Page:Webster and Hayne's Celebrated Speeches.djvu/101

Rh dismemberment of Mexico. The same northern democracy entirely voted against it. He did not get a vote from them. It suited the views, the patriotism, the elevated sentiments of the northern democracy to bring in a world here, among the mountains and valleys of California and New Mexico, or any other part of Mexico, and then quarrel about it; to bring it in, and then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the Wilmot proviso. There were two eminent and highly-respectable gentlemen from the north and east, then leading gentlemen in this Senate: I refer—and I do so with entire respect, for I entertain for both of those gentlemen in general high regard—to Mr. Dix, of New York, and Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, who voted for the admission of Texas. They would not have that vote any other way than as it stood; and they would not have it as it did stand. I speak of the vote upon the annexation of Texas. Those two gentlemen would have the resolution of annexation just as it is, and they voted for it just as it is, and their eyes were all open to it. My honorable friend, the member who addressed us the other day from South Carolina, was then secretary of state. His correspondence with Mr. Murphy, the chargé d’affaires of the United States in Texas, had been published. That correspondence was all before those gentlemen, and the secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence that the great object sought by the annexation of Texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the south. Why, sir, he said, in so many words

Mr. . Will the honorable senator permit me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. . Certainly.

Mr. . I am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable gentleman; but, upon a point of so much importance, I deem it right to put myself rectus in curia. I did not put it upon the ground assumed by the senator. I put it upon this ground—that Great Britain had announced to this country, in so many words, that her object was to abolish slavery in Texas, and through Texas to accomplish the abolishment of slavery in the United States and the world. The ground I put it on was, that it would make an exposed frontier; and, if Great Britain succeeded in her object, it would be impossible that that frontier could be secured against the aggression of the abolitionists; and that this government was bound, under the guaranties of the constitution, to protect us against such a state of things.

Mr. . That comes, I suppose, sir, to exactly the same thing. It was, that Texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the south.

Mr. . Another view is very distinctly given.

Mr. . That was the object set forth in the correspondence of a worthy gentleman not now living, who preceded the honorable member from South Carolina in that office. There repose on the files of the department of state, as I have occasion to know, strong letters from Mr. Upshur to the United States minister in England, and I believe there are some to the same minister from the honorable senator himself, asserting to this effect the sentiments of this government, that Great Britain was expected not to interfere to take Texas out of the hands of its then existing government, and make it a free country. But my argument, my suggestion, is this—that those gentlemen who composed the northern democracy when Texas was brought into the Union, saw, with all their eyes, that it was brought in as slave country, and brought in for the purpose of being maintained as slave territory to the Greek kalends. I rather think