Life and select literary remains of Sam Houston of Texas/Chapter 21
CHAPTER XXI.
The records of the Twenty-ninth Congress, whose first session was held from December 1, 1845, to August 10, 1846, have these entries: "Texas: Senators, Samuel Houston, took his seat March 30, 1846; Thomas J. Rusk, took his seat March 26, 1846, Representatives: David S. Kaufman, took his seat June 1, 1846; Timothy Pillsbury, took his seat June 10, 1846." As Senator Rusk was the first to arrive, four days after he had been introduced to the Senate and had been qualified, it was his office to introduce his colleague, who likewise took his oath a second time to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States; an oath never to be abjured till his quiet death at home in 1863.
It was a marked coincidence that Houston should have entered Congress again after eighteen years with these three suggestive confirmations of the principles he had unswervingly maintained: first, to be associated with the same great leaders whom he had met in the House; second, to meet them when, after the tests of their extreme principles resulting from the experience of twenty years, the ardor of youthful convictions was tempered by age; and third, to find the Union of the States such that no conflicts of political leaders, then met in Congress, and afterward met on the field of battle, could overthrow the equilibrium of balanced rights. As we have observed, James K. Polk, then a fresh Representative from Tennessee, was now Chief Magistrate. In the Senate were the three great leaders, Webster, Clay, and Calhoun; the first made to yield to a low tariff, and specially conciliatory on the question of slavery; the latter after the honors of a War Secretary, and of the Vice-Presidency, calm and courtly, though unchanged in his theoretical convictions ; while the second was, as twenty-five years before, the same leader in compromise and pacification. Besides these, conspicuous in the Senate were the Claytons of Delaware, Yulee and Westcott of Florida, Berrien and Colquitt of Georgia, Bright of Indiana, Crittenden of Kentucky, Soule of Louisiana, Evans of Maine, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, Davis of Massachusetts, Cass of Michigan, Walker of Mississippi, Woodbury of New Hampshire, Dayton of New Jersey, Dickinson and Dix of New York, Badjer and Mangum of North Carolina, Buchanan and Cameron of Pennsylvania, Greene of Rhode Island, Butler of South Carolina, and Mason of Virginia. In the House, too, were both brilliant and balanced men; some with a past of weight, and some with a future of promise; while conspicuous above all was ex-President Adams, styled "the old man eloquent," not from the grace, but from the fervor of his utterances.
The questions on which Houston during Polk's administration was called to take decided ground were the Oregon boundary treaty, the Mexican war, and the incorporation of the Texan navy into that of the United States; and as these had each collateral and associated issues, there were no less than seven different occasions on which he was specially called out. The engrossing question on his entrance into Congress was the Oregon boundary; the discussion involved questions of territorial extension at the North, which led to review of those made at the South; and yet more, the debate brought in various suggestions as to armed conflict with England and other European powers on account of territory claimed upon the American continent; this again to criticisms of men and measures, especially of Mr. Clay, as the champion of home compromise, and of Gen. Jackson, as the hero of foreign war. The first set speech of Houston in the Senate, reported at length in the Congressional Globe, though its connections were logical to his fellow-Senators, might perhaps seem discursive and almost pointless to the reader unfamiliar with the varied issues which he was called to meet. The pending question before the Senate was the message from the President asking concurrence in his purpose to give notice to Great Britain that the United States would abrogate on a certain day the treaty as to the line between the British and American territory on the Pacific coast. The recognized principles of international law controlling the case were: first, the right of prior discovery; second, of military occupation; third, of colonial settlement. In modern, as in ancient diplomacy, all civilized nations were agreed that, first, when any nation, through its citizens, has discovered unoccupied territory, the prior claim to future occupation belongs to that nation; that, second, this claim of prior discovery is superseded if, before the territory be occupied, another nation has taken military possession by planting their flag, and leaving a permanent military force in charge; and that, third, civil occupation by a colony of settlers who make improvements in cultivated lands and permanent dwellings, may supersede the claim of military occupation. As to the Oregon territory, all agreed that the prior discovery was that of Spain; since De Fuca, in 1592, and Admiral Fonte, in 1640, as also later explorers, had traversed and mapped the coast nearly up to 55° north latitude; that the cession by Spain of