafted domestic slavery on her institutions, that there has been excited against her that spirit of mischievous fanaticism which has been for some time so industriously at work, seemingly to dissolve our Union. And the ground has been taken, broadly, that she ought not to be admitted into our confederacy, by reason of this blot or stain, as it is called, on her civil and social policy. This ground for her exclusion would apparently authorize our own compulsory expulsion from the Union, upon the same principle. In whatever way this subject may be disposed of, and be trusted in God, it would be disposed of in a manner best calculated to promote the peace, happiness and prosperity of the country, there was one thing altogether certain, that the people of Texas were not the less entitled to our sympathy by having in common, interests with ourselves on this vital topic or had they less claims to our support, when it could be given consistently with our obligations of our own government, because they were singled out in advance as the victims of British and American fanaticism, in all the extremity of hostility to which its philanthropic disciples were prepared to enforce their sanguanary code of peace and good will to men. He would, however, detain the senate no longer, and with these few and imperfect remarks, move a concurrence in the Report of its committee, which would be equivalent to a rejection of the Report of the house of representatives.

MR. POINSETT said, that he should not have occupied the attention of the senate at this late and hurried period of the session, if he had not been called upon by his honorable colleague to corroborate the statements contained in this report; and he would in the explanations he had to give, be as brief as possible. He fully concurred in the report: but thought it his duty to state, that he was opposed to the passage of any reports or resolutions respecting the foreign relation of the United States. Expressing as they did the views and opinions of a state, they were entitled to great respect; but if, as was too often the case, they were the result of opinions formed upon incorrect information, they embarrassed the general government exceedingly. They were compelled to disregard them, and consulting only the interests of the country, to act in direct opposition to such resolutions, but they always did so with great relactance[sic].--To enable us to advise any particular course to the government, we must have the same means of information and employ agents and have correspondents abroad. The constitution wisely placed the power of conducting our foreign relations in the federal government, and there we ought to leave the responsibility, also. The circumstances of the report now under consideration illustrates this position and shows the impossibility of the strongest minds coming to a correct conclusion on such subjects without the requisite information. He hesitated not to assert that Governor McDuffie, in that part of his Message which gave [illegible word] to this report, would never have made such statements or used such language when speaking of the Texians, had he been aware of the facts in the case. His attachment to freedom and the rights of men and of States, and his well known abhorrence of injustice and oppression, forbid such a conclusion. If he had known the true history of the colonization of that country and of the present controversy, he would not have been at a loss to perceive what title the Texians have to the sympathies of the American people. The Governor says, that "under whatever circumstances of adventure, of speculation, of honor or infamy, the insurgents of Texas have emigrated to that country, they have forfeited all claim to our fraternal regard;" that "they left a land of freedom for a land of despotism with their eyes open, and deserve their destiny." Now, what are the facts? After the downfall of the imperial government and the death of Itrubide[sic], the republicans of Mexico thought they would best secure their liberties by following in the track of these United States; and they adopted verbatim et literatim our federal constitution. In the division of the country into states, the adjoining provinces of Coahuila and Texas were united and formed one of the nineteen free, independent and sovereign states, which, together constituted the Republic of the United Mexican States. As before the revolution, the Spanish Government has found it impracticable to keep in subjection the warlike hordes of Indians, which inhabited the country between New Mexico and the sea, or afford even the semblance of protection to the inhabitants of Texas, so the New Republic was compelled to leave them unprotected; and it not unfrequently happened, that the Indians appeared in armed bands before the towns and settlements of the whites and forced them to pay a tribute in arms, ammunition and clothing. The government of Mexico could not remedy this evil: it was obliged to husband its means and retain its forces at home, to repel the expected attacks of Spain. The only means of protecting Texas from the invasions of the Indians, that occurred to them, was to call in foreign aid. The Federal government, in conjunction with the state of Coahuila and Texas, passed a colonization law, inviting foreigners from every country to settle in Texas; giving them lands, admitting them to all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United Mexican States, and guaranteeing to them the possession of their property of every description, real and personal. So that the Americans, who emigrated to Texas, went from one free country to another, where they found the same constitution, the same bill of rights, the same privileges and immunities, and became citizens equally of a free state, the component part of a great confederation. It is true, as the Governor has said, that "when they became citizens of Mexico, they became subject to the constitution and laws of that country;" but it is equally true, that they are under no obligation, human or divine, to submit to the changes which military despotism might make in that government, or to acquiesce in those decrees which, in violation of the most sacred pledges, were issued to deprive them of their property.

