Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-07-17
LETTER OF HON. WILLIAM R. xlNo. 0

one OF the Senators OF the United States from the Stat
OF Alabama, to our hands in the papers of tina
| State
| PINE HILLS, Dallas county, June l6 1851.
| My Dear Sir: | very much regret that my absence
| from home deprived me OF the pleasure of receiving
your friendly letter earlier day. hasten to re-
turn answer. You doubtless attach 10 my opinions
much greater importance than they deserve, but as
one OF your Senators in the councils OF the nation you
have a right to demand them on all poiiica questions
and especially on those affecting your personal security
and rights OF property. shall proceed to lay them be
fore you with the frankness that becomes Con-
cealment OF opinions deliberately formed never has and
trust never will, constitute any part Of my character
public or private. shall never be deferred from giving
utterance from the apprehension that they may be
10 accordance with those which Others entertain, that
| by making them known | may affect injuriousy my
| standing as public man. This is well understood by
| those who have known me longest and know me best
1t allnto error-to which every man is liable-when
| convinced OF it, promptly admit and retract it, but
much as desire to obtain the appreciation of the peo
pie have The honor to represent, should feel that
was unworthy OF the position in which has pleased
them to place me- 1t, 10 gain it, to trim my sails
( to every popular bresze aud violate the obligations
| owe to our common country. l condemn no man for
honestly differing with me in opinion, but | have too
much set-respect, and trust, independence to
| der mine own to please any man. or any set of men.
had supposed that my action on the so-called Com.
promise bill OF the last Congress- together with the
| sous which governed it, had been so plainly marked
by my public declarations and votes preclude the
possibility OF misrepresentation From the tenor Of your
letter, this not to be the brief statement
will, trust, put end to all doubt or cavil for the
| future. | was as you know, one of the committee OF
thirteen which reported the compromise bill. Without
going into detail, will only it did not receive my
sanction in committee nor would under any crcum-
| stances, have given it my support reper ed. The
parts to which principally objected were, the adms-
sion of California a State with territory more ex-
ensive than any three States OF the Union, and the
clause which emancipates slaves brought into the Dis
rct tor SALE could not fail to see that most ofhose
who advocated the admission OF California with her
ravagant limits would but for the prohibition OF slave
ny contained IN her constitution, have been the most
violent in opposition to her reception into the Union.
She owed her admission, them the fact that the peo
pie OF the slavehoding States deprived of an
equal participation in territory which, of right equal
y belonged to the citizens of all the States Finding
that there fixed majority determined to perpe.
tate this act ofnjusce if brought to the direct vote
made effort to curtail the limits OF the State so
south of the Sierra Nevada. AT time the pros
pect was fair that my proposition proper in ITSELF
would succeed it, however, failed and California be-
came State with thousand miles of sea coast. No
| man could have felt more indignant than [ did at this
partial and unjust legislation; but free to declare
that have not been able to in the viola
ton of the Constitution commended for by many did
so consider it, neither could nor would have ex-
pressed the opinion that the people OF the South could
with honor, and under the circumstances should, ae
quiesce in what had been done. The Constitution
simply gives to Congress the power to admit new
States, and the only restriction upon the exercise of
this power is that the State Constitution shall be
of Congress to the information Of the Constitution, pre-
vously given is to be found The whole matter rests
with Congress to exercise sound discretion.
As respects the bill for aboshng the slave trade in
the District Of Columbia, to which you particularly call
my attention, wish to be distinctly understood At
early period of tine first session Of the last Congress-
declared in my place in the Senate that stood ready
at any time to authorize the breaking up of those slave
marts in the midst Of the cly-ofiensve they were
to decency, preudcal to health, and in many respects
shocking to humanity 1t was my desire to clothe the
ofoo
them as nusances whenever they conceived it proper
to do SO; and for such bill would unhestatingy
have given my vote-having no fears that by such
slavery in the District would be affected nuri-
ousy. The people more directly interested entertained
no apprehension of the kind; and think can say with
certainty that nine-enths OF the citizens desired those
slave be suppressed. however voted against
the bill as it passed. because the penalty for violating
the law the emancipation of the slave; and would
not, under any circumstances, have given my sanction
10 emancipation in the District OF Columbia whether
as penalty for the violation of law or 10 any other
manner and should feel bounden duty to vote for
the repeal of the emancpating clause whenever pro-
posed.
Permit me to advert for moment to the other pro-
visions of The bill as reported by the committee and
for which, after undergoing several notifications, |
gave my vote. And first as TO the boundary of Texas.
am fully satisfied that, in giving my support 10 the
line agreed on, although had contended for a diff
terent boundary, wasspromoting the true interests of
Texas and of the whole South The camor which has
been raised against the measure shat slave territory
had been surrendered to eesoil has foundation in
fact. Many, however, without giving 10 the subject
thorough examination have been made to believe
that the boundary ct Texas had been established the
time of her annexation, and that her right to the
whole territory OF the Rio Grande from its mouth
to its SOURCE was unquestloned. Nothing be
erroneous. When MI. Calhoun, Secretary OF State
negotiated treaty with the Texas Commissioners he
openly declared that he considered her true western
boundary to be line to be drawn through what was
known the DESERT lying between the Nueces and the.
Rio Grande. That treaty rejected by the Senate
At subsequent session, the resolutions which passed
authorizing the admission of Texas expressly reserved
the right of this Government to fix by negotiation with
Mexico, her western boundary-nothing said about
the Rio Grande-and thus Texas came into the Union,
her boundary unsettled. The effort to settle
by negotiation having failed Gen Taylor was direct
ed to take position on the east bank OF the river.
He removed from Point Isabel and encamped oppo-
site Matamoras The battles at Pao Alto and Resa-
ca de la Palma followed. What then said by Mr.
Calhoun, the bold fearless and uncompromsng advocate
and defender OF Southern rights and Southern interests?
He denounced in most indignant terms, the adminstra-
zion oil Col Polk tor having involved the country in
unjust and unnecessary war by the invasion of Next
can territory. Texas, then State OF the Uaon, had
not in the opinion Of that distinguished man, any well
founded claim to any territory bordering the Rio
Grande, and in that opinion ne was sustained by many
who now denounce faithsss to the South all those
who aided in securing to Texas the undspuied pos
session OF territory large enough for States the
right which they had strongly denied to her. Nc ter
rtory has been surrendered 10 free soil unless the peo
pie OF Utah and New Mexico, when they form con-
sution and apply for admission states think proper
to prOnl0 slavery ana Tor the unrestricted of
this right of the Souh have always commended Gov
ernmens established Tor these territories in strict
accordance with all the territorial heretofore passed
with the exception OF that for Oregon. There is re-
srciion slavery, and the ablest statesmen and
most distinguished jurss, of the South entertain no
doubt that the of slaves may with perfect secu
rty take them to either OF these Territories regardless
of the Mexican law.
Had the Southern Senators and Representatives en-
tertaned any doubt this subject do you suppose that
they and all, would have voted for the bill known
the Clayton bill, which left the question the va
idy of the Mexican law to be decided by the Supreme
Court satisfied we all were that that decision could
not fail to sustain the rights of the South? Yet then
now, the advocates for resistance contended that the
law of Mexico excluded slavery. That they did not
themselves believe what they roundly asserted APP
parent from the fact that they voted against the amend
ment to the appropriation bill of the same session.
which authorized the President to establish Territorial
governments, saying nothing the subject of slavery;
and urgent were they for positive restriction that
they very defeating the passage OF the civil
and diplomatic appropriation BILL to which, after the
rejection of the Clayton bill had attached the pro-
vision.