the Louisiana Territory to France, and in 1803 the cession of that Territory to the United States gave all Spanish right on the Pacific coast north of 42°; a cession in words repeated when, in 1819, Florida was ceded by Spain to the United States. Passing from the first claim, that of prior discovery, to those of military and civil occupation, the United States Government in 1804-5 had made, through Lewis and Clarke, a complete survey of the Columbia River; in 1810 Captain Winship, of New England, had erected a house on the river; in 1811 Astoria, made famous by Irving, was planted as a military and trading post by the eminent New York family; these had been captured by the Hudson Bay Company during the war with Great Britain in 1813; a treaty of joint occupancy had been concluded in the interest of that company simply as a hunting ground in 1818; a permanent band of settlers from the United States began to plant and build in 1832, against which the Hudson Bay Company set up a claim because of slight culture by hunters, not by families; and in consideration of all these facts the three rights of possession seemed clear to the American people. Hence the popular demand, based on the Spanish discovery transferred by treaty to the United States, found expression in the rally-cry, "Fifty-four-forty, or fight"; whose ingenious alliteration added to the ingenuous fervor of the American claim. It was in view of these established principles of international law, as they bore on Great Britain's claim, as well as in view of all the home questions brought into the debate, that on the 13th April, 1846, only two weeks after he had taken his seat in the Senate, Houston arose and gave notice, as was necessary in order to secure the floor, of his purpose to discuss the questions at issue in the debate to which he had listened. On the 15th April, two days later, his speech was delivered, of which the following is an outline.
'It had been said that if notice were given it might lead to war; since England had given no evidence that she wished to negotiate. As to war, it is a state of things to which every nation is subjected that has advanced as rapidly as we to the highest rank. It is our duty to follow the maxim of the Father of his Country: In time of peace prepare for war. As to compromise, the suggestion would make Great Britain more aggressive. He quoted from the London Times to show that English sentiment was but apathy. He did not agree with the suggestion that public sentiment would settle on 49°. He denied that the annexation of Texas was aggression on Mexico, as the English press intimated. The English press paid little respect to the English public; which is without power. The American public is quite another thing. Here the multitude is omnipotent. The settlers in Oregon have a strong claim to protection. He gave a history of the proceedings of the United States as to Texas, and said: "While she was poor her call was disregarded, but when she had power she was courted. When she could bring a kingdom for her dowry, and a nation for her jewels, she was received on an equality as a sister State." War, it had been stated by Mr. Macon, is necessary once in every generation, or thirty years. It has some advantages; among which were the draining off of the restless and dissatisfied, who might be killed off to the benefit of the remainder of society. It also was a means of disciplining men to habits of subordination, to rules of order. He paid a passing tribute to Gen Jackson, stating that whether his policy was, in the abstract, right or wrong, he had built up the glory of the country. "Tell," he exclaimed, "the hero who has fought your battles victoriously, that he shall be disqualified for civil office, and how many will you find hereafter willing to expose their lives on the field of death!" He would never encourage the dread of military chieftains. They are men like others, subject to common infirmities; but public sentiment would apply a sure corrective.'
Mr. Crittenden next day continued the debate. He said that Mr. Jefferson, in 1807, wished to extend settlements beyond the Rocky Mountains. Mr. C. was in favor from history of giving the notice. The danger of war would influence both nations. If any principle of honor was at stake, as the Senator from Texas had intimated yesterday, the cost of war ought not to be counted. Yet it should be avoided if possible. He smiled at the attempt of the Prussian king, and of M. Guizot, the French statesman, to keep the balance of power, for nature will give us the dominion. But he could not go with the Senator from Texas in declining compromise.
Here Gen. Houston interposed that the Senator from Kentucky had improperly committed himself to an unpatriotic concession. Mr. Crittenden responded: "The Senator from Texas does not bring back to the brotherhood, to which he has been readmitted, warmer American feeling than he found here around him." Various amendments were proposed; Houston adhering to strong statement. The final vote for giving the notice was passed, 40 to 14. In this debate Houston showed himself the peer of statesmen like Crittenden and Webster; the military spirit only adding decision to the cool judgment of the civilian.