The first net of injustice was a decree to emancipate the slaves throughout the Mexican states: a decree levelled against Texas alone, for it was well known that there were no slaves in the other states of Mexico. Mr. P. said, he well remembered that in the farce annually performed in the capital upon the anniversary of Mexican independence, of emancipating a certain number of slaves, said to be purchased of their owners by government for that purpose, they were obliged on more occasions than one, to bring forward the same negro performers, as there were no slaves within reach of the capital to emancipate. The blow therefore was aimed at Texas alone. The Texians declared this to be, as it really was, a violation of the compact, and refused to submit; and after some negociation, the Mexican government suspended the execution of the decree, as regarded Texas, but did not repeal it. Next came a change of government. By a short process, the hierarchy and aristocracy, aided by the army, abolished the federal government, deprived the states of all their rights and privileges, and erected a central despotism. This change, too, they resisted. A small, but resolute band, they resolved to defend their property, and maintain their freedom against the fearful odds which they knew would be brought against them. They had witnessed the fate of the patriots of Zacatecas[sic]--they had seen the armies of the despot sweep with resistless fury over that ill-fated land, and compelling that state to submit to the decree which deprived it of its free constitution. Still they determined on resistance, and the Satrap who had been appointed to rule over them, was sent out of the state with the soldiers who came to enforce his decrees. Without funds, without military organization, almost without arms and ammunition, they nevertheless resolved to resist the tyrant to the last. Are not men placed in such circumstances, and exhibiting under them the most heroic constancy and courage, entitled to our sympathies? He put it to honorable senators to say, whether we ought not to be the last people to speak of such men with contumely and scorn!

Ought we to imitate the conduct of the members of the British parliament, who condemned them in unqualified terms, while they accused this government of fermenting the revolution of Texas, in order to acquire possession of that territory. Mr. Ward who took the lead in that debate in the house of commons on the 5th August last, from the circumstance of his having been the British envoy in Mexico, asserted that the United States "had long regarded Texas with covetous eyes, and that to obtain possession of that province had been the first object of its policy"--now this opinion is contradicted by the fact that Mr. Adams might, if it had been judged expedient to do so, by Mr. Monroe's advisers, have obtained possession of it by treaty. There was no serious obstacle to his extending our boundary so as to embrace Texas, when he made the treaty of limits with Don Lewis Onis. It was an error--of which he became afterwards fully convinced. Mr. Ward said further, that he (Mr. Poinsett) had sought during their mutual residence there, to acquire Texas for his government, and had made proposals to purchase the territory for ten millions of dollars. This too, is a great mistake. He did not doubt that Mr. Ward had been so informed; but the intelligence he received on that occasion was erroneous and unfounded. The American government never made any overtures to Mexico for the purchase of Texas through him, nor during his residence there. Mr. Ward insinuated that those negociations were conducted through the former vice president of Texas, Don Lorenzo de Zavala, of whom he took occasion to speak disparagingly--"a man of talents certainly; but totally destitute of principle"--which simply means that he was not of the English party; but devotedly attached to republican principles--a devotion which he has displayed throughout all the trying scenes of the revolution in Mexico--In his youth he was immured four years in the dungeons of the castle of Ulloa, for having dared to murmur against the tyranny of Spain--upon the adoption of the constitution in that country in 1812, he was liberated and sent to Madrid by his countrymen to plead for the liberties of Americans, which he did fearlessly and eloquently. When the revolution took place that separated Mexico from the mother country, he returned home and placed himself in the first rank of those who sought to give republican institutions to his country; and when the last change took place, he indignantly returned his commission of minister to France to Santa Anna, and retired to his farm in Texas, declaring that he had received the appointment from a free government, and would not serve a tyrant. It appears from the observations of Lord Palmerston, that the British ministry entertained a better opinion of the conduct of our government than we do at home. He said in reply to Mr. Ward, that the United States had maintained a strict neutrality in the controversy between Mexico and Texas, and had acted with the most perfect good faith toward both parties.

