Prior to this vote, the House disagreed to the log-rolling of Maine and Missouri, into one bill by the strong vote of 93 to 72. [We do not give the Yeas and Nays on this decision; but the majority was composed of the representatives of the Free States with only four exceptions; and Mr. Louis McLane of Delaware, who was constrained by instructions from his legislature. His colleague, Mr. Willard Hall, did not vote.] The members from Free States who voted with the South to keep Maine and Missouri united in one bill were, Messrs. H. Baldwin of Pa. Henry Meigs of N. Y. Louis McLane, Del. Nelson, Md. The Senate took up the bill on the 24th, and debated it till the 28th, when, on a direct vote, it was decided not to recede from the attachment of Missouri to the Maine bill: Yeas 21; (19 from Free States and 2 from Delaware ;) Nays 23; (20 from Slave States, with Messrs. Taylor of Ind., Edwards and Thomas of Ill.) The Senate also voted not to recede from its amendment prohibiting Slavery west of Missouri, and north of 36° 30', north latitude. (For receding, 9 from Slave States, with Messrs. Noble and Taylor of Ind. against it 33-(22 from Slave States, 11 from Free States.) The remaining amendments of the Senate were then insisted on without division, and the House notified accordingly. The bill was now returned to the House, which, on motion of Mr. John W. Taylor of N. Y., voted to insist on its disagreement to all but sec. 9 of the Senate's amendments, by Yeas 97 to Nays 76: [all but a purely sectional vote: Hugh Nelson of Va. voting with the North; Baldwin of Pa., Bloomfield of N. J., and Shaw of Mass., voting with the South] Sec. 9, (the Senate's exclusion of Slavery from the Territory north and west of Missouri) was also rejected-Yeas 160; Nays 14, (much as before.) The Senate thereupon (March 2nd) passed the House's Missouri bill, striking out the restriction of Slavery by Yeas 27 to Nays 15, and adding without a division the exclusion of Slavery from the Territory west and north of said State. Mr. Trimble again moved the exclusion of Slavery from Arkansas also, but was again voted down; Yeas 12; Nays 30. The Senate now asked a conference, which the House granted without a division. The Committee of Conference was composed of Messrs. Thomas of Ill., Pinkney of Md., and Barbour of Va. (all anti-restrictionists), on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. Holmes of Mass., Taylor of N. Y., Lowndes of S. C., Parker of Mass., and Kinsey of N. J., on the part of the House. [Such constitution of the Committee of Conference was in effect a surrender of the Restriction on the part of the House.] John Holmes of Mass., from this Committee, in due time (March 2nd), reported that, 1. The Senate should give up the combination of Missouri in the same bill with Maine. 2. The House should abandon the attempt to restrict Slavery in Missouri. 3. Both Houses should agree to pass the Senate's separate Missouri bill, with Mr. Thomas's restriction or compromising proviso, excluding Slavery from all Territory north and west of Missouri. The report having been read, The first and most important question was put, viz.: "Will the House concur with the Senate in so strike from the fourth section of the [Missouri] much of the said amendments as proposes to bill the provision prohibiting Slavery or involuntary servitude, in the contemplated State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes?" On which question the Yeas and Nays were demanded, and were as follow: YEAS-For giving up Restriction on Mis souri: John Floyd, Robert S. Garnett, James Johnson, James Jones, William McCoy, Charles F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Nelson, Severn E. Par ker, Jas Pindall, John Randolph, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, George F. Strother, Thomas Van Swearingen, George Tucker, John Tyler, Jared Williams-22. NORTH CAROLINA.-Hutchins G. Burton, John Culpepper. William Davidson, Weldon N. Edwards, Charles Fisher, Thomas H. Hall, Charles Hooks, Thomas Settle, Jesse Slocumb, James S. Smith, Felix Walker, Lewis Williams-12. SOUTH CAROLINA. Josiah Brevard, Elias ALABAMA.-John Crowell-1. KENTUCKY.-Richard C. Anderson, jr., William Brown; Benjamin Hardin, Alney McLean, Thomas Metcalf, Tunstall Quarles, Geo. Robertson, David Trimble-8. TENNESSEE. Robert Allen, Henry H. Bryan, Newton Cannon, John Cocke, Francis Jones, John Rhea.5. Total Yeas from Slave States 76; in all 90 NAYS--Against giving up the Restriction on Slavery in Missouri: NEW-HAMPSHIRE. Joseph Buffum, jr., Josiah Butler, Clifton Clagett, Arthur Livermore, William Plumer, jr., Nathaniel Upham.6. with Lemuel Sawyer of N. C., and David Walker of Ky., from the Slave States. Mr. Clay of Ky., being Speaker, did not vote.] This defeat broke the back of the Northern resistance to receiving Missouri as a Slave State. | MASSACHUSETTS (including Maine)....Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen, Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, Walter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Jonas Kendall, Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson; James Parker, Zabdiel Sampson, Nathaniel Sils bee, Ezekiel Whitman_16. RHODE ISLAND. Nathaniel Hazard_1. CONNECTICUT. Jonathan O. Moseley, Elisha Phelps. John Russ, Gideon Tomlinson__4. VERMONT.Samuel C. Crafts, Rollin C. Mallary, Ezra Meech, Charles Rich, Mark. Richards, William Strong_6. NEW-YORK. Nathaniel Allen, Caleb Baker, Robert Clark, Jacob H. De Witt, John D. Dick inson, John Fay, William D. Ford, Ezra C. Gross, James Guyon, jr., Aaron Hackley. jr., George Hall, Joseph S. Lyman, Robert Monell, Nathaniel Pitcher, Jonathan Richmond, Randall S. Street, James Strong, John W. Taylor, Albert H. Tracy, Solomon Van Rensselaer, Peter H. Wendoer, Silas Wood EW-JERSEY. Ephraim Bateman, John Linn, Henry Southard_3. PENNSYLVANIA, — Andrew Boden, William Darlington, George Dennison, Samuel Edwards, Thomas Forrest, Samuel Gross, Joseph Hemphill, Jacob Hibschman, Joseph Heister, Jacob Hostetter, William P. Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, John Murray, Thomas Patterson, Robert Philson, Thomas J. Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, James M. Wal lace_21. OHIO.--Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, John W. Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. Ross, John Sloane__6. INDIANA.-William Hendricks_1. Total Nays 87-all from Free States. [The members apparently absent on this important division, were Henry W. Edwards of Conn., Walter Case and Honorius Peck of N. Y. and John Condit of N. J., from the Free States; Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., now moved an amendment, intended to include Arkansas Territory under the proposed Inhibition of Slavery West of Missouri; but this motion was cut off by the Previous Question (which then cut off amendments more rigorously, according to the rules of the House, than it now does), and the House proceeded to concur with the Senate in inserting the exclusion of Slavery from the Territory West and North of Missouri, instead of that just stricken out by 134 Yeas to 42 Nays, (the Nays being from the South). So the bill was passed in the form indicated above; and the bill admitting Maine as a State, (relieved, by a conference, from the Missouri rider,) passed both Houses without a division, on the following day. Such was the virtual termination of the struggle for the restriction of Slavery in Missouri, which was beaten by the plan of proffering instead an exclusion of Slavery from all the then Federal Territory West and North of that State. It is unquestionable that, without this compromise or equivalent, the Northern votes, which passed the bill, could not have been obtained for it. VIII. THE THIRD MISSOURI STRUGGLE. THOUGH the acceptance of Missouri as a State, with a Slave Constitution, was forever settled by the votes just recorded, a new excitement sprang up on her presenting herself to Congress (Nov. 16, 1820), with a State Constitution, framed on the 19th of July, containing the following resolutions : "The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws, First, for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation, a full equivalent for such Slaves so emancipated; and, State, or actual settlers therein, from bringing Second, to prevent bona fide emigrants to this from any of the United States, or from any of their Territories, such persons as may there be deemed to be Slaves, so long as any persons of the same description are allowed to be held as Slaves by the laws of this State. *"It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary, from coming to, and settling in, this State, under First, to prevent free negroes and mulattoes any pretext whatever." The North, still smarting under a sense of its defeat on the question of excluding Slavery from Missouri, regarded this as needlessly defiant, insulting, and inhuman, and the last quoted as palpably in violation of that clause of the Federal Constitution which gives to the citizens of each State (which blacks are, in | several Free States,) the rights of citizens in undertook the difficult task of engineering every State. A determined resistance to any through Congress a bill including this triangle such exclusion was manifested, and a portion (large enough to form seven Counties) within of the Northern Members evinced a disposi- the