155 Raleigh Letter (1844)
Raleigh, April 17, 1844.
The rejection of the overture of Texas some years ago to become annexed to the United States had met with general acquiescence. Nothing had since occurred materially to vary the question. I had seen no evidence of a desire being entertained on the part of any considerable portion of the American people that Texas should become an integral part of the United States. To the astonishment of the whole nation, we are now informed that a treaty of annexation has been actually concluded and is to be submitted to the Senate for its consideration. If without the loss of national character, without the hazard of foreign war, with the general concurrence of the nation, without any danger to the integrity of the Union, and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas the question of annexation were presented, it would appear in quite a different light from that in which I apprehend it is now to be regarded.
Annexation and war with Mexico are identical. Now for one, I certainly am not willing to involve this country in a foreign war for the object of acquiring Texas. I know there are those who regard such a war with indifference and as a trifling affair, on account of the weakness of Mexico and her inability to inflict serious injury upon this country. But I do not look upon it thus lightly. I regard all wars as great calamities to be avoided if possible, and honorable peace as the wisest and truest policy of this country. What the United States most need are union, peace, and patience. Assuming that the annexation of Texas is war with Mexico, is it competent to the treaty-making power to plunge this country into war, not only without the concurrence of but without deigning to consult Congress, to which by the Constitution belongs exclusively the power of declaring war?
I have hitherto considered the question upon the supposition that the annexation is attempted without the assent of Mexico. If she yields her consent, that would materially affect the foreign aspect of the question if it did not remove all foreign difficulties. On the assumption of that assent, the question would be confined to the domestic considerations which belong to it, embracing the terms and conditions upon which annexation is proposed. I do not think that Texas ought to be received into the Union as an integral part of it, in decided opposition to the wishes of a considerable and respectable portion of the Confederacy. I think it far more wise and important to compose and harmonize the present Confederacy as it now exists, than to introduce a new element of discord and distraction into it. In my humble opinion it should be the constant and earnest endeavor of American statesmen to eradicate prejudices, to cultivate and foster concord, and to produce general contentment among all parts of our Confederacy.
And true wisdom it seems to me, points to the duty of rendering its present members happy, prosperous, and satisfied with each other rather than to attempt to introduce alien members against the common consent and with the certainty of deep dissatisfaction. Mr. Jefferson expressed the opinion and others believed that it never was in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution to add foreign territory to the Confederacy, out of which new States were to be formed. The acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida may be defended upon the peculiar ground of the relation in which they stood to the States of the Union. After they were admitted we might well pause awhile, people our vast wastes, develop our resources, prepare the means of defending what we possess, and augment our strength, power, and greatness. If hereafter further territory should be wanted for an increased population, we need entertain no apprehensions but that it will be acquired by means it is to be hoped, fair, honorable, and constitutional.
It is useless to disguise that there are those who espouse and those who oppose the annexation of Texas upon the ground of the influence which it would exert in the balance of political power between two great sections of the Union. I conceive that no motive for the acquisition of foreign territory would be more unfortunate or pregnant with more fatal consequences than that of obtaining it for the purpose of strengthening one part against another part of the common Confederacy. Such a principle put into practical operation would menace the existence, if it did not certainly sow the seeds of a dissolution of the Union. It would be to proclaim to the world an insatiable and unquenchable thirst for foreign conquest or acquisition of territory. For if today Texas be acquired to strengthen one part of the Confederacy, tomorrow Canada may be required to add strength to another. And after that might have been obtained, still other and further acquisitions would become necessary to equalize and adjust the balance of political power. Finally, in the progress of this spirit of universal dominion, the part of the Confederacy which is now weakest would find itself still weaker from the impossibility of securing new theaters for those peculiar institutions which it is charged with being desirous to extend.
But would Texas, ultimately, really add strength to that which is now considered the weakest part of the Confederacy? If my information be correct, it would not. According to that, the territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be adapted to those peculiar institutions to which I have referred. And the other three, lying west and north of San Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes from the nature of their soil, climate, and productions, would not admit of those institutions. In the end therefore, there would be two slave and three free States probably added to the Union. If this view of the soil and geography of Texas be correct, it might serve to diminish the zeal both of those who oppose and those who are urging annexation.
If any European nation entertains any ambitious designs upon Texas such as that of colonizing her or in any way subjugating her, I should regard it as the imperative duty of the Government of the United States to oppose to such designs the most firm and determined resistance, to the extent if necessary of appealing to arms to prevent the accomplishment of any such designs. The Executive of the United States ought to be informed as to the aims and views of foreign powers with regard to Texas and I presume that if there be any of the exceptionable character which I have indicated, the Executive will disclose to the coordinate departments of the Government if not to the public the evidence of them. From what I have seen and heard, I believe that Great Britain has recently formally and solemnly disavowed any such aims or purposes. Has declared that she is desirous only of the independence of Texas and that she has no intention to interfere in her domestic institutions. If she has made such disavowal and declaration, I presume they are in the possession of the Executive.
In conclusion, I consider the annexation of Texas at this time, without the assent of Mexico, as a measure compromising the national character, involving us certainly in war with Mexico, probably with other foreign Powers, dangerous to the integrity of the Union, inexpedient in the present financial condition of the country, and not called for by any general expression of public opinion.
Source: “Raleigh Letter”, by Henry Clay, Daily National Intelligencer (Washington), April 27, 1844. https://archive.org/details/toldcontemporari03hartrich/page/646/mode/2up