On May 28th Houston proposed a vote of thanks and a sword to Gen. Taylor, for his victory at Buena Vista, near the borders of Texas. It was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs; Houston replying to objection made because others were equally deserving, that while States had given swords to subordinate officers, Congress had only given them to commanders-in-chief. On June 18th, Houston reported from the Committee on Military Affairs a resolution, which passed July 7th, giving a vote of thanks to all the troops engaged, and a medal to Gen. Taylor. He also recommended payment to volunteers called out by Gen. Gaines for the Mexican war. On June 24th he sustained a resolution, proposed by Mr. Benton, but opposed by Mr. Crittenden, giving the President authority to select Brigadier-Generals outside of the State where the troops were raised; a measure whose wisdom secured, after long debate, the concurrence of the Senate. Meanwhile an elaborate report on the surveys and defence of Texas was brought out under Houston's supervision.
On the 31st of July Houston made an elaborate speech on incorporating the navy of Texas into that of the United States. He dwelt on circumstances of the annexation, showing from official documents that the overtures originated with the United States; he declared Texas never would have accepted those overtures if she had supposed her navy was to be excluded; and he urged that the Senate see to it that the honor of the United States, again and again pledged, be redeemed. Thus, in every measure relating to the foreign and domestic policy proposed, Houston showed himself at the outset of his Senatorial career, in this, his first session, to be a master in all practical matters discussed. In this first session also he renewed, and ever afterward continued, his careful scrutiny of bills for public service rendered; analyzing items, and insisting on economy in the accounts presented by the Committee on Printing.
The Thirtieth Congress, the second during President Polk's administration, whose first session lasted from December 6, 1847, to August 14, 1848, and its second session from December 4, 1848, to March 3, 1849, brought out Houston before new hearers, and to meet new issues. As new Sen-ators came, Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi; Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois; R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia; J. P. Hale, of New Hampshire; John Bell, of Tennessee; Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine; and the two Dodges, father and son, the former, Henry, and the latter, A. C. Dodge, representing respectively the newly-admitted States of Wisconsin and Iowa. In the House, Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, had been made Speaker; while also Abraham Lincoln, then giving no special promise for the future, came to spend his only two years as a Representative of Illinois. The entrance of these men, associated with the two great parties which were becoming more and more antagonistic, as the ranks of earnest champions increased, gave a new field for address to Houston as umpire and harmonizer. The occasion to call him forth did not long delay. The Mexican war and the Northwest boundary were still absorbing questions. The British Government had, in 1846, assented to a treaty, fixing 49° N. lat. as the boundary westward to the Straits of Fuca; but the running of the line thence to the sea-coast was still in dispute. The advance of Gen. Taylor into Mexico, on the Texan border, had been found to be impracticable, because of the impassable roads and supplies; Gen. Scott had, in November, 1846, been ordered to enter on a campaign from the port of Vera Cruz, to the City of Mexico. Bills for raising troops for temporary service, and for an appropriation of $3, 000,000, to secure a just peace with Mexico, were discussed in January and February, 1848, in the Senate. The debate took a wide latitude, bringing in side issues relating to the integrity of the administration; the President and his adherents being charged with bringing on a needless war; the whole history of the settlement of Texas, and of the character of its settlers, being criticised; while a measure for the expulsion of the Senate printer entered into the controversy. Houston spoke for two entire days, the report of his speech filling thirteen columns of the Congressional Globe. He replied at length to Mr. Crittenden; who opposed the provision that field officers should not be elected by their regiments; Houston urging that a citizen soldiery always had demanded that their military as well as civil leaders should be the men of their own choice, and that thus alone would an army of volunteers, like a community of free citizens, submit to law and prove efficient in service. On the second day he traced the history of Texan settlement, and of the