(Editorial Note: this should provide a hint as to where things will be starting...)
What should we do about the good folks living out in the California territory? We have this territory that we can claim since we defeated the infidels in Mexico! There's rumors there might be resources out there... There's even access to the Pacific Ocean so we can get to China without going around Africa. Should we force the inferior Mexicans to give us it all? Should we turn it into a colony? Of course, it MUST be slave free - especially if it should ever be granted admission into our Union. I trust you all understand my feelings: we cannot let the Mexicans to continue to inhabit lands that God himself as granted our people. When we began 250 years ago, the King granted us full rights to that land. We need to protect it.
Truly greatful to be in HIS service.
Senator W. H. Seward
New York
1848.
What should we do about the good folks living out in the California territory? We have this territory that we can claim since we defeated the infidels in Mexico! There's rumors there might be resources out there... There's even access to the Pacific Ocean so we can get to China without going around Africa. Should we force the inferior Mexicans to give us it all? Should we turn it into a colony? Of course, it MUST be slave free - especially if it should ever be granted admission into our Union. I trust you all understand my feelings: we cannot let the Mexicans to continue to inhabit lands that God himself as granted our people. When we began 250 years ago, the King granted us full rights to that land. We need to protect it.
Truly greatful to be in HIS service.
Senator W. H. Seward
New York
1848.
22 comments:
Such a statement is greatly irresponsible to be made during a time of negotiation. While Mexico sadly admits that she is conquered to make such inflammatory statements when we have cooperated so far in the peace negotiations is unwise. Your armies have demonstrated an ability to win battles. But have not yet faced the challenges of occupying an unfriendly populace.
I urge the international community to look at what this man has said and see it for what it is. These Americans have become so certain of themselves that they will stop at nothing to claim all of the land in the Americas. I warn the British that after they have finished gorging on the lands of Mexico they will turn to Oregon. There are already cries amongst the Americans to violate the borders previously set in the Oregon territories. The same thing happened after the US annexed the Texan rebels. Not only did the steal Mexican land that had been Texas but they decided that was not enough land and declared that everything up to Rio Grande was theirs. When it comes to border disputes the US makes its own rules and the British would be wise to see us as an example of American aggression.
Besides that Mr. Seward’s remarks are vehemently anti-catholic. It certainly seems as if Mr. Seward would like to start a holy war against Catholics! This is nonsense coming form a country founded with the hopes of escaping the holy wars of Europe! Have they already forgotten the horrors of religious wars? If so I’m sure the Pope and Spain would be happy to remind them.
As threatening as Mr. Seward’s remarks are to the international community, they should be just as outrageous to Americans. Men such as Mr. Seward and on the other side Mr. Houston have taken to the practice of enflaming the slavery debate by trying to gain new lands either as free states or slave states. The fact that these men’s own personal and ideological convictions are thrust upon the population is enough to have them thrown out of public office. But the fact that they are willing to have there fellow country men die at war for their own petty squabbles should be enough to incite rebellion!
You Americans should be wary of the words of such pompous and ambitious men as Mr. Seward. America is not yet ready to tame the whole hemisphere and Mexico is certainly not ready to be subjugated. Restraint may seem a ridiculous concept while you are winning now but Proverbs 16: 18 says “Pride goeth before destruction,” and you should do well to remember that.
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
Mexico City
1848
This statement is smewhat rash and irresponsible, but not because the United States cannot handle new land. It is Mr. Seward's lack of consideration towards the views of others that is the issue. In order for California to peacefully join the Union, we must not force them to support or refute slavery in that territory. We do not have the constitutional right to mess with such affairs. The constitution provided our people with the right to choose: a right that we must not only state on paper but also exemplify in the real world. The constitution is a living document, and must be treated as such. The issue of slavery in California shall be dealt with when the people of California themselves make a decision. Besides, we must compromise to better suit the needs of all Americans. Is it not better for us to provide moderate happiness to all rather than ecstasy to some and severe disappointment to others? Problems arise in societies when one group is suppressed by the other. Throughout the history of the world this is true. Under Moses the Israelites views and rights were suppressed, and so they took a stand against their oppressors and then left. Many past civilizations have weakened from suppressing their citizens. Suppressed Chinese peasants formed the yellow turban rebellion: a violent rebellion that greatly weakened the Han dynasty. It was a problem that could be avoided, had China compromised with the peasants rather than ignored their pleas. Do we want to create this suppression, by appealing only to the Northern view? Do we want to weaken the United States and possibly the great freedoms it holds? Is the riddance of slavery so important that overcomes the need to serve all of the Union? Compromise is the peaceful solution while lack of it is not; compromise will lead to prosperity while suppression will lead to destruction. Compromise, will strengthen and preserve the Union. Compromise will protect the rights given to every America. Compromise is the solution to California.
