Remarks of Mr. Berrien, of Georgia, on the Compromise bill: In the Senate of the United States, June 16, 1850. Page: 3 of 16
View a full description of this pamphlet.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Texas was not limited to her legislative declaration; that it was made flagrante
bello, with arms in her hands, and in the presence of her enemy. This was in
1836; the war continued; the armistice which had been entered into by Mexico
and Texas was suffered to expire; and their hostile relations were of course re-
established. Such was the state of things when Texas was incorporated into
this Union-adopted, cum onere, with the war which she was waging. She was
then a sovereign State, having separated from Mexico; she had declared her in-
dependence; had manifested her capacity to make good that declaration by force
of arms, and had still these arms in the hands of her soldiery, to maintain the
independence which she had declared. She was thus armed to maintain her in-
dependence, not within this limit or that, or within any limit short of that which,
by her solemn declaration in convention, she had affirmed to be her boundary.
Consider this question in regard to mere matters of private right-the extent of
which possession is evidence of title. If you enter into a possession of land
without title, you are confined to the actual pedis possessionem, and to such por-
tion of the land beyond it, as may be absolutely necessary to the enjoyment of
that which you occupy ; but if you have a title wbich defines your boundaries,
your possession is co.extensive with the limits prescribed by that title. When,
therefore, Texas was engaged in a war with Mexico for the establishment of
her independence, it was for the establishment of that independence in and
throughout the limits of the boundary which she had declared. Mexico, indeed,
was not concluded by that declaration ; but all other States dealing with Texas,
were bound to take notice that this was the extent of territory for which she
was contending. The United States were especially bound to take notice of
the limits she had assigned to her territory, and did take notice of it. They
proposed to incorporte Texas into this Union. By the act of incorporation she
would be divested of the power to obtain from Mexico, either by force or by
negotiation, an acknowledgment of her boundary. She stood at the moment
of annexation with arms in her hands, and had proved, in the progress of that
contest, her capacity to use them efficiently against her enemy. I sudpose no
one will doubt the ability of Texas to have prosecuted her contest with Mexico
to a successful result. It would be doing injustice to the gallantry of her peo-
ple, to the recorded history of their struggles in that contest, to express a doubt
upon this question. But, whatever opinion may be entertained on that subject,
this is certain, (and it is sufficient for the purpose of this argument,) she was
engaged, with arms in her hands, in the assertion of her right to the whole
territory which she now claims, and with notice to the United States of the
extent of her claim.
Texas was thus incorporated into this Union, not, as has been suggested, with
a guaranty of her limits by the United States. This Government was aware
that the annexation of Texas would be considered by Mexico as an untriendly
act, and was therefore desirous to accomplish it in .inch a manner as would be
least offensive to that Republic. We did not, consequently, agree, in the reso-
lution of annexation, to guaranty the boundaries which Texas had asserted in
the various modes which I have adverted to, but we stipulated to receive her
with her rightful boundaries, and reserved to ourselves the right to determine
those boundaries by a negotiation with Mexico; thus showing that we had notice
of her claim of boundary.
Sir, the reservation of that right, and of that right only, excludes the exercise
by the United States of any right not included in that reservation. I desire to
ask if, without such reservation, Texas had been admitted into this Union, with
the declaration upon her statute-book that her boundary extended to the Rio
Grande, whether that would not have been held as her proper boundary? and
whether, by force of the resolution of annexation, we would not have been
bound to guaranty that boundary in its fb!lest extent ? How have we escaped
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This pamphlet can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Pamphlet.
Berrien, John MacPherson, 1781-1856. Remarks of Mr. Berrien, of Georgia, on the Compromise bill: In the Senate of the United States, June 16, 1850., pamphlet, June 14, 1850; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth395246/m1/3/: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Schreiner University.