State of Missouri; which they effected, tion to renew the struggle against the further at the long Session of 1835-6, so quietly as introduction of Slaves into Missouri. At hardly to attract attention. The bill was the first effort to carry her admission, the first sent to the Senate's Committee on the House voted it down-Yeas, 79; Nays, 93. Judiciary, where a favorable report was proA second attempt to admit her, on condition cured from Mr. John M. Clayton, of Delashe would expunge the obnoxious clause (last | ware, its Chairman; and then it was floated quoted) of her Constitution, was voted down through both Houses without encountering still more decisively-Yeas, 6; Nays, 146. the perils of a division. The requisite Indian treaties were likewise carried through the Senate; so Missouri became possessed of a large and desirable accession of territory, which has since become one of her most populous and wealthy sections, devoted to the growing of hemp, tobacco, etc., and cultivated by Slaves. This is the most pro-Slavery section of the State, in which was originated, and has been principally sustained, that series of inroads into Kansas, corruptions of her ballot-boxes, and outrages upon her people, which have earned for their authors the appellation of Border Ruffians. The House now rested, until a joint resolve, admitting her with but a vague and ineffective qualification, came down from the Senate, where it was passed by a vote of 26 to 18-six Senators from Free States in the affirma- | tive. Mr. Clay, who had resigned in the recess, and been succeeded, as Speaker, by John W. Taylor, of New York, now appeared as the leader of the Missouri admissionists, and proposed terms of compromise, which were twice voted down by the Northern Members, aided by John Randolph and three others from the South, who would have Missouri admitted without condition or qualification. At last, Mr. Clay proposed a Joint Committee on this subject, to be chosen by ballot which the House agreed to by 101 to 55; and Mr. Clay became its Chairman. By this Committee it was agreed, that a solemn pledge should be required of the Legislature of Missouri, that the Constitution of that State should not be construed to authorize the passage of any Act, and that no Act should be passed, "by which any of the citizens of either of the States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States." The Joint Resolution, amended by the addition of this proviso, passed the House by 86 Yeas to 82 Nays; the Senate concurred (Feb. 27th, 1821,) by 26 Yeas to 15 Nays(all Northern but Macon, of N. C.) Missouri complied with the condition, and became an accepted member of the Union. Thus closed the last stage of the fierce Missouri Controversy, which for a time seemed to threaten-as so many other controversies have harmlessly threatened—the existence of the Union. IX. EXTENSION OF MISSOURI. THE State of Missouri, as originally organized, was bounded on the West by a line already specified, which excluded a triangle West of said line, and between it and the Missouri, which was found, in time, to be exceedingly fertile and desirable. It was free soil by the terms of the Missouri compact, and was also covered by Indian reservations, not to be removed without a concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. Messrs. Benton and Linn, senators from Missouri, X. THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. THE name of Texas was originally applied to a Spanish possession or province, lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande del Norte, but not extending to either of these great rivers. It was an appendage of the Viceroyalty of Mexico, but had very few civilized inhabitants down to the time of the separation of Mexico from Spain. On two or three occasions, bands of French adventurers had landed on its coast, or entered it from the adjoining French colony of Louisiana; but they had uniformly been treated as intruders, and either destroyed or made prisoners by the Spanish military authorities. No line had ever been drawn between the two colonies; but the traditional line between them, south of the Red River, ran somewhat within the limits of the present State Louisiana. The etymology of Natchitoches, a city of Louisiana on the Red River, several miles within the present boundary of that State, attests its claims to a Spanish origin. When Louisiana was transferred by France to the United States, without specification of boundaries, collisions of claims on this frontier was apprehended. General Wilkinson, commanding the United States troops, moved gradually to the west; the Spanish commandant in Texas likewise drew toward the frontiers, until they