Mr. Senate President:
I plan on ignoring the useless comments of the Mexican infidel since last I checked our soldiers are standing in his Capital City.
I want to discuss a matter with you. You wrote: "It is Mr. Seward's lack of consideration towards the views of others that is the issue." My view and the view of others currently is irrelevent since our President will be negotiating the treaty with the infidels. We, however, do get to determine if it is ratified. As the Senator from one of our Union's Strongest, Oldest, and Powerful states, I do believe my views matter. I do not represent the Texans, Mexicans, Carolinans, Virginians, or even Pennsylvanians. I represent the Good and Blessed People of New York. It is the viewpoint of My State that matters to me.
That said, I would like to direct your attention to the map I have now provided to supplement my original letter. As you will clearly see, The Mexicans have NO rights to California. The English have NO rights to the Northwest Territory. Both were given our forebearers in Virginia and Massachusetts by the Royal Crown. If our President ignores this when negotiating with infidels that we have destroyed in battle and will have no problem governing, then I say our President will have problems getting his treaty ratified by this great body.
W. H. Seward
New York
1848.
I would like to publicly express my vigorous approval of the venerable Vice President’s statement affirming the disastrous effects of subjugating certain peoples to the will of others. However, his use of this obvious truth in support of maintaining the devilish practice of slavery is a disgrace to the morality of every American. Suppressing the black race will only lead to such horrors as the Chinese rebellion described by the Vice President himself. I beg of the American government and people to realize the horrors of slavery and free the millions of innocents currently being wasted by this corrupt practice. Do you truly believe that slavery is necessary for economic gain? If America desires the rapid industrial and economic progress that Britain has achieved, eliminate this disgusting institution; liberate your people.
Prime Minister Jane Russell
London, England
1848
I was foolish to believe that Mr. Seward cared about tyrannically subjugating the Mexican people (though he seems to see it as an added bonus to his plan). Instead he is merely using my people to advance his desire to exterminate slavery. At first I was shocked at his disrespect for the sovereignty of nations when he was so quick to turn a dispute between to countries into a dispute on your own domestic slavery question. But then I remembered this is a man who refuses to obey your own Constitution when it comes to slavery. Do you not remember the Virginia Case? Where as Governor Mr. Seward refused to prosecute those who protected run away slaves, in direct defiance to the Constitution and the other states of the Union.
I would first like to warn America of such men who stir up hate within your souls. Mexico has no love for slavery but we have already suffered war due to your imposing of your “slavery question” on our country through force of arms. We would like that our treaty be free of any provisions either for or against slavery. I urge that we negotiate quickly and provide a treaty simple enough for quick passage through the Senate. Then once Mexico is out of the picture your country can resume its internal debate.
If this is not the case and instead you wish to force Mexico into your debate than let me propose this:
Let America have everything north of Mr. Seward’s magic line. Mr. Seward would then have enough of a majority in the Senate for emancipation in this new United States. Then let Mexico have all the land below Mr. Seward’s magic line. We are not foolish enough to believe we could keep anything east of the Rio Grande so we would gladly give the South independence. In return all Mexico would ask for is enough money to start repairing our country which is broken from the ravages of war.
I am sure Mr. Seward would support such a treaty. But I am not sure the majority of Americans would. Those American’s who instead would like to keep their nation united I urge you to ignore such men as Mr. Seward and instead give Mexico a quick and simple peace free of debate about the slavery question.
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
Mr. Senate President,
Although many readers of the Washington Post may agree with the statements you have disclosed, many of your fellow congressmen are expected to disagree. Those in favor of slavery expansion and Mexican sympathizers will obviously be in strong opposition to your announcement. Should their opinions be completely disregarded? This great nation is a democracy, a government of the people, and should not every voice be heard and taken into regard? In addition, Senator Seward, if you are so fervently against slavery as it is immorally subjugating peoples based on race then could you please explain how you find subjugating the Californios—the Mexicans living in California—and forcing them from their homes moral?
