# History of Kansas (Holloway 1868)/Chapter 5

CHAPTER V.
TRIUMPH OF SLAVERY IN THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
The boundaries of Louisiana were always vague and uncertain, and the treaty by which the United States acquired it left them still indefinite. The consequence was, as might have been expected, difficulties soon arose with Spain in regard to the eastern and western boundaries of this province. The French always alleged that Louisiana extended to the Rio Grande; whereas the Spaniards, with an equal show of reason, contended that it did not extend quite to the Sabine. According to the provisions of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, Spain ceded to France “the province with the same extent it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after other treaties entered into between Spain and other States.” By the treaty of Paris, France ceded to the United States all the right and title she had thus acquired to Louisiana, leaving the question of boundaries to be settled with Spain.
Thus matters remained in statu quo, although Spain continued to hold both Floridas and claimed the Sabine as the western boundary of Louisiana, until 1819, when a treaty was effected between the two nations, after a protracted correspondence and negotiation. Through this treaty the United States acquired undisputed possession of all the territory west of the Mississippi by renouncing her claim to Texas.
This was a Southern move, and it was difficult at first to ​understand the motive which actuated it. Why slavery should be willing to give away such a beautiful and extensive country as Texas when she could just as easily have retained it and the Floridas too, was a query which but few in the North could solve. But it was a political scheme of the South, whereby she might secure the co-operation of the North in the election of a pro-slavery President. The agitation of the Missouri question had so united the North against slavery extension in the south-west that the slavery propagandists well knew, if this was made an issue in the Presidential election, they would be defeated. So in order to keep in power, they rid themselves of this troublesome question by giving away Texas, knowing that they could get it again whenever they wanted it.
In the meantime Mexico had established her independence, which was recognized by the United States, and consequently Texas passed under her dominion.
Soon afterwards a little colony was established in Texas at Austin, by a few restless adventurers and desperadoes from the United States. In 1827 and 1829 attempts were made on the part of our government to purchase Texas of Mexico, but without success. The people of this little colony considerably increased by emigrants from the United States, under the leadership of the notorious Sam Houston, who, it is thought, was sent there by the Southrons, for that purpose, in 1833 framed a State Constitution and in three years afterwards declared their independence. War necessarily ensued; Houston was made commander by the colony of its forces; and after two victorious battles, Texas asks to be annexed to the United States. But on account of our friendly relations with Mexico, the request could not, with any show of consistency, be granted until the independence of that province should be more fully established. The slave States, therefore, mustered aid and sympathy for the few struggling freemen (?) in this little Republic. Money, men and arms with provisions and ammunition, were sent to them by the friends of slavery.
​Texas thus maintained her independence until 1845, when she was annexed to the United States upon the following provision among others: “Third, New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to the said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime), shall be prohibited.” (A. S. Papers.)
It must not be supposed that this bill of annexation was passed without any opposition, thus introducing slavery into, and fastening it upon, so vast a region of country. On the other hand, its passage was violently contested, and several attempts were made to either divide the territory between slave and free labor, or prohibit the former altogether. But the influence of the Administration, the sanctity with which the Missouri Compromise line was held by the North, and the fear that Texas would form an alliance with some European power that would endanger our Union, prevailed.—The most injurious feature connected with this bill is that it secured the recognition of Congress to the extension of the territory of Texas from the mouth of the Rio Grande to its source—near a thousand miles beyond the legitimate boundary of that province. Thus slavery was virtually extended over this broad domain where it had been prohibited by the laws of Mexico twenty years before. Thus was the strength and resources of our glorious government which our fathers had consecrated to liberty and justice, made the ​efficient means for the extension of the wrongs and pollutions of human slavery over a vast expanse of unsullied territory. War with Mexico followed the annexation, consuming a hundred million of the nation's wealth, and the lives of thousands of her brave sons. All for what? For the extension of human slavery!
Immediately after the war began, the Mexicans having suffered a severe defeat, and the President thinking that their feeble and divided republic could now begin to realize her utter inability to cope with the arms of the United States, presumed that she would rather accept a monied overture for Texas than run the chances of losing it by war. The President, Mr. Polk, therefore represents this matter to Congress, asking that a considerable sum be placed at his disposal to effect this object, at the same time stating that he thought he could not only secure the territory this side of the Rio Grande, but also a vast scope of country beyond it. A bill was accordingly drawn up, agreeable to his request, and had for a time every indication of success.
