Press enter after choosing selection

Selections: James G. Birney And Texas

Selections: James G. Birney And Texas image
Parent Issue
Day
29
Month
April
Year
1844
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

Lower Saginatv, Míen., ? Pebruary 23, 1844. Gentlemen - Tt is tmt a short time since I received your note, written on behalf of a meeting of the citizens of AHegheny connty, of all parties, requesling to know of rae, as one of those who havo been spoken of by their friends for the Presidency, vvhat are my views upon the proposition to annex Texas to the Union. In comp?ynL, as I chcerfully do, with the request - to your first interrogatory, 'would thcproposed annexalwn be Coiistilutional .?' I answer in the negative Our Government is sirictly one of delegnted aothority. The 'powere' imparted to it are carerully described nnd embodied in the Constitution. None of them authorises thevernment, m any way, to accept of a cession of foreign territory. So far from it, thsy bear no rela(ion,nor do they contain the slighlest allusion to such on event. I do not forget that Louisiana and Florida, once foreign territory, were onnexed to the Union; - but the President who projected and consummated the purchase of the former, both knew and acknowledged, while he wae negotiating it, that it was unauthorized by the Constitution. Nor am I unnware that. eome among us, of high authority in such mattere, mainrain that, as the Constitution confers on the Government the power of making treaUe?, it consequcntly confers the power to acquire territory by treaty. Tliis is a two edged sword: for if the power to make treaties carry wïth it the incidental power to acquire, without stint, territory of other nations, equally does t carry with it the power to cede without stint, the territory we alroady poBses?, to other natione. If we adopt the construction, thnt the treatymaking depailment is not to be limited by the 'powers imparted by the eople to the Government - then may whole States beTerrecí to oiher Sovereigntiep - tben iá the integrity of Ihe Union - nay, our politica! existence itsclf, in the hands of the President and two-thirds of a quorum of the Sen ate. I om not averseto a liberal conslruction of the powers of the Government, wlierever the objects sought are plainly allowed in the Con stitutio. But when they are unknown to the Constitution, the liberal construction which becomes necessary to authorize them, is but another name for ueurpation. It ought nevar to be lost sight of, that in this country, the soverei gnty, in substance, as jwell aa in name, abides with the People; tha : the powers of the Government are but emana tions or portions of that eovereïgnly impartec to such of the citizens as may be duly callei to administrotive functions; and that these powers, wlule they are to be exercised solely for the genera! welfare, must not be exercised at random, but within the limils marked out by the people themselves in the Conslilvlion. Should expenence prove that these limita are too mirrow, the people, o being resorted to, will, tbrough their own jnstrurnentoJity, the States, enlarge them as they deem ït expedí - ent. Meanlime, the inconveniences arising from powers thought to be (oo rnuch restricted, but which are susceptible of so complete a remedy, ought to be patiently borne with: for they are as nothing, vvhen compared to the unceriainties, the disorders, the perils, the oppressions, attending a Government all al loose ends, vacillating and distracted by the varying opiniona and conflicting theories of those who may successively be en lied to administer it. Governments without nuinber iiave been brought to nought by what is called a liberal construction of their powers; but few have suffered loss by a rigid one. The liberal construction of to-day is not unfrequenily made the ground.work of a more liberal, if not a hcentious one to-morrow. To your 6econd question - 'Suppoping jt Constitulional, would you be favorable to annexation, on any terms?'- I reply, I would not. The permanent sucwss of a Govornment must have some relation to the extent of its territorial limits. While they may, doublless, bt too narrow for the highest development of national prosperity - so may they be too large. Without saying that our territory is too large, I say, it is large enough for al! the just and useful purposes of Government. I know no good reason why we should desire to have Texas united to us. The United States are not connected by Inrge rivers watering both; nor are they separated from other nufions by deserts, or by chains of rnountains" forming joint barriers of protection, and indjcating that they ought to be one nation. Tf we desire annexation because she is conterminous witli us - Texas once obtained, we shall, for the same reason, burn for the annexation of Mexico; nor shall we be able wholly to quench our thirst but in the Oceans which wash ou all sides the Continent we inbit. So far am I from thinking the nnnexation of Texas would be beneficia! to us, I wish she were re-united to Mexico, and that, as one people, they were rapidly advancing to thc highest grade of intelectual and polilica] power. To have such a power on our borders - one whose character and whose rights vve could not hvlp respecling - would most favorably nffect us, as I think, Ín a variety of ways. One only I shall allude to: it would reslrain that wild, bucaneer spirit of adventure unhappily existing to a great extent in our country; a spirit that is at war with all sol id improvement and true civilization, and which, unless juster notions can be made to prevail, will soon begin to set at defiance the restramts of ourown Government, and render the condition of weak communities on our borders one of constant insecurily and alarm. As a private cilizen, I would do all that I honorably could, to defeat the scheme of annexation. So would I in any other public station than the one to which your note refers. The President is a department of the Government, nnd stands in an altogethcr peculiar