Mexican Government from the time it became independent of Spain. After Mexico had become a Republic, a New England colony, headed by Moses Austin, obtained a grant of land with the pledge of Republican institutions; the Mexican Constitution of 1824 giving them this guarantee. Santa Anna, however, became Dictator, establishing Imperial Government, and thus subverted the Constitution. The settlers bore the wrong patiently till 1833, and they then demanded only a State Constitution, under the Federal Republic of Mexico. From October, 1835, to March, 1836, they were under a Provisional Government only, not asserting independence. The assault on the Alamo by 9,000 Mexicans, its fall, and the massacre of its entire garrison, roused the people to resistance, and they acted as did the American fathers in 1776. And, now, the present war, brought on by the annexation of Texas, was not a measure forced on the country by the President. There was a dispute as to the boundary of Texas when it was incorporated into the United States; and Houston read the documentary testimonies that the United States only demanded what had been conceded. He said the cause of the dispute was the fact, that constant revolutions in Mexico brought in leaders who renounced the binding authority of treaty stipulations. He stated: "There have been no less than three revolutions in twelve months." Here Mr. Benton in his seat added: " There have been seventeen revolutions in twenty-five years." "And yet," rejoined Houston, "we regard her as an organized Government, and not entitled to chastisement! The declaration of war against her was almost unanimous in the United States Congress last session. And, therefore," he added, making use of a Bible reference, after the manner common to the older American statesmen—"therefore, the President is as Moses, who, when it was necessary that Israel should go on, sent for Joshua and commanded him, as General, to lead on. And we of the Senate, as Aaron and Hur, so should we uphold the hands of our President, and smite Mexico with the sword!"
The second session brought Houston forward on past and on new issues. The Mexican war had closed, and the terms of peace were to be considered. Having taken Vera Cruz, March 29, 1847, and with an army of less than 12,000 men, having driven before him an army of some 30,000, past successive fortresses, till on September 14th, the City of Mexico was entered, negotiations for peace had made the war indemnity, since Mexico had no money to give, the cession of the territory on the north of Mexico, including New Mexico and Upper California. The title to this territory, lying as it did between 32° and 42° N. lat., was associated with that of Oregon, since it was directly connected with the territory expressly ceded by Spain to the United States, on the purchase of Florida. The question of the future introduction of slavery was naturally mooted; since though slavery had been abolished by Mexico, as American territory it might become subject to the application of the Missouri Compromise, which admitted slavery south of 36° 30′ N. lat.
Several minor topics, debated by Houston, led on to his second great speech on the Oregon question. On the 24th January, a resolution was offered in the Senate asking of the President of the United States whether the President of Mexico was authorized to cede territory. On the 29th January Gen, Dix discussed the legitimacy of annexing territory as a war indemnity. He called attention to the statement of Guizot, then Prime Minister of France, that the three powers contending for American territory were Great Britain, the United States, and Spain, and that "it belonged to France to protect, by the authority of her name, the independence of these States and the equilibrium of the great political forces in America." Meanwhile, in Feb., 1848, Louis Philippe was driven from France and the Republic re-established; when, on the 10th April, Houston brought into the Senate a resolution of sympathy with France in her re-establishment of Republican institutions. On May 9th he introduced a resolution providing for the taking military possession, by the United States, of the province of Yucatan, in order to protect the people of that province from the Indians, urging—"We should anticipate other nations in providing this protection"; and he repeated that the annexation of Mexican territory by the United States had been a blessing to the people. He introduced, also, petitions urging measures for the preservation of the Indians. The debate on the Yucatan resolution was for some days discussed; Houston urging that his measures were the only ones that would secure permanent safety and peace. In June, debate was again resumed on the Oregon question, and the debates on this and kindred topics ran parallel. The point of special controversy was the anti-slavery clause in the Oregon bill.