God Bless America,
Olivia Lucas
Editor-in-Chief, Washington Post
Thank you Miss Lucas for your consideration and empathy for the Mexican people, I would love if the post would run a story along those same lines.
Santa Anna
Acquiring new land at this time is a bad idea. Our country is having a major internal conflict to the point where we are beginning to split into different sides as opposed to the strong united country we are trying to maintain. By taking California out of the hands of Mexico, we will be doing many bad things.
First of all, Mexico is mad enough about the whole Texas situation, so it is a terrible idea to make them angrier at us. All good men respect their neighbors, so I think we should give Mexico a little bit of respect. If we continue to spit in their face, they will soon come after our country. That may not mean much to northerners, but as a senator of Texas, I feel completely confident when I say that Texas will be the first to become a target of Mexico’s soon-to-become rage, (after all, they already hate Texas).
Secondly, our country is having trouble with the idea of one unified nation. As time passes, we are beginning to turn into the north and the south, not the United States of America. Where will California go? At this point in time, we are maintaining a stable balance between free and slave states, but with newly acquired land, the balance will be torn, throwing our country into turmoil.
All in all, my view on taking California are that we should not even think about getting more land until we can solve our own internal problems first. Once we become united again as one country we should discuss the idea of taking more land, but for now, we shouldn’t.
Sam Houston
Mr. Senate President;
The territory of California would be a great addition to our nation because of its useful geographical location as well as its rumored natural resources. The Mexican government is in dissaray and probably wouldn’t be able to maintain proper order in such a distant region anyways. The United States is in a much better position to take responsibility of that land.
Although the expansionism of such a valuable piece of land as California would be a nice addition to our country, I must now speak with Pennsylvania's precarious geographical position in mind. If these heated disputes between the North and South boil over into war, Pennsylvania will be the first to feel it since we share our Southern border with Virginia, Deleware, and Maryland, all slave states.
Demanding that the territory of California uphold the policies and beliefs of an anti-slave territory will only deteriorate what little remains of the alliance between the North and the South. If adding California as a free territory angers the South further, I don’t think it’s a wise move only because it could very possibly be what pushes us into war.
The only way to maintain peace within our nation while securing this new territory would be to allow the people inhabiting California to choose their own government laws, at least when it involves as temperamental a subject as slavery.
Senator Daniel Sturgeon
Pennsylvania
1948
The Territory of California is unquestionably ours, and as wise as the addition of it into our country would be, the idea that the people of California could potentially choose to permit slavery within its borders is nothing less than appalling. How can we claim that we are in a better position to make use of California if we contemplate allowing brutal and cruel acts of inhumanity to legally take place? How can we claim the territory will be put to good use in our country if we intend on soiling its good name with the very essence of evil itself?
It is essential, both to the territory of California and to our country as a whole that we eliminate the possibility that California could be home to such treacherous acts by admitting it to the United States of America as a free state.
There are those who argue that slavery is merely an underlying issue and that is not urgent enough to risk war within our nation for. This from the very country that stood up for its rights against Great Britain during the Revolutionary war! This from a country that has risked everything to accomplish what is right and moral! This is not an issue to be pushed to the wayside for fear of war, this is a cause we must fight for. If there are Southerners angered by the admittance of California as a free state, then so be it. The country will not always be in agreement, and it would be abominable to force an entire race of people to pay so that we can keep some illusion of complete unity.
Senator Charles Sumner
A colleague invoked the Constitution as the reason why California, once admitted as a state, should be allowed popular sovereignty to decide if slavery should exist within her borders. But does our Constitution not look after individual rights as well as state rights?
Under the Fifth Ammendment of the Constitution it states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It is unconstitutional then to deny any U.S. citizen, no matter where he reside, his right to his property (i.e. his slaves).
Futhermore examine the language of the "property clause" as it says "life, liberty and property". These same rights were established during the Enlightenment by John Locke as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. It is no exaggeration to say that these rights are the most core values of our country as they are included nearly word for word in our Declaration of Independence!
So be it that some do not like slavery, they are entitled to that opinion. Yet nothing gives them the right to oppress their will upon law-abiding citizens who, by virtue of our Constitution, are entitled to their rights of "life, liberty and property."
Sen. Jefferson Davis
Mississippi
1848
The Gentleman from Mississippi had an interesting insight, however, I want to remind my dear friend that there are in fact higher laws than the Constitution. But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes.
The California territory - which we must assert control over - is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator if the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness. How momentous that trust is, we may learn from the instructions of the founder of modern philosophy: "No man," says Bacon, "can by care-taking, as the Scripture saith, add a cubit to his stature in this little model of a man's body; but, in the great frame of kingdoms and commonwealths, it is in the power of princes or estates to add amplitude and greatness to their kingdoms. For, by introducing such ordinances, constitutions, and customs, as are wise, they may sow greatness to their posterity and successors. But these things are commonly not observed, but left to take their chance."
California can ultimately be a state, and we will deliberate for it. However, just as our fathers deliberated in establishing the institutions we enjoy today, we must deliberate the institutions this territory will enjoy. Whatever superiority there is in our condition and hopes of those over any other "kingdom" or "estate," is due to the fortunate circumstance that our ancestors did not leave things to "take their chance," but that they "added amplitude and greatness" to our commonwealth "by introducing such ordinances, constitutions, and customs, as were wise." We in our term have succeeded to the same responsibilities, and we cannot approach the duty before us wisely or justly, except we raise ourselves to the great consideration of how we can most certainly "sow greatness to our posterity and successors."
For this reason, as we look at the higher law, we can NOT and will NOT extend slavery to the California territory - or any territory. We must follow the Lord and stop the hypocrisy of decrying all men are created equal while enslaving almost half of our brothers in the south.
W. H. Seward
New land could possibly help our country and California does come with its responsibilities. However, the Mexicans inhabiting California currently cannot be thrown out. Our country is conflicted right now over the issue of slavery. Slaves are being denied their god given rights and by throwing out the Mexicans, we are taking away their liberties. Making California a slave free state but forcing the Mexicans out is hypocritical on our part. Accordingly, instead of deciding whether we shall make it a slave state or free state, the people of California should create a government. That government then should vote whether it is slave or free. Establishing California as a free state would anger the people of Delaware. Letting California decide would be a better choice. By the way, though I may not be from one of the most influential states, my vote will make a difference.
Presley Spruance
Delaware Senator
If the people of California see fit to abolish the institution, and they come to us with a prohibition in their fundamental law, and if we of the North let these people alone, and leave them where their own legislation has placed them, we can hardly be blamed with encroaching on the rights of the South.
But if the opposite proves true; if the power of this country, once exerted to conquer these territories, is to be exerted again for the purpose of planting among them an institution which they reject, that would be, in my opinion, a truly deserving of the term encroachment. A more blatant encroachment on the rights and liberties of any people cannot be imagined, than to attempt to impose on them an institution offensive to them; an institution which they have in their own law rejected.
This is a species of encroachment that I protest against. These territories are independent of us. We own the land, but we have no right to control the people. Therefore, I think we are relieved from all responsibility on this subject. We should leave them what they choose to make themselves (a free people) and not impose on them institutions which they reject.
Samuel S. Phelps
Vermont
In these times, it is difficult to believe that this nation was created by a people that thirsted for independence and freedom from oppression. Not only have we as a nation allowed our economy to become partially dependent on slavery, but now as we expand and grow, this shameful institution is growing as well. In the case of California, how we should proceed is readily apparent. Things being what they are, California should be admitted into the Union, as a free state. The decision should not be left to popular sovereignty, and the thought of making this a slave state is completely absurd.
Also, the manner in which we came into this position of deciding what to do with California is morally questionable. Our acquisition of this land was an of aggression. What is to stop us from claiming the territories of other groups as well. We as a nation should exercise caution, armed conflict on a much larger scale would be well within the realm of possibility depeding on who we attempt to take land from next.
California is a great piece of land. It has numerous resources that are useful to everybody, and this nation has a right to the land. The main issue that arises is the issue of slavery. It is wrong and immoral to make California a slave state. Slavery is a big issue right now and it is said that California should make their own decision. The state should have rights, but slavery is wrong. This is the one issue that should be decided before it is admitted as a state. Slavery is wrong and no man or women should put in the position of being a slave. California has a lot to offer to this nation, but only if it is admitted as a free state.