relation to the country. (Power3" are ent rusted to him, Hot so much with a view to his riictating or even leading in any particular line of policy whicli v;holly regards the ordiiary pecuniary interests of thety, as to hia being the Conservator of tlie Constitution and of the honor of the Government. Should he hesitate to use these powers to prevent a violation of the Constitution, or to resist the Legislative bodies acting tinder the impulse of an inflamed constitnency, misled and demanding of the Government wliat it would be maniLestly unjust and dishonorable in the Government to grant - as, for instance, the repudiation of a National debr, or a fraudulent evasion of the obligadona of a treaty - he would prove himsolf unworthy of the high trust reposed in him. - Such a President as Washington - caring nuich for his country, ütlle for himself- would in such cases, breast the torrent wilh all his constilutional might, trusting, that, in duelime, wisdom vvould be jusüfied of her children. But in malters purely of cxpediency or policy, the Executive ough t not to lie expected to cherish the feeling, or manifest (he pertinacity that s genetnlly conpidercdallowable, if not commendable, in individuals differ ently situated. His duty then is, lo fall in with the wishes of the people, matnred and embodied in the deliberations of their representatives, altbough thrir views mny, in important respects differ trom his. My answer to your tl)ird and last enquiry - "Wmild you be willing to receive it asa Slave Territory " - moy be anticipated generally, from what I have said in answer to your second enquiry. But I trust you will receivo indulgently a brief cxplication of my vrews on this subject:I allow not to humnn Jawff, be they primary or secondary, no matter by wliat numbers, or with whnt solemnities ordained, the least semblance of right to estabüsh Slavery, to make property of my J elimo, created equolly with myself, in the imnge of God. Individually, or as politica! communities, mcn have do more right to enact Slavery, than they have to enact murder or blasphemy, or incest or adultery. To estabüsh Slavery is to dethrone right, to trample on justicc, tlie only true foundation of Government. Governinents exist, not tbr the destruction of liberty, but íor its defencc-, not for thc annihilationof men's righte, but thcir preservation. Do tliey incorpórate in their organic law the element of inju$tice?-Ao they live by admifting t in practice? Thon, do they destroy their own foundation, and obsolve all men from the duty of allegiance. Ts any man so besolled as, for a moment, to suppose tljot tlie Slaveholder has an atosn of right to his slave; or tliat the slave has íesling on him an atom of obligation to obey the laws thot enslave him, ibat rob him of every tbing - of himself ? No one: else why do all jast men of all countncs rejoice, when they hear that the oppressed of any land have aclneved their liberty, at whatever cost to their tyrants?Ou this ground, vvere there no other, í shouJá say, we cannot receiye Texas as a Slave-Territory. We have no right ío continue chains, which we have no right ío furge or impose. But there are other grounds: - the Constinlion of I he United States does not permit lie organizaron srthecontinuance ofSlavery n domain brought within its exclusive jurisctioo. None of i ts specified powers authorize the establishment necessary or proper for carrying into execulion any of these powere. Again: Two oí the objocts of the Governmeni set forth in the oreamble of the Constitution are- lo eslalUshjuslice and secure, tlie blessings of libcrty in the land. With justice and liberty, Slavery La whoüy incompatible.Aii men so regard ït. What, ihen. Bhall we do? Shall we so interpret the silence of the Constitution on this malter, os to make it outweigh the establishment of jnstice, and the perpetuaiion of the blessinffs of liberty, those high aims of the Umon, expressed in the directest terms? Surely not. But, admitting, that, on Constitutional grounds, no valid objection can be made against the acquieition of foreign territory; vvho does not knovv, that every institution, law, usage or custom existing in the acquired territory, inconsistent with the fundamental principies of the Government, the acquisition ceases, at the moment of annexation, as a matter of course. This is so plainly the instruction of common eense ns to cali for nothmg but the mere statement of it. Thus, when the District of Colnmbia was ceded to the United States, the Slavery then ex isting within it, irreconcileable with fundamental objects of the Government, the establishment of jnstice and the blessings of liberty, becanie exlinct the moment Iherer was made. lhere was not - there is not - there cannot be, a slave vvithin the District of Columbia, without f.olally disregarding not only the spirit but the letter of the Constitution. The legislative indirection by which slavery was contiuued in the District ofter the transfer, was a device wholly unworlhy the reprcsentation of a people who had just adopted such a Constitution os ours. Could the questioti of the constitvtionalüy of Sla - very in the District be submitted to a competent tribunal - one nol made up of actual slaveholders, and olhers under the bias of Slavery - there could not be a moment's doubt of the characler of the decisión. Before such a tribunal, the 8avery side of the question wouid be too bald for argument. So too, in regard to the Slavery that existed in Louibiana and Florida at the time of their transfer to the United States. But it was determined on by our miers that il should be eustained. With that view, as the rnost feasible derise, provisión was made in the treaties of purchase, for securing to the then resident slaveholders of these territories their ris;lit (?) of coniinuing to hold their plave property. By what authority? No power had been iraparted by the peoplc, [udmitting for argumentas eake, that they coud imparl such pou-e),] to the Government itseif, or to any deparlment or office of ir, to