A MAINE CONGRESSMAN FROM PISCATAQUIS COUNTY IN 1847 Sprague's Journal of Maine History Vol. 9 January, February, March, 1921 No. 1 pages 23-27 A MAINE CONGRESSMAN FROM PISCATAQUIS COUNTY IN 1847 (By Frank E. Guernsey) Hon. James S. Willey, a member of the Piscataquis bar, and for many years a practitioner at Dover, Maine, was born in the town of Mercer, Maine, January 22, 1808. When he first came to Dover he was an instructor in the Foxcroft Academy. In 1846, he was elected as a Democrat to the Congress of the United State, and served as Representative in the thirtieth Congress from March 4, 1847 to March 3, 1849. He died at Fryeburg, Maine in 1891. It is related that when he sought the nomination for Congress, being a man of limited means he traveled the entire district on foot, defeating for the nomination, his chief opponent, the late Alexander M. Robinson, also of Dover, and eminent lawyer in his day, who conducted his canvass with greater ease and speed, as he traveled about the district with a horse and buggy. Mr. Wiley's service in Congress, while it was not long, being confined to a single term, nevertheless was not without practical result as he managed to save from his salary, which was then $6 dollars a day, a sufficient amount to build on his retirement from public life a splendid home at Dover, constructed after the architecture of the colonial houses of Virginia. Due to his comparatively short service in Congress his activity there was necessarily limited, but he made a speech, which in the light of subsequent events was prophetic and of interest to this day. When Mr. Willey entered Congress, this country was at war with Mexico, and during the latter part of his services, the war having ended, terms of peace were under discussion in the United States, and questions of indemnity involving the ceding of New Mexico and California to the United States were under consideration. The most distinguished senator of the times, Daniel Webster, was un- compromisingly opposed to the policy of the acquisition of more territory by the United States on the grounds of the unconstitu- tionality of the measure and the worthlessness of the territory involved, as he asserted. Webster stated on the floor of the Senate, "I am against the creation of new States." Again, "I say, sir, if I am asked today whether, for the sake of peace, I will take a treaty which brings two new States into this Union, on it southern boundary, I say No -- distinctly, no. I have said on the southern boundary, because there the present proposition takes its locality. I would say the same of the western, the eastern, or any other boundary. I would resist today, and to the end, here and every- where, any proposition to add any foreign territory on the south or west, north or east, to the States of this Union as they are now constituted and held together under the Constitution. Sir, I hold this question to be vital, permanent, elementary, to the future pros- perity of this country and the maintenance of the Constitution." And the distinguished senator added that the opposition on consti- tutional grounds, "if not the undivided was the preponderating sen- timent of the whole North." On the 16th day of May, 1848, Mr. Wiley in the House of Rep- resentatives made a speech replying especially to Mr. Webster's argument. In the course of his speech he stated, "No doubt the senator is correct in his opinion so far as the Federal States of the North are concerned, but, sir, I am confident that such is not the sentiment of New Hampshire. No, sir, the recent election there has told the story for the Granite State, and I know, sir, that such is not the sentiment of Maine. "But, sir, opposition to the measure of acquisition is just what we should expect from Whig States, and Whig Representatives and Senators here. They have always been opposed to the enlargement of our border. Their policy has rather been to curtail and contract the area of freedom. Yes, sir, the Senator from Massachusetts is in principle opposed to the acquisition of any more territory, except a harbor or two on the coast of Massachusetts. There are some whale men from that State who pursue their occupation in the Pacific and they must be provided for of course, but no more new States must be added to the Union, for Massachusetts might not in that case, exert her due weight of influence in the councils of the nation. On the other hand when you come to the question of ceding away -- selling out territory, inhabitants and all, