116 Objections to Annexation (1803)

Speeches by U.S. Senators

Mr. White: I wish not to be understood as predicting that the French will not cede to us the actual and quiet possession of the territory. I hope to God they may, for possession of it we must have. I mean of New Orleans and of such other positions on the Mississippi as may be necessary to secure to us forever the complete and uninterrupted navigation of that river. This I have ever been in favor of. I think it essential to the peace of the United States and to the prosperity of our Western country.

But as to Louisiana, this new, immense, unbounded world. If it should ever be incorporated into this Union which I have no idea can be done but by altering the Constitution, I believe it will be the greatest curse that could at present befall us. It may be productive of innumerable evils and especially of one that I fear even to look upon. As to what has been suggested of removing the Creeks and other nations of Indians from the eastern to the western banks of the Mississippi and of making the fertile regions of Louisiana a howling wilderness, never to be trodden by the foot of civilized man. It is impracticable; you had as well pretend to inhibit the fish from swimming in the sea as to prevent the population of that country after its sovereignty shall become ours. To every man acquainted with the adventurous, roving, and enterprising temper of our people and with the manner in which our Western country has been settled, such an idea must be chimerical. The inducements will be so strong that it will be impossible to restrain our citizens from crossing the river. Louisiana must and will become settled if we hold it, and our citizens will be removed to the immense distance of two or three thousand miles from the capital of the Union where they will scarcely ever feel the rays of the General Government. Their affections will become alienated, they will gradually begin to view us as strangers, they will form other commercial connections, and our interests will become distinct. These will in time effect a separation and I fear our bounds will be fixed nearer to our houses than the waters of the Mississippi. And I do say that under existing circumstances, even supposing that this extent of territory was a desirable acquisition, fifteen millions of dollars was a most enormous sum to give.

Mr. Pickering: The Constitution and the laws of the United States and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. But a treaty to be thus obligatory must not contravene the Constitution nor contain any stipulations which transcend the powers therein given to the President and Senate. The treaty between the United States and the French Republic professing to cede Louisiana to the United States appeared to contain such an exceptionable stipulation — a stipulation which cannot be executed by any authority now existing. It is declared in the third article that “the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States.” But neither the President and Senate nor the President and Congress are competent to such an act of incorporation. Our Administration admitted that this incorporation could not be effected without an amendment of the Constitution and this necessary amendment could not be made in the ordinary mode by the concurrence of two thirds of both houses of Congress and the ratification by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states. He believed the assent of each individual State to be necessary for the admission of a foreign country as an associate in the Union. In like manner as in a commercial house, the consent of each member would be necessary to admit a new partner into the company and whether the assent of every State to such an indispensable amendment were attainable was uncertain. But the articles of a treaty were necessarily related to each other, the stipulation in one article being the consideration for another. If therefore, in respect to the Louisiana Treaty, the United States fail to execute and within a reasonable time the engagement in the third article (to incorporate that Territory into the Union), the French Government will have a right to declare the whole treaty void. We must then abandon the country or go to war to maintain our possession. But it was to prevent war that the pacific measures of the last winter were adopted — they were to “lay the foundation for future peace.”

There was another serious objection to this treaty. It purported to contain a cession of Louisiana to the United States. It was stated by the third article of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, made the first of October 1800, that the King of Spain promised and engaged on certain conditions “to cede to the French Republic the colony or province of Louisiana”. That is, by that treaty France acquired a right to demand an actual cession of the territory provided she fulfilled all the conditions on which Spain promised to cede. But we know Spain declares that those conditions have not been fully performed and by her remonstrances, warns the United States not to touch Louisiana.

But gentlemen rely on the royal order now in the hands of the French agent here, for the delivery of the possession of Louisiana to the French Republic. But what if a subsequent royal order had been issued requiring those [the Spanish] officers not to deliver up Louisiana to France or to the United States? We have some reason to think that such is the fact and resistance was apprehended. Why else, all this parade of war? One honorable gentleman has said that Spain will be left alone, that the French Republic is bound in honor not to give her any aid. The French Republic bound in honor! For ten or fifteen years past, we had known too well what were the honor and the justice of the Government of that Republic. Perhaps Spain may not resist at the present moment. She may wait until France gets the war with Britain off her hands. Then pretenses will be easily found to reclaim Louisiana and Spain once engaged to wrest it from us by force, will receive from France her ally all necessary aid. This whole transaction had purposely been wrapped in obscurity by the French Government. The boundary of Louisiana for instance, on the side of Florida was in the treaty really unintelligible. And yet nothing was more easy to define. The French Government however, would find no difficulty in the construction.

Mr. Tracy: The principle of admission in the case of Louisiana is the same as if it contained ten millions of inhabitants. And the principles of these people are probably as hostile to our government, in its true construction, as they can be. And the relative strength which this admission gives to a southern and western interest is contradictory to the principles of our original Union as any can be, however strongly stated. The paragraph in the Constitution which says that “new States may be admitted by Congress into this Union”, has been quoted to justify this treaty. The article of the Constitution, if any person will take the trouble to examine it, refers to domestic states only and not at all to foreign states. The words of the Constitution are completely satisfied by a construction which shall include only the admission of domestic states who were all parties to the Revolutionary war and to the compact, and the spirit of the association seems to embrace no other. But I repeat it, if the Congress collectively has this power, the President and Senate cannot of course have it exclusively.

The seventh article admits for twelve years the ships of France and Spain into the ceded territory, free of foreign duty. This is giving a commercial preference to those ports over the other ports of the United States which the Constitution expressly prohibits from being given to the ports of one state over those of another. I acknowledge if Louisiana is not admitted into the Union and that if there is no promise to admit her, then this part of our argument will not apply. But in declaring these to be facts, my opponents are driven to acknowledge that the third article of this treaty is void, which answers every purpose which I wish to establish: that this treaty is unconstitutional and void and that I have consequently a right to withhold my vote.

Source: Annals of Congress, 8th Congress, 1st session (1852), 31-58. https://archive.org/details/toldcontemporari03hartrich/page/372/mode/2up