steadily upheld the rights and interests of his section as guaranteed under the Constitution. In the exciting debates to which this portentous question led, he did not assume extreme ground touching the institution of slavery, nor advocate its extension as a means of maintaining the balance of political power between the Free and Slave States. He did, however, defend its Constitutional sanctions where it then existed, and in the common territory of the United States, as a species of property as inviolable as any other. As to the policy and perpetuity of this peculiar institution, he held that the former was settled in the fact that it existed, and was thoroughly incorporated in the body of society, and that the latter was a question out of the province of the powers of the General Government, and determinable only by a variety of economical considerations, as time might develop. An aggressive war upon it as a moral and social wrong, which was to be hedged by inhibiting its spread, he despised as fanatical, and violative of the spirit in which the Federal Union was formed, and deprecated it as threatening to incite a sentiment imperiling alike the Union and the Constitution, the safeguard of all institutions."

He warmly supported Polk's Administration, and mainly took the Southern views of the questions involved. Still it is by no means apparent that he was ever deeply in love with slavery, or that his support of its interests was not with him a political necessity. While he advocated the annexation of Texas, he did it on grounds somewhat peculiar, as may be seen in the following extract from his speech. on the subject in the House :—

"Admit, for the sake of the argument, the fact that the title set up by Texas, to herself, is not clear beyond

dispute; admit, also, the fact of her passing voluntarily under the jurisdiction of the United States, thereby putting this Government in possession of the whole country. Once in possession, this Government is not merely bound to rely on the possessory title, but is cast back upon her more ancient right, acquired by treaty from France in 1803, which is beyond dispute, and good against the world, and places this Government in a position that will enable her to do justice to a brave and patriotic people, by incorporating them into the Union, and thereby redeem its plighted faith. The title to the whole country was legally and Constitutionally acquired from France in 1803. In 1819 it had been surrendered, or ceded, to Spain, contrary to the consent of the inhabitants, in disregard of national law, and by trampling under foot treaty stipulations, solemnly made and entered into.

"If the premises be correctly laid, and the conclusions be lawfully drawn, the whole question resolves itself into a plain, simple proposition of admitting a new State into the Union, a power which no one doubts or denies; and all that remains for Congress now to do, is to prescribe the mode and manner of admission. I think the great error the committee has fallen into in the discussion of this subject, is the confounding of two separate and distinct things; the one, to acquire territory under the treatymaking power; the other, the admission of new States into the Union. It has been contended by some, since this discussion commenced, that the Government must first acquire the territory by treaty, and then, I suppose, keep it in a kind of political probation for a certain length of time, and then admit the territory so acquired into the Union as a sovereign State. The acquisition of territory under the treaty-making power is wholly incidental. There is nowhere to be found in the Constitution the power expressly conferred on the General Government to acquire territory. If the admission of new States into the

Union be made dependent upon the exercise of an incidental power, flowing from the treaty-making power to acquire territory, the express grant of power becomes the inferior and subordinate to the incidental power, which is an absurdity in itself. The admission of a sovereign State into the Union is not an acquisition of territory in the sense that territory is or can be acquired under the treaty-making power. They are wholly different. When territory is acquired by this Government, under the treatymaking power, the entire jurisdiction and right inure to this Government; or, in other words, the territory so acquired becomes the property and creature of the States composing the Union at the time of such acquisition. Not so when a State is admitted into the Union. She then comes in as an integral, clothed with all the attributes of the other sovereignties, retaining the entire control and disposition of her own territory. The admission of Georgia and North Carolina into the Union, after the adoption of the Federal Constitution by the other States, did not vest the right of territory in the Federal Government. For long after their admission into the Union as States they made deeds of cession of their territory to the General Government.

"The profitable employment it would give to slavelabor, thereby enabling the master to clothe and feed that portion of our population, softening and alleviating their condition; and in the end, when it shall please Him who works out all great events by general laws, prove to be the gateway out of which the sable sons of Africa are to pass from bondage to freedom; where they can become merged in a population congenial with themselves, who know and feel no distinction in consequence of the various hues of skin or crosses of blood."

Here was a new doctrine as to the advantages of annexation, one which never could have struck a

responsive chord in the South. Texas was not meant to be a gateway to freedom, but to slavery. This theory of placing slavery on the road to ultimate extinction must have had an unwelcome ring about it in the South. "He who works out all great events" did not, under the Southern plan, work that way.

Mr. Johnson was at first a strong advocate of the line of 54° 40′ in the north-western boundary question, but subsequently, like most of his party, quietly fell into Mr. Polk's plan of adjustment. On the Oregon boundary difficulty he said before Congress :

"When discussing a question so important as the one now presented to the House and the country, it should be in a spirit of calm deliberation; and we should consider well the consequences that are to follow from the action that is to be taken by this House upon it. I know that since this discussion commenced we have heard much of wars and rumors of wars; and that the passions and feelings of the country have been addressed to a very great extent. So far as I am concerned, if I know the feelings of my own bosom, I am for peace, if peace can be continued on honorable terms. But if, in adopting the means which we believe best calculated to secure peace, war is to be the result, I am prepared for the consequences. No member of this House desires peace more earnestly than I do. Yes, in the language of high authority, I desire the day speedily to come when we shall have peace on earth and good-will among men' throughout the world. I wish I could hope that the beginning of that glorious era would commence in my day and generation. If I could believe there was a reasonable prospect, I should now stand on tiptoe, as it were, stretching my ken to its utmost tension, to discover the streaks of the dawn of that glorious morning. But, as ardently as I desire peace for my country, I must take that view of this subject,

and that stand upon the question under consideration, which I believe my position and the rights, the interests, and the honor of my country demand.

"I am for giving the notice, as recommended by the President of the United States, as the surest means of preserving peace between the two nations, which is so much desired by every lover of his kind. I believe that Great Britain will treat upon more favorable terms after the notice is given to terminate the joint occupancy, than she would before. The giving the notice can not be construed by the English Government into a hostile move on the part of the United States. The giving of the notice is expressly provided for in the Convention of 1827. It is one of the stipulations agreed upon by the high contracting parties, to be exercised by either at any time, without any just cause of offense to the other. I further contend that the giving the twelve-months' notice will increase the chances of settling this question without war; without the notice, sooner or later, war is inevitable. The idea of two governments-the laws, institutions, manners, and customs of whose peoples are different from each other-exercising jurisdiction, criminal and civil, at the same time, over the same territory, but upon the subjects of the respective governments living promiscuously together, would never do in practice, however plausible in theory. A policy of this kind would most assuredly lead to war; conflicts would take place between the two jurisdictions; jealousy among the people claiming protection under different governments, would finally result in outbreaks and violence. The certain result of each government continuing to protect its own citizens in Oregon would be war. I shall vote for the notice' as a peace measure. I look upon the notice as holding out the olive-branch of peace in time to prevent war in future. I believe it would be so construed by the Christian world. But, if in taking steps to attain so desirable an end as peace, war should be the consequence, why the nation must be prepared for the worst. Let the notice be given.

"I have no doubt but that our title to the whole of Oregon is clear and unquestionable.' On examining the subject, we find that Spain made the first discovery in 1528. That was