From what Mr. Poinsett had seen and knew of the policy of our government in this particular, he thought South Carolina might repose upon the wisdom and prudence of their councils. He presumed the same course would be pursued towards Texas, that had been pursued towards the states of Spanish America. When a government de facto existed there, capable of maintaining its independence, it would, he presumed, be recognized by this country. Such an act could not be regarded as a cause of war by Mexico. It had not been so considered by Spain; and when we recognized her revolted colonies, the amicable relations between the two countries, were not interrupted. To judge by the press, the country seemed to be alarmed at the sudden departure of Signor Gorostiza. In his opinion there exists no cause of alarm on that score. The cause assigned by that functionary for his sudden withdrawal from his mission, is too trivial to account for it satisfactorily. It is more probable that, learning the changes which are taking place upon the continued absence of Santa Anna, he was impatient to be on the scene of action; and unwilling to remain any lsnger[sic] where his merit and pretentions would be overlooked. If the annexation of Texas to these United States should become afterwards a question between us, and the proposal should come from them, he hoped it would be entertained by this country favorably. He believed that the best interests of this country would be consulted by the adoption of such a measure. If the time of the senate permitted, and it were a question fitting to be entertained here, he thought he could prove conclusively, that the interests of the whole Union and especially of the South, required, that Texas, if once separated from Mexico, should be annexed to these United States.

Mr. P. said, that his colleague had brought to the attention of the senate, some circumstances connected with his negotiations, which, although substantially correct, required to be more fully detailed to be understood by honorable members. The treaty between the United States and Mexico was negotiated by him, and in the course of the negociation a provision was inserted after great opposition from the Mexican plenipotentiaries, that fugitive slaves from our southern States should be restored to their owners, by the Mexican authorities. This provision of the treaty was struck out in the house of representatives of the Mexican congress. One of the deviations of that government from our constitution, being, that treaties have to be ratified and agreed to by both branches of the Mexican legislature.--Mr. P. regarded this provision of the treaty as of the utmost importance, and procured it to be sent back to the house, by the senate; all his efforts, however, proved unavailing, and he declared that he would rather have no treaty than accept it thus mutilated. The absence of such a provision would prove a fruitful source of border ravages and war; for our planters never would submit to have their property wrested from them by the interposition of the Mexican authorities; but would follow their fugitive slaves over the border and seize them wherever they could find them.--in this respect we had every thing to fear if Mexico remained our neighbor; for the present government, essentially royal in all its features, is inimical to this republic. Mr. P. said he knew the men now in power, and was well aware the United States were not in favor with them. They were jealous of our prosperity and dreaded the bright example of our republican institutions. He had seen it announced with great satisfaction, that the captive of San Jacinto had been released.--He regarded this act as generous, magnanimous and politic, and hoped the Texians would reap the fruit of this honorable conduct. The result of the contest between Mexico and Texas was, as truly said in the Report on your table, in the hands of Providence. He thought it too probable, that the Texians may be driven from their homes by the overwhelming forces preparing to march against them, but sir! the Mexicans cannot keep possession of that State--that government cannot maintain a large standing army at so great a distance from the capital. They would be compelled to withdraw it in a short time, and the Texians will re-occupy the country. To Mexico this is a perilous contest. Their retreating forces may be followed to the centic[sic] of their fertile fields. This danger is the more imminent as all the States north of Tamaulipas[sic] are essentially republican, and have submitted unwillingly to the repeal of their free institutions.--Whatever reverses Texas is still destined to undergo, if that people continue firm and united, they must ultimately be free. Mr. P. said they had his sincere prayers for their success.

On the motion being put for the adoption of the report of the senate, it was carried without a division by a large majority.

Source Copy Consulted: "Hamilton's Speech.--Continued From Our Last.," Telegraph and Texas Register, February 10, 1837, p. 1