Kitabı oku: «Thirty Years' View (Vol. II of 2)», sayfa 113

CHAPTER CLII.
TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS: LIST OF MEMBERS: FIRST SESSION: ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE

Senators

Maine. – George Evans, John Fairfield.

New Hampshire. – Benjamin W. Jenness, Charles G. Atherton.

Vermont. – William Upham, Samuel S. Phelps.

Massachusetts. – Daniel Webster, John Davis.

Rhode Island. – James F. Simmons, Albert C. Green.

Connecticut. – John M. Niles, Jabez W. Huntington.

New York. – John A. Dix, Daniel S. Dickinson.

New Jersey. – Jacob W. Miller, John L. Dayton.

Pennsylvania. – Simon Cameron, Daniel Sturgeon.

Delaware. – Thomas Clayton, John M. Clayton.

Maryland. – James A. Pearce, Reverdy Johnson.

Virginia. – William S. Archer, Isaac S. Pennybacker.

North Carolina. – Willie P. Mangum, William H. Haywood, jr.

South Carolina. – John C. Calhoun, George McDuffie.

Georgia. – John McP. Berrien, Walter T. Colquitt.

Alabama. – Dixon H. Lewis, Arthur P. Bagby.

Mississippi. – Joseph W. Chalmers, Jesse Speight.

Louisiana. – Alexander Barrow, Henry Johnson.

Tennessee. – Spencer Jarnagin, Hopkins L. Turney.

Kentucky. – James T. Morehead, John J. Crittenden.

Ohio. – William Allen, Thomas Corwin.

Indiana. – Ed. A. Hannegan, Jesse D. Bright.

Illinois. – James Semple, Sidney Breese.

Missouri. – David R. Atchison, Thomas H. Benton.

Arkansas. – Chester Ashley, Ambrose H. Sevier.

Michigan. – William Woodbridge, Lewis Cass.

Florida. – David Levy, James D. Westcott.

In this list will be seen the names of several new senators, not members of the body before, and whose senatorial exertions soon made them eminent; – Dix and Dickinson of New York, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, Jesse D. Bright of Indiana, Lewis Cass of Michigan; and to these were soon to be added two others from the newly incorporated State of Texas, Messrs. General Sam Houston and Thomas F. Rusk, Esq., and of whom, and their State, it may be said they present a remarkable instance of mutual confidence and concord, neither having been changed to this day (1856).

House of Representatives

Maine. – John F. Scammon, Robert P. Dunlap, Luther Severance, John D. McCrate, Cullen Sawtelle, Hannibal Hamlin, Hezekiah Williams.

New Hampshire. – Moses Norris, jr., Mace Moulton, James H. Johnson.

Vermont. – Solomon Foot, Jacob Collamer, George P. Marsh, Paul Dillingham, jr.

Massachusetts. – Robert C. Winthrop, Daniel P. King, Amos Abbot, Benjamin Thompson, Charles Hudson, George Ashmun, Julius Rockwell, John Quincy Adams, Joseph Grinnell.

Rhode Island. – Henry Y. Cranston, Lemuel H. Arnold.

Connecticut. – James Dixon, Samuel D. Hubbard, John A. Rockwell, Truman Smith.

New York. – John W. Lawrence, Henry I. Seaman, William S. Miller, William B. Maclay, Thomas M. Woodruff, William W. Campbell, Joseph H. Anderson, William W. Woodworth, Archibald C. Niven, Samuel Gordon, John F. Collin, Richard P. Herrick, Bradford R. Wood, Erastus D. Culver, Joseph Russell, Hugh White, Charles S. Benton, Preston King, Orville Hungerford, Timothy Jenkins, Charles Goodyear, Stephen Strong, William J. Hough, Horace Wheaton, George Rathbun, Samuel S. Ellsworth, John De Mott, Elias B. Holmes, Charles H. Carcoll, Martin Grover, Abner Lewis, William A. Mosely, Albert Smith, Washington Hunt.

New Jersey. – James G. Hampton, George Sykes, John Runk, John Edsall, William Wright.

Pennsylvania. – Lewis C. Levin, Joseph R. Ingersoll, John H. Campbell, Charles J. Ingersoll, Jacob S. Yost, Jacob Erdman, Abraham R. McIlvaine, John Strohm, John Ritter, Richard Brodhead, jr., Owen D. Leib, David Wilmot, James Pollock, Alexander Ramsay, Moses McLean, James Black, James Blanchard, Andrew Stewart, Henry D. Foster, John H. Ewing, Cornelius Darragh, William S. Garvin, James Thompson, Joseph Buffington.

Delaware. – John W. Houston.

Maryland. – John G. Chapman, Thomas Perry, Thomas W. Ligon, William F. Giles, Albert Constable, Edward Long.

Virginia. – Archibald Atkinson, George C. Dromgoole, William M. Treadway, Edward W. Hubard, Shelton F. Leake, James A. Seddon, Thomas H. Bayly, Robert M. T. Hunter, John S. Pendleton, Henry Redinger, William Taylor, Augustus A. Chapman, George W. Hopkins, Joseph Johnson, William G. Brown.

North Carolina. – James Graham, Daniel M. Barringer, David S. Reid, Alfred Dockery, James C. Dobbin, James J. McKay, John R. J. Daniels, Henry S. Clarke, Asa Biggs.

South Carolina. – James A. Black, Richard F. Simpson, Joseph A. Woodward, A. D. Sims, Armistead Burt, Isaac E. Holmes, R. Barnwell Rhett.

Georgia. – Thomas Butler King, Seaborn Jones, Hugh A. Haralson, John H. Lumpkin, Howell Cobb, Alex. H. Stephens, Robt. Toombs.

Alabama. – Samuel D. Dargin, Henry W. Hilliard, William L. Yancey, Winter W. Payne, George S. Houston, Reuben Chapman, Felix G. McConnell.

Mississippi. – Jacob Thompson, Stephen Adams, Robert N. Roberts, Jefferson Davis.

Louisiana. – John Slidell, Bannon G. Thibodeaux, J. H. Harmonson, Isaac E. Morse.

Ohio. – James J. Faran, F. A. Cunningham, Robert C. Schenck, Joseph Vance, William Sawyer, Henry St. John, Joseph J. McDowell, Allen G. Thurman, Augustus L. Perrill, Columbus Delano, Jacob Brinkerhoff, Samuel F. Vinton, Isaac Parish, Alexander Harper, Joseph Morris, John D. Cummins, George Fries, D. A. Starkweather, Daniel R. Tilden, Joshua R. Giddings, Joseph M. Root.

Kentucky. – Linn Boyd, John H. McHenry, Henry Grider, Joshua F. Bell, Bryan R. Young, John P. Martin, William P. Thomasson, Garrett Davis, Andrew Trumbo, John W. Tibbatts.

Tennessee. – Andrew Johnson, William M. Cocke, John Crozier, Alvan Cullom, George W. Jones, Barclay Martin, Meridith, P. Gentry, Lorenzo B. Chase, Frederick P. Stanton, Milton Brown.

Indiana. – Robert Dale Owen, Thomas J. Henley, Thomas Smith, Caleb B. Smith, William W. Wick, John W. Davis, Edward W. McGaughey, John Petit, Charles W. Cathcart, Andrew Kennedy.

Illinois. – Robert Smith, John A. McClernand, Orlando B. Ficklin, John Wentworth, Stephen A. Douglass, Joseph P. Hoge, Edward D. Baker.

Missouri. – James B. Bowlin, James H. Relf, Sterling Price, John S. Phelps, Leonard H. Simms.

Arkansas. – Archibald Yell.

Michigan. – Robert McClelland, John S. Chapman, James B. Hunt.

The delegates from territories were:

Florida. – Edward C. Cabell.

Iowa. – Augustus C. Dodge.

Wisconsin. – Morgan L. Martin.

The election of Speaker was readily effected, there being a large majority on the democratic side. Mr. John W. Davis, of Indiana, being presented as the democratic candidate, received 120 votes; Mr. Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, received the whig vote, 72. Mr. Benjamin B. French, of New Hampshire, was appointed clerk (without the formality of an election), by a resolve of the House, adopted by a general vote. He was of course democratic. The House being organized, a motion was made by Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, to except the hour rule (as it was called) from the rules to be adopted for the government of the House – which was lost, 62 to 143.

CHAPTER CLIII.
MR. POLK'S FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

The leading topic in the message was, naturally, the incorporation of Texas, then accomplished, and the consequent dissatisfaction of Mexico – a dissatisfaction manifested every way short of actual hostilities, and reason to believe they were intended. On our side, strong detachments of the army and navy had been despatched to Texas and the Gulf of Mexico, to be ready for whatever might happen. The Mexican minister, General Almonte, had left the United States: an American minister sent to Mexico had been refused to be received, and had returned home. All this was the natural result of the status belli between the United States and Mexico which the incorporation of Texas had established; and, that there were not actual hostilities was only owing to the weakness of one of the parties. These things were thus stated by the President:

"Since that time Mexico has, until recently, occupied an attitude of hostility towards the United States – has been marshalling and organizing armies, issuing proclamations, and avowing the intention to make war on the United States, either by an open declaration, or by invading Texas. Both the Congress and convention of the people of Texas invited this government to send an army into that territory, to protect and defend them against the menaced attack. The moment the terms of annexation, offered by the United States, were accepted by Texas, the latter became so far a part of our own country, as to make it our duty to afford such protection and defence. I therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a strong squadron to the coast of Mexico, and to concentrate an efficient military force on the western frontier of Texas. Our army was ordered to take position in the country between the Nueces and the Del Norte, and to repel any invasion of the Texian territory which might be attempted by the Mexican forces. Our squadron in the Gulf was ordered to co-operate with the army. But though our army and navy were placed in a position to defend our own, and the rights of Texas, they were ordered to commit no act of hostility against Mexico, unless she declared war, or was herself the aggressor by striking the first blow. The result has been, that Mexico has made no aggressive movement, and our military and naval commanders have executed their orders with such discretion, that the peace of the two republics has not been disturbed."

Thus the armed forces of the two countries were brought into presence, and the legal state of war existing between them was brought to the point of actual war. Of this the President complained, assuming that Texas and the United States had a right to unite, which was true as to the right; but asserting that Mexico had no right to oppose it, which was a wrong assumption. For, in taking Texas into the Union, she was taken with her circumstances, one of which was a state of war with Mexico. Denying her right to take offence at what had been done, the message went on to enumerate causes of complaint against her, and for many years back, and to make out cause of war against her on account of injuries done by her to our citizens. In this sense the message said:

"But though Mexico cannot complain of the United States on account of the annexation of Texas, it is to be regretted that serious causes of misunderstanding between the two countries continue to exist, growing out of unredressed injuries inflicted by the Mexican authorities and people on the persons and property of citizens of the United States, through a long series of years. Mexico has admitted these injuries, but has neglected and refused to repair them. Such was the character of the wrongs, and such the insults repeatedly offered to American citizens and the American flag by Mexico, in palpable violation of the laws of nations and the treaty between the two countries of the 5th April, 1831, that they have been repeatedly brought to the notice of Congress by my predecessors. As early as the 8th February, 1837, the President of the United States declared, in a message to Congress, that 'the length of time since some of the injuries have been committed, the repeated and unavailing application for redress, the wanton character of some of the outrages upon the persons and property of our citizens, upon the officers and flag of the United States, independent of recent insults to this government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister, would justify, in the eyes of all nations, immediate war.' He did not, however, recommend an immediate resort to this extreme measure, which he declared 'should not be used by just and generous nations, confiding in their strength, for injuries committed, if it can be honorably avoided;' but, in a spirit of forbearance, proposed that another demand be made on Mexico for that redress which had been so long and unjustly withheld. In these views, committees of the two Houses of Congress, in reports made in their respective bodies, concurred. Since these proceedings more than eight years have elapsed, during which, in addition to the wrongs then complained of, others of an aggravated character have been committed on the persons and property of our citizens. A special agent was sent to Mexico in the summer of 1838, with full authority to make another and final demand for redress. The demand was made; the Mexican government promised to repair the wrongs of which we complained; and after much delay, a treaty of indemnity with that view was concluded between the two powers on the 11th of April, 1839, and was duly ratified by both governments."

This treaty of indemnity, the message went on to show, had never yet been complied with, and its non-fulfilment, added to the other causes of complaint, the President considered as just cause for declaring war against her – saying:

"In the mean time, our citizens, who suffered great losses, and some of whom have been reduced from affluence to bankruptcy, are without remedy, unless their rights be enforced by their government. Such a continued and unprovoked series of wrongs could never have been tolerated by the United States, had they been committed by one of the principal nations of Europe. Mexico was, however, a neighboring sister republic, which, following our example, had achieved her independence, and for whose success and prosperity, all our sympathies were early enlisted. The United States were the first to recognize her independence, and to receive her into the family of nations, and have ever been desirous of cultivating with her a good understanding. We have, therefore, borne the repeated wrongs she has committed, with great patience, in the hope that a returning sense of justice would ultimately guide her councils, and that we might, if possible, honorably avoid any hostile collision with her."

Torn by domestic dissension, in a state of revolution at home, and ready to be crushed by the power of the United States, the Mexican government had temporized, and after dismissing one United States minister, had consented to receive another, who was then on his way to the City of Mexico. Of this mission, and the consequences of its failure, the President thus expressed himself:

"The minister appointed has set out on his mission, and is probably by this time near the Mexican capital. He has been instructed to bring the negotiation with which he is charged to a conclusion at the earliest practicable period; which, it is expected, will be in time to enable me to communicate the result to Congress during the present session. Until that result is known, I forbear to recommend to Congress such ulterior measures of redress for the wrongs and injuries we have so long borne, as it would have been proper to make had no such negotiation been instituted."