The question of slavery had been feared in admitting Oregon as a Territory. If any laws inserted in the territorial code were in violation of any right granted by the law or Constitution, and by them vested in or secured to citizens of the United States, or any of them, those laws could be revised when the Territory applied for admission as a State. In the debate on the Oregon bill, all leading Northern and Southern Senators were agreed in admitting that the ordinance of Virginia, ceding in 1787, to the United States, her territory north of the Ohio River, had a bearing on territory farther West. Petitions for abolition, the Abolition Convention at Buffalo, could not affect this question. He wished to make his position known, not only on this continent, but that his views should be blazoned forth to the world. Texas, divided by the line of 36° 30 m., had come in, and on it she was willing to stay. Its extension to 42° in Oregon did not affect the Southern States. Thirteen Northern Senators had voted for the admission of Texas, and he was willing to vote for Oregon with slavery forbidden. He remembered the cry of disunion and nullification when the high tariff was imposed. That cry reached him in the wilderness, an exile from kindred, friends, and sections; but it rung in his ears and wounded his heart. Now, however, he was in the midst of such a cry, and he was bound to act as a man, conscious of the solemn responsibility imposed on him. He had heard the menaces and threats of dissolution until he had become familiar with them, and they had now ceased to produce alarm in his bosom. He had no fear of the dissolution of the Union when he recollected how it had been established and how it had been defended. It could not be the interest of the North to destroy the South. He thought that the South—and he was a Southern man—should make some sacrifice to reconcile the North. He made a humorous allusion to Mr. Van Buren's course, saying, that when he announced himself " a Northern man with Southern principles," that alone should have put the South on their guard. Referring to Van Buren's intimacy with Gen. Jackson, he exclaimed: " If the vision of the stern old warrior could break upon him, as that old man, if living, would have looked on his traitorous course, the glance of the warrior's eye would exterminate him where he stands, and would leave not a spot to mark the place! " He went on to show the mutual dependence of the North and the South; the one for raw material, the other for manufactured fabrics. He protested against cries of disunion, and against every attempt to traduce the Union. He was of the South, and was ready to defend the South; but he was for the Union. The Union was his guiding star, and he would fix his eyes on that star to direct his course. He would advise his friends of the North and South to pursue measures of conciliation.
Here Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Butler, both of South Carolina, interposed. Mr. Calhoun said there had been no threats, while Mr. Butler asked if a convention of the South were treason. Houston replied with warmth: "Certainly not! The South would have a right to hold a convention, and raise a puny war against the women and children who get up abolition papers, or against the Abolition Convention at Buffalo "; and he "had seen a much more respectable convention of buffaloes!" He would never go into a Southern convention. He would never aid in any scheme to bring about a dissolution of the Union.
At the evening session, the same day, several Senators spoke; among them Messrs. Yulee of Florida, Benton of Missouri, and Webster of Massachusetts. Houston was again called out, and addressed the Senate at length. As the record of the reporter states: "He paid a beautiful tribute to Mr. Clay, declaring that he deserved to have a statue erected to his memory in the rotunda of the Capitol, for his stand for thirty years, ever since the admission of Missouri, on behalf of compromise." At this point, says the record, " there was an involuntary burst of applause from the galleries and lobby, both of which were densely crowded, that could not be suppressed." This expression many Senators, both from the North and South, declared their disapproval of; but Mr, Dickinson, of New York, apologized for it as involuntary. Two days later, on the 14th August, when final action was to be taken, Houston again addressed the Senate. He said: "He was deeply impressed with the importance of this subject. As in the admission of Texas, the measure had been passed by a small majority. He was actuated by as high, as independent, and as patriotic motives, as any gentleman North or South. He knew neither North nor South. He knew only the Union. Though a Southern man, he would protect the right, and would not suffer it to be encroached upon. He would as ardently defend the North as he would protect and support the rights of the South. He believed that on this floor he was the representative of the whole American people. On all occasions he would maintain that position, and he believed the people of Texas would sustain him in it, for they are true to the Union."
On the reassembling of Congress, in December, 1848, at an early day, 12th December, a resolution was offered in the House to transfer to Texas all the territory of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande; an indication that the course of Houston on the Oregon, California, and New Mexico questions was approved. When this measure came up in the Senate, as Houston, prior to the Mexican war, had laid before the Senate the documentary proof that the Rio Grande was the boundary of Texas, when, by the treaty forced upon Santa Anna after the battle of San Jacinto, the independence of Texas was conceded by Mexico, he now took only five minutes to restate his convictions. The result of the Presidential election, which was to bring Gen. Taylor as the Whig candidate into power, and was to induct Millard Fillmore as Vice-President into the seat of presiding officer of the Senate after March 4, 1849, made the winter session of 1848-9 specially uneventful. Houston rested on his laurels won during the previous session.