The Proviso, offered as an amendment to the $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 bills, was objected to because: 1, J. Q. Adams, Benton and others argued that any territory acquired from Mexico would come to us "free" by law, and slavery would not exist there unless subsequent legislation and also the natural conditions should be favorable to it; 2, the question would necessarily be settled when Congress should have to decide regarding the government of such territory, and present action would not bind a future Congress; 3, it did not relate to American territory, property or citizens — in short it related to nothing that existed; 4, the only way to reach the end aimed at by the Proviso would be through a treaty, and, should the treaty be violated, Mexico would have a right to interfere with our domestic affairs; 5, the President would have no right to sign such a treaty, for the subject belonged to Congress; 6, the American Senate would not ratify such a treaty, and hence the adoption of the Proviso would prevent peace and the acquisition of territory; 7, it was insulting to Mexico to legislate about territory belonging to her, would scandalize the world, and might prolong the war; 8, the Proviso stood in the way of needed war legislation, tended to alarm the South and lessen its interest in the war, incited to discord at a time when harmony was peculiarly desirable, promoted sectionalism, and, if adopted, might render the administration powerless to wage the war successfully. As is well known, Brinkerhoff of Ohio was the father of the Proviso, but for strategical reasons Wilmot was asked to introduce it. Wilmot himself did not insist upon the Proviso, when Polk explained to him some of the difficulties. For a convenient review of the later history of the Proviso principle see Lalor, Cyclopædia, iii, 1115-7. The Proviso threatened Whig unity and success, of course, because the northern wing and the southern wing of the party could not agree regarding slavery.
31. 137Fisher to Calhoun, Aug. 22, 1847. (Committed) Richardson, Messages, iv, 536-41. 169Rives to Crittenden, Feb. 5, 8, 1847. 330J. P. to Z. Taylor, Sept. 8, 1847. Merriam, Bowles, i, 48. Curtis, Webster, i, 303-7, 324 5. Webster, Writings, ix, 257-9; xiii, 328. 13Pakenham, no. 18, 1847. Lalor, Cyclopædia, ii, 1105. Amer. Review, Oct., 1847, 345-6. Louisville Journal, Sept. 17, 1847. Cincinn. Enquirer, Nov. 15, 1847. Cong. Globe, 29, 2, pp. 555-6 (Webster); app., 296-302 (Berrien). 132Donelson to Buchanan, Jan. 8, 1847. 132Bancroft to Id., Oct. 18, 1847. Boston Courier, Feb. 14, 1848. Corwin to F., Feb. 4, 1847: Ohio Phil. and Hist. Soc. Pubs., July-Sept., 1914. Benton, Abr. Debs., xvi, 42 (Berrien). Wash. Union, Feb. 8, 25; Sept. 8, 18, 16; Oct. 5, 1847. Public Ledger, Feb. 8, 17, 1847. Cole, Whig Party, 119-22. Pierce, Sumner, iii, 159. Nat. Intellig., Sept. 7, 1847.
Berrien's words (Benton, Abr. Debates, xvi, 42): The war "ought not to be prosecuted . . . with any view to the dismemberment of that republic, or to the acquisition by conquest of any part of her territory"; this government "will always be ready to enter into negotiations, with a view to terminate the present unhappy conflict on terms which shall . . . preserve inviolate the national honor . . . of Mexico"; "it is especially desirable . . . that the boundary of the State of Texas should be definitely settled, and that provision be made by the republic of Mexico for the prompt and equitable settlement of the just claims of our citizens." Naturally the Whigs endeavored to recommend the '"'No territory" idea by dwelling on other points (e.g. the country was already large enough; this plan would prevent a struggle between North and South over slavery;