From this communication it was clear that a recommendation of a declaration of war was only deferred for the issue of this mission, which failing to be favorable, would immediately call forth the deferred recommendation. The Oregon question was next in importance to that of Texas and Mexico, and like it seemed to be tending to a warlike solution. The negotiations between the two governments, which had commenced under Mr. Tyler's administration, and continued for some months under his own, had come to a dead stand. The government of the United States had revoked its proposition to make the parallel of 49 degrees the dividing line between the two countries, and asserted the unquestionable title of the United States to the whole, up to the Russian boundary in 54 degrees 40 minutes; and the message recommended Congress to authorize the notice which was to terminate the joint occupancy, to extend our laws to the territory, to encourage its population and settlement; and cast upon Great Britain the responsibility of any belligerent solution of the difficulty which might arise. Thus, the issue of peace or war with Great Britain was thrown into the hands of Congress.

The finances, and the public debt, required a notice, which was briefly and satisfactorily given. The receipts into the Treasury for the past year had been $29,770,000: the payments from it $29,968,000; and the balance in the Treasury at the end of the year five millions – leaving a balance of $7,658,000 on hand. The nature of these balances, always equal to about one-fourth of the revenue even where the receipts and expenditures are even, or the latter even in some excess, has been explained in the first volume of this View, as resulting from the nature of great government transactions and payments, large part of which necessarily go into the beginning of the succeeding year, when they would be met by the accruing revenue, even if there was nothing in the Treasury; so that, in fact, the government may be carried on upon an income about one-fourth less than the expenditure. This is a paradox – a seeming absurdity, but true, which every annual statement of the Treasury will prove; and which the legislative, as well as the executive government, should understand. The sentiments in relation to the public debt (of which there would have been none had it not been for the distribution of the land revenue, and the surplus fund, among the States, and the absurd plunges in the descent of the duties on imports in the last two years of the compromise act of 1833), were just and wise, such as had been always held by the democratic school, and which cannot be too often repeated. They were these:

"The amount of the public debt remaining unpaid on the first of October last, was seventeen millions, seventy-five thousand, four hundred and forty-five dollars and fifty-two cents. Further payments of the public debt would have been made, in anticipation of the period of its reimbursement under the authority conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury, by the acts of July twenty-first, 1841, and of April fifteenth, and of March third, 1843, had not the unsettled state of our relations with Mexico menaced hostile collision with that power. In view of such a contingency, it was deemed prudent to retain in the Treasury an amount unusually large for ordinary purposes. A few years ago, our whole national debt growing out of the revolution and the war of 1812 with Great Britain, was extinguished, and we presented to the world the rare and noble spectacle of a great and growing people who had fully discharged every obligation. Since that time the existing debt has been contracted; and small as it is, in comparison with the similar burdens of most other nations, it should be extinguished at the earliest practicable period. Should the state of the country permit, and especially if our foreign relations interpose no obstacle, it is contemplated to apply all the moneys in the Treasury as they accrue beyond what is required for the appropriations by Congress, to its liquidation. I cherish the hope of soon being able to congratulate the country on its recovering once more the lofty position which it so recently occupied. Our country, which exhibits to the world the benefits of self-government, in developing all the sources of national prosperity, owes to mankind the permanent example of a nation free from the blighting influence of a public debt."

The revision of the tariff was recommended, with a view to revenue as the object, with protection to home industry as the incident.

CHAPTER CLIV.
DEATH OF JOHN FORSYTH

Like Mr. Crawford, he was a Virginian by birth Georgian by citizenship, republican in politics, and eminent in his day. He ran the career of federal honors – a member of the House and of the Senate, and a front rank debater in each: minister in Spain, and Secretary of State under Presidents Jackson and Van Buren; successor to Crawford in his State, and the federal councils; and the fast political and personal friend of that eminent citizen in all the trials and fortunes of his life. A member of the House when Mr. Crawford, restrained by his office, and disabled by his calamity, was unable to do any thing for himself, and assailed by the impersonation of the execrable A. B. plot, it devolved upon him to stand up for his friend; and nobly did he do it. The examination through which he led the accuser exterminated him in public opinion – showed every accusation to be false and malicious; detected the master spirit which lay behind the ostensible assailants, and greatly exalted the character of Mr. Crawford.

Mr. Forsyth was a fine specimen of that kind of speaking which constitutes a debater, and which, in fact, is the effective speaking in legislative assemblies. He combined the requisites for keen debate – a ready, copious, and easy elocution; ample knowledge of the subject; argument and wit; great power to point a sarcasm, and to sting courteously; perfect self-possession, and a quickness and clearness of perception to take advantage of every misstep of his adversary. He served in trying times, during the great contests with the Bank of the United States, with the heresy of nullification, and the dawning commencement of the slavery agitation. In social life he was a high exemplification of refined and courteous manners, of polite conversation, and of affability, decorum and dignity.