Why, by parity of reasoning, could he not have claimed all the four states, “in addition to said state of Texas,” as free states? The resolutions divide the territory into two parts, one north and one south of the line of 36° 30´. Could not Mr. Webster have claimed the four states for freedom, with as sound logic and with far better humanity than he surrendered them all to slavery? When Texas and the south have got their slave states “to the number of four” into the Union, whence are we to obtain our one or more free states? The contract will have been executed, and the consent of Texas for another state will be withheld.
Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Webster affirms the right of slavery to four more states, in the following words: “I know no form of legislation which can strengthen this. I know no mode of recognition that can add a tittle of weight to it.” Catching the tone of his asseveration, I respond that I know no form of statement, nor process of reasoning, which can make it more clear, that this is an absolute and wanton surrender of the rights of the north and the rights of humanity.
But I hold the Texan resolutions to have been utterly void; and proceed to give the reasons for my opinion.
I begin by quoting Mr. Webster against himself. In an address to the people of the United States, emanating from the Massachusetts Anti-Texas state convention, held January 29th, 1845, the subjoined passage, which is understood, or rather, I may say, is now well known, to have been dictated by Mr. Webster himself, may be found:—
“But we desire not to be misunderstood. According to our convictions, there is no power in any branch of the government, or all its branches, to annex foreign territory to this Union. We have made the foregoing remarks only to show, that, if any fair construction could show such a power to exist any where, or to be exercised in any form, yet the manner of its exercise now proposed is destitute of all decent semblance of constitutional propriety.”
Thus cancelling the authority of Mr. Webster in 1850 by the authority of Mr. Webster in 1845, I proceed with the argument.
Though the annexation of Texas was in pursuance of a void stipulation, yet it is a clear principle of law, that when a contract void between the parties, has been executed by them, it cannot then be annulled. If executed, it becomes valid, not by virtue of the contract but by virtue of the execution. I bow to this legal principle, and would fulfil it. But any independent stipulation which remains unexecuted, remains invalid. Such is that part of the annexation resolutions which provides for the admission of a brood of Texan states. The resolutions themselves say, in express terms, that the new states are to be admitted “under the provisions of the federal constitution;” and the federal constitution says, “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.” By what Congress? Plainly, by the Congress in session at the time when application for admission is made; and by no other. The fourth Texan state may not be ready for admission for fifty years to come; and could the Congress of 1845 bind the Congress of 1900? The Congress of 1900, and all future Congresses, will derive their authority from the constitution of the United States, and not from any preceding Congress. Put the case in a negative form. Could the Congress of 1845 bind all future Congresses not to admit new states, and thus, pro tanto, annul the constitution? Positive or negative, the result is the same. No previous Congress, on such a subject, can enlarge or limit the power of a subsequent one. Whenever, therefore, the question of a new Texan state comes up for consideration, the Congress then in being must decide it on its own merits, untrammelled by any thing their predecessors have done; and, especially, free from a law which, while similar in spirit, is a thousand times more odious in principle than statutes of mortmain.
Admitting that a future Congress, on such a subject, might be bound by a treaty, I answer that there was no treaty; while the fact that a treaty clause was introduced into the resolutions, in the Senate, for the sake of obtaining certain votes that would never otherwise have been given in their favor, and under an express pledge from the Executive that the method by treaty should be adopted, which pledge was forthwith iniquitously broken by the President, leaves no element of baseness and fraud by which this proceeding was not contaminated. In the name of the constitution, then, and of justice, let every honest man denounce those resolutions as void alike in the forum of law and in the forum of conscience; and, admitting Texas herself to be in the Union, yet, when application is made for any new state from that territory, let the question be decided upon the merits it may then possess.
And was not Mr. Webster of the same opinion, when, in Faneuil Hall, in November, 1845, after the resolutions of annexation had passed, he made the following emphatic, but unprophetic, declaration:—
“It is thought, it is an idea I do not say how well founded, that there may yet be a hope for resistance to the consummation of the act of annexation. I can only say for one, that if it should fall to my lot to have a vote on such a question, and I vote for the admission into this Union of ANY State with a constitution which prohibits even the Legislature from ever seeing the bondmen free, I SHALL NEVER SHOW MY HEAD AGAIN, DEPEND UPON IT, IN FANEUIL HALL.”