The esteemed senator from New York, as well as many other Northern senators, may lack the proper respect for our country's Constitution, the agreement that bound the states in Union. Yet, they have all have made their point of views clear: that slavery is an immoral institution.
On face value, this may seem like a fair and sensible claim. Yet I would like, in particular, to draw attention to Senator Seward's claim that the higher law of God denounces slavery as evil. Yet this claim is completely and utterly false.
The Bible itself states:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
-Leviticus 25:44-46
Another passage of the Word of God states:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
-Exodus 21:20-21
In the New Testament, it states:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
-Ephesians 6:5
So clearly, slavery is a just and moral institution under the Higher Law of God as well as our temporal one of men.
And I find it hypocritical for Northern senators to be claiming that slavery is an evil while defending their burgeoning society of wage labor and industry. Is it not slavery when immigrant men, women and children are forced to labor for 12, 15, even 18 hour days in a dark, dirty factory only to earn subsistence wages? Does this poor proletariat society have any hope under the whips of northern capitalist masters?
At least the South cares for its slaves. They live under good conditions and are treated with generosity and care. Without the institution of slavery, the inherently inferior black race would die it in the struggle to fend for itself. Even Northerners can acknowledge that blacks are simply meant to be an inferior race to whites. Why then would we abandon them to inevitable extinction by forcing them out from under the care of caring, white masters?
You may say that California as a slave state would be evil and treacherous. I, and indeed the Word of God, say that California as a "free" state would be an intolerable evil.
Sen. Jefferson Davis
Mississippi
As a reporter with a less biased opinion, I feel that California needs to figure things out for themselves. First, they need to create their own government. Hopefully this government is in the union and is a strong and healthy government. I don't feel that the rest of the nation has the time and effort to figure out what California should do. After this government is created, then California can figure out what it wants to do in regards to the slavery, resources, and Mexican issues.
As for the slavery issue, I personally think it should be abolished. It makes no sense to make someone work for you with out paying them. They deserve basic human rights too.
And the resources. We need to find out what these are, what they are worth, and what we are going to do with them.
Now for the Mexicans. Leave them alone. They aren't hurting us. We already killed half of them and took their land. I think we should let them live peacefully and quietly on our land if they want to. They aren't harming us at all.
Alejandra Hand
International Affairs Reporter
Washington Post
As a Whig Senator, I feel that it is now in the best interests of these United States to take what lands rightly belong to her. The new lands, in order to preserve the Union, should be made free or slave according to the Missouri Compromise. Any other method would endanger the very foundation of the Union. Consequently, the United States should move cautiously to explore and incorporate these new lands. If any way can be found to prevent the Union from ripping apart, it must be pursued. It may be best to leave these new territories as undecided for the foreseeable future, until the question of slavery is determined by other factors (such as economics).
-Senator George Badger (NC)
As the senator from kentucky I believe we should attempt to accquire California. Doing so would decrese our national debt just from its natural resources alone not to mention the trade possibilities it would open up with eastern countries which would make money helping our economy but also improving foreign relations with those countries. As another poster said the Mexican goverment is surely in dissaray after their most recent defeat and most likely could not protect that big of a territory so far away. And even if they could our armies would most likely defeat them anyway. It would create more jobs and increase our population which hardly ever hurts a countries growth. All in all i believe we should make California a territory or a state or at least take control of it. And dont forget about Manifest Destiny. America is destined to rule this continent and I believe we will.
Mr. Senate President,
All of our senators have had valid viewpoints on what to do with California; however, I feel as if I should be given special attention on this matter. I say this, because I have fought the Mexicans not too long ago at all. Earlier I have stated, “…I think we should give Mexico a little bit of respect.”, but that will not stop me from saying that they are savages. Mexicans will fight for their land if we claim it as our own.
My other point is of equal importance. Keep the balance. We do not need to gain another state, because by doing so, we will throw off the balance that we are working so hard to keep. There is nothing more in this world that I want than to keep this union in place. One rash move and we will be jumping into a giant mess that will take much time and effort to solve.
By seizing this land, we will be setting our own fate. If we strike this so called fortune, our country will be set in turmoil, and adding Mexico in the mix is not what we want, especially now.
Heed my warning: Do not touch California.
Sam Houston
Post a Comment