establish or continue Slavery within her jurisdictional domain. To infer from the silence of thestitution in regard to Slavery as a Natiunal Government-concern, with full knowledge, too, that delibcralion on this subject, engaged the otteniion of the Convention; to infer, I say, from this silence, that the people intended toclothe the President and two-thirds of a quorum of the Senate with aulhoriiy to introduce Slavery into the Government, and this, too, knowing as we do, that justice and Liberty had been placed as sentinels in lts vestibule, would not only be absurd, but eminently disrespectful to the very source of all Constitutional authoriiy. Had Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe accepted treaües providing1 for securing iheir peculiar privileges and immunities to an Order of Nobiíify, or a Reiigious establishment, tfint migbt have exisled in Louisiana and Florido, when they were respectively ceded, they would not, in so doing, have shown a more wilful disreyard of ths Cbnstitution, and of ilie People, by whoseauthori'y it was made, than they did i spreading the raildew of this accursed eystem over Ihe largest and fairest poition of our ua tional domain. To this twofoJd violation of tho Constitution, in the act ofacquiring territory1and in the provisión made for the permanency o Slavery ; a third, of kind red complexión with the last, may be added. Instead of confining the operation of the treaties to the caseeof the residen! slaveholders of Louisiana and Florida; the only ones provided for, the sJaveholders of the States were allovved, without reátíaínt, to introduce their Slaves into those territories. From the ñrsl, this wqs permitted nnder our elaveholding Executives, and it has been percisted in so long without being interrupted or even questioned, that Louisiana and Florida Slavery, as parts of the whoie ?system, are now considered to be as firmly estabh'shed; aye, and as lawfully too - as is the Slavery of Guorgia or of South Carolina, under tlieir respectivo black codes. The unauthorized purchase of Louisiana must be regardedas, in its consequences, ihe most disastrous event for our country, to be fouml in ite political history. In saying this, I nejther forget nor underrate the advantages of the ncquisition, in a mere territorial point of view. Uut might not these advantages have been as cenninly secured, without bringing on ourselves the odium and the illa which we are now suffering, from having extended and strenfiflhened the empire of S'avery?- Would not the people, on being properly appealed to, havo so arnended the Constitution as to have avthorizrd the acquisilion, whildt they carefully guarded against the countenance and diflusion of Slavery in that vast region, out of which three Slave States have already been carved.Next to the purchase of Louisiana, in calamitous consequences to the country, was the admisslon of Missouri inio the Union, as a Slave State. Into this stiuggle the Slave power entered with a fierceness that did not eeenri to characteiize it in former times. - But it did not forget - it never does - to eke out the lion's skin wiih the fox's tail. That struggle, in which, f oo, trenchery in the North, did it6 part but too well, issued in the omplete triumph of fiie enemies of the Constitution. lts friends vanquished, belrayed, retired diseonraged from the field. From that time till the present, the Government has brenswayed by men who show, in the cnslavement of their fellow raen, hovv heartily they despise the truths of the Declaration of Jndependence; by men whose Uves are but the expression of the coarse, barharian conlempt with which every claim of humauity, and which every principie of just and equitable Government may bespurned and trampled on in the face of God and man. Their power, too, has been exercised in the same insolent spirit of overseership that marks brntel rule at home over the rogged starvelings of their rapacity and avance. The free States send their members of Congress to Washington to be overawed, corrupted and despised. The venal orators and declaimers of At hens, who sold themselves and their country to Philip, were not looked on with stipremer contempt by their supercilious purcha6er, fhan are the betrayers of the North by their slaveliolding overseers when driving them to their daily task of official meanness and servility. Such is the condition ofour affairs now one for which we have been prepared, mainly by the two annexations that have alrendy taken place, and by the admission of Missouri into the Union. Jt is a sad coDdition - but not devoid of hope. For again are the friendsof the Constitution nnd of universal liberty rallying, and fast svvelling the ranks of a party in whose Buccess lies, as I firraly believe, the cmly reasonable g-round of hope for the rescue of the Republic from iis most insidious foe. Already it is evident, that the constancy, nnd energy, nnd aciivity of the Liberty party are not without eome of their proper fruits. The saguoions begin to discover, that the elave-power has met w'ith an adversiry more formidable than any it has }'et had to cope witb - that confusión & despondency are showing themselves among the leaders of its battallia; - that the rescue of the Government from that dark power, and the crowning blessing of our holy strngglp, iis ulter and everlasling overthroie, shall, at no very distant period, ccuse the song of praise and lliauksgivingto ascend from all the borders of the land to Him in whose might we have fought, and wlio has given us the victory. At such a time, in such a crisis, to receive Teras ns a Slave territorv wouid Le a grievious event to be added to the already unhappy catalogue of events of a kindred character, that have all been iised to establish injusfice in the land, and to perpetúate the evils of the most abominable tyranny that man has ever usurped over his feliow-man. I am, gentlemen, very respeclfully,To Messrs. Wai. E. Ausli, David Shields, James Clarke, Comtnktee.

Article

Subjects
Signal of Liberty
Old News