stood opposite each other across what was then tacitly settled as the boundary between the two countries. This was never afterward disregarded. In 1819, Spain and the United States seemed on the verge of war. General Jackson had twice invaded Florida, on the assump : grants from this country almost exclusively; scarcely half a dozen of the old Mexican inhabitants participating in the revolution. Santa Anna, while a prisoner, under restraint and apprehension, agreed to a peace on the basis of the independence of Texas-a covenant which he had no power, and probably no desire, to give effect to when restored to liberty. The Texans, pursuing their advantage, twice or thrice penetrated other Mexican provinces-Tamaulipas, Coahuila, etc., and waved their Lone-Star flag ir defiance, on the banks of the Rio Grande del Norte; which position, however, they were always compelled soon to abandon-once with severe loss. Their government, never tion of complicity on the part of her rulers | independence was declared; in 1836, at the and people-first with our British, then with decisive battle of San Jacinto, it was, by the our savage enemies and had finally overrun, rout and capture of the Mexican dictator, and, in effect, annexed it to the Union. secured. This triumph was won by emiSpain, on the other hand, had preyed upon | our commerce during the long wars in Europe, and honestly owed our merchants large sums for unjustifiable seizures and spoliations. A negotiation for the settlement of these differences was carried on at Washington, between John Quincy Adams, Mr. Monroe's Secretary of State, and Don Onis, the Spanish embassador, in the course of which Mr. Adams set up a claim, on the part of this country, to Texas as a natural | geographical appendage not of Mexico, but of Louisiana. This claim, however, he eventually waived and relinquished, in consideration of a cession of Florida by Spain to this country-our government agreeing, on its part, to pay the claims of our mer-theless, in reiterating their declaration of inchants for spoliations. Texas remained, therefore, what it always had been--a department or province of Mexico, with a formal quit-claim thereto on the part of the United States. dependence, claimed the Rio Grande as their western boundary, from its source to its mouth, including a large share of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, Durango, and by far the more important and populous portion of New Mexico. And it was with this claim, express Tyler and his responsible advisers negotiated the first official project of annexation, which was submitted to the Senate, during the session of 1843-44, and rejected by a very decisive vote: only fifteen (mainly Southern) senators voting to confirm it. Col. Benton, and others, urged this aggressive claim of boundary, as affording abundant reason for the rejection of this treaty; but it is not known that the Slavery aspect of the case attracted especial attention in the Senate. The measure, however, had already been publicly eulogized by Gen. James Hamilton, of S. C., as calculated to “give a Gibraltar to the South," and had, on that ground, secured a very general and ardent popularity throughout the southwest. And, more thar a year previously, several northern members of Congress had united in the following: The natural advantages of this region naturally attracted the attention of Ameri-ly set forth in the treaty, that President can adventurers, and a smal colony of Yankees was settled thereon, about 1819-20, by Moses Austin of Connecticut. Other settlements followed. Originally, grants of land in Texas were prayed for, and obtained of the Mexican government, on the assumption that the petitioners were Roman Catholics, persecuted in the United States, because of their religion, and anxious to find a refuge in some Catholic country. Thus all the early emigrants to Texas went professedly as Catholics, no other religion being tolerated. Slavery was abolished by Mexico soon after the consummation of her independence, when very few slaves were, or ever had been, in Texas. But, about 1834, some years after this event, a quiet, but very general, and, evidently concerted, emigration, mainly from Tennessee and other southwestern States, began to concentrate itself in Texas. The emigrants carried rifles; many of them were accompanied by slaves; and it was well understood that they did not intend to become Mexicans, much less to relinquish their slaves. When Gen. Sam. Houston left Arkansas for Texas, in 1834-5, the Little Rock Journal, which announced his exodus and destination, significantly added: "We shall, doubtless, hear of his raising his flag there shortly." That was a foregone