But the question arose among those who were opposed to the extension of slavery what should be the condition of this territory as to Free or Slave labor. They knew heretofore that slavery had laid claim to all the territory of the United States on the plea of pre-occupancy; but will slavery covet the soil where it never existed and where the laws of the country from which it was obtained forbid it? Many of the northern democrats who had before been disposed to be tolerant towards slavery, now began to think that they had reached the utmost limits of a virtuous forbearance. An amendment was therefore prepared and offered by Mr. Wilmot to the following effect:
   “Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty that may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the execution ​of the monies herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall be duly convicted.”
With this amendment, commonly known as the Wilmot Proviso, the bill passed the House, but was lost in the Senate on account of the Proviso. Thus the President was left without any means to negotiate a treaty by which much suffering and many thousand precious lives might have been spared. But this would have thwarted the very design which had occasioned the war—the acquisition of more territory for slavery.
It was about this time that the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty was advanced. First conceived in the brain of Calhoun, it was first enunciated by General Cass when about to be used by the Democratic party as a candidate for the Presidency. The great argument, prior possession, against prohibiting slavery from the territories heretofore urged, had now failed, for the condition of territory was exactly reversed from what it had been formerly. This territory had never been polluted by slavery. But, to meet the exigency of the situation, a new dogma is brought forward that Congress has no right to prevent the citizens of the United States from taking with them their property (slaves) into the territories and determining there their local institutions for themselves. This doctrine, so new and strange to the Democratic party, was not popular at first, for their Baltimore convention which nominated Cass for President, voted it out of their platform by an overwhelming majority.
After the peace with Mexico an attempt was made in the 30th Congress to organize the territories acquired from this Power and submit the question of slavery to the adjudication of the Supreme Court, its pulse having been previously felt upon the constitutionality of Popular Sovereignty. This bill passed the Senate, but was killed in the House by a motion of Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia. Various attempts were made in the 29th and 30th Congresses to organize the territories ​of California and New Mexico, both for and against slavery, but all were unsuccessful.
At the first session of Congress in 1850 efforts for organizing these territories were resumed. The doctrine of Popular Sovereignty (though not by that name) was forcibly announced by such spirits as Jefferson Davis, W. L. Yancy and J. M. Mason, and the Missouri Compromise was held up as a sacred compact between the Restrictionists and Anti-Restrictionists in the division of territory; whereas it was framed near thirty years before the United States had acquired this territory, and could relate only to the partition of that of the Louisiana purchase. After considerable debate and the defeat of several bills for the organization of the territory of New Mexico and the admission of California into the Union, whose people had framed a Constitution and presented herself for this purpose, the whole subject was referred to a Committee of Thirteen, of which Mr. Clay was constituted chairman. The report of this committee formed the basis of a Compromise between the two contending parties, in the following words:
   “1. The admission of any new State or States formed out of Texas to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, when it shall be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact with Texas, by admitting such State or States.
   “2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the boundaries which she has proposed.
   “3. The establishment of Territorial Governments, without the Wilmot Proviso, for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired from Mexico, not contained in the boundaries of California.
   “4. The combination of these two last measures in the same bill.
   “5. The establishment of the western and northern boundaries of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the bill admitting California, and establishing Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico.
   ​“6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, who escape into another State; and
   “7. Abstaining from abolishing slavery, but, under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slave-trade, in the District of Columbia.”
The “pecuniary equivalent” spoken of in this report to be given to Texas for her claim on the Territory of New Mexico, was rendered by the House and concurred in by the Senate, $10,000,000. And, yet, Texas never had the least shadow of a claim on said Territory. It was first obtained from Mexico by the arms of the United States and afterwards paid for by her money. Slavery gained by this Compromise not only the vast region of Texas and ten million dollars, but the continuance of its existence in the District of Columbia, more stringent laws for slave-catching, the territories of New Mexico and Utah opened to its grasp by the newly ordained doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, and a basis by which to uproot the Sacred Compromise of 1820. What a monstrous Compromise! And, yet, the North made these reluctant concessions, to still agitation, to escape the threat of disunion by satisfying the craving demands of the South.