conclusion. Of course, the new settlers in Texas did not lack pretexts or provocations for such a step. Mexico was then much as she is now, misgoverned, turbulent, anarchical, and despotic. The overthrow of her Federal Constitution by Santa Anna was one reason assigned for the rebellion against her authority which broke out in Texas. In 1835, her TO THE PEOPLE OF THE FREE STATES OF THE UNION. We, the undersigned, in closing our duties to our constituents and our country as members of the 27th Congress, feel bound to call your attention, very briefly, to the project, long entertained by a portion of the people of these United States, still pertinaciously adhered to, and intended soon to be consummated: THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS To THIS UNION. In the press of business incident to the last days of a session of Congress, we have not time, did we deem it necessary, to enter upon a detailed statement of the reasons which force upon our minds the conviction, that this project is by no means abandoned : that a large portion of the country, interested in the continuance of Domestic Slavery and solemnly and unalterably determined: that it the Slave Trade in these United States, have shall be speedily carried into execution; and that, by this admission of new Slave Territory and + Slave States, the undue ascendancy of the Slaveholding power in the Government shall be secured and riveted beyond all redemption ! ! That it was with these views and intentions that settlements were effected in the Province, by citizens of the United States, difficulties fomented with the Mexican Government, a revolt brought about, and an Independent Government declared, cannot now admit of a doubt; and that, hitherto, all attempts of Mexico to reduce her revolted province to obedience, have proved unsuccessful is to be attributed to the unlawful aid and assistance of designing and interested individuals in the United States, and the direct and indirect co-operation of our own Government, with similar views, is not the less certain and demonstrable. The open and repeated enlistment of troops in several States of this Union, in aid of the Texan Revolution, the intrusion of an American Army, by order of the President, far into the Territory of the Mexican Government, at a moment critical for the fate of the insurgents, under pretense of preventing Mexican soldiers from fomenting Indian disturbances, but in reality in aid of, and acting in singular concert and coincidence with, the army of the Revolutionists, the entire neglect of our Government to adopt any efficient measures to prevent the most unwarrantable aggressions of bodies of our own citizens, enlisted, organized and officered within our own borders, and marched in arms and battle array upon the territory, and against the inhabitants of a friendly government, in aid of freebooters and insurgents, and the premature recognition of the Independence of Texas, by a snap vote, at the heel of a session of Congress, and that, too, at the very session when President Jackson had, by special Message, insisted that "the measure would be contrary to the policy invariably observed by the United States in all similar cases;" would be marked with great injustice to Mexico, and peculiarly liable to the darkest suspicions, inasmuch as the Texans were almost all emigrants from the United States, AND SOUGHT THE RECOGNITION OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE WITH THE AVOWED PURPOSE of OBTAINING THEIR ANNEXATION TO THE U. STATES. These occurrences are too well known and too fresh in the memory of all, to need more than a passing notice. These have become matters of history. For further evidence upon all these and other important points, we refer to the memorable speech of John Quincy Adams, delivered in the House of Representatives during the morning hour in June and July, 1838, and to his address to his constituents, delivered at Braintree, 17th September, 1842. The open avowal of the Texans themselvesthe frequent and anxious negotiations of our own Government—the resolutions of various States of the Union-the numerous declarations of members of Congress-the tone of the Southern press -as well as the direct application of the Texan Government, make it impossible for any man to doubt, that ANNEXATION, and the formation of several new Slaveholding States, were originally the policy and design of the Slaveholding States and the Executive of the Nation. The same references will show, very conclusively, that the particular objects of this new acquisition of Slave Territory, were THE PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY AND THE CONTINUED ASCENDANCY OF THE SLAVE POWER. The following extracts from a Report on that subject, adopted by the Legislature of Mississippi, from a mass of similar evidence which might be be adduced, will show with what views the annexation was then urged. "But we hasten to suggest the importance of the annexation of Texas to this Republic upon grounds somewhat local in their complexion, but of an import nfinitely grave and interesting to the people who in habit the Southern portion of this Confederacy, where it is known that a species of domestic Slavery is tolerated and protected by law, whose existence is prohibited by the legal regulations of other States of this who are familiarly acquainted with its practical ef Confederacy; which system of Slavery is held by all, fects, to be of highly beneficial influence to the country within whose limits it is permitted to exist. "The Committee feel authorized to say that this system is cherished by our constituents as the very palladium of their prosperity and happiness, and whatever ignorant fanatics may elsewhere conjecture, the observation and reflection on the subject, that the Committee are fully assured, upon the most diligent South does not possess within her limits a blessing with which the affections of her people are so closely entwined and so completely en fibred, and whose value is more highly appreciated, than that which we are now considering. ring the last session of Congress, when a Senator from "It may not be improper here to remark, that duMississippi proposed the acknowledgment of Texian independence, it was found, with a few exceptions, the members of that body were ready to take ground upon it, as upon the subject of Slavery itself. "With all these facts before us, we do not hesitate in believing that these feelings influenced the New England Senators. but one voting in favor of the meain a public speech recently delivered in New York, to sure; and, indeed, Mr. Webster has been bold enough, many thousand citizens, to declare that the reasou that influenced bis opposition was his abhorrence to Slavery in the South, and that it might, in the event of its recognition, become a slaveholding State. He also spoke of the efforts making in favor of Abolition; erful influence of religious feeling, it would become and that being predicated upon, and aided by the powirresistible and overwhelming. "This language, coming from so distinguished an individual as Mr. Webster, so familiar with the feelings of the North and entertaining so high a respect for public sentiment in New England, speaks so plainly the voice of the North as not to be misunderstood. and genuine love of country among our fellow-coun"We sincerely hope there is enough good sense trymen of the Northern States, to secure us final justice on this subject; yet we cannot consider it safe or expedient for the people of the South to entirely disregard the efforts of the fanatics, and the opinions of such men as Webster, and others who countenance such dangerous doctrines. "The Northern States have no interests of their defense, save only their domestic manufactures; and own which require any special safeguards for their God knows they have already received protection from Government on a most liberal scale; under which encouragement they have improved and flourished beyond example. The South has very peculiar interests to preserve: interests already violently assailed and boldly threatened. tection to her best interests will be afforded by the anYour Committee are fully persuaded that this pronexation of Texas; an equipoise of influence in the halls of Congress will be secured, which will furnish us a permanent guarantee of protection.” The speech of Mr. Adams, exposing the whole system of duplicity and perfidy toward Mexico, had marked the conduct of our Government; and the emphatic expressions of opposition which began to come up from all parties in the Free States, however, for a time, nearly silenced the clamors of the South for annexation, and the people of the North have been lulled into the belief, that the project is nearly, if not wholly abandoned, and that, at least, there is now no serious danger of its consummation. Believing this to be a false and dangerous seCurity; that the project has never been abandoned a moment, by its originators and abettors, but that it has been deferred for a more favorable moment for its accomplishment, we refer to a few evidences of more recent development upon which this opinion is founded. The last Election of President of the Republic of Texas, is understood to have turned, mainly, upon the question of annexation or no annex. ation, and the candidate favorable to that measure was successful by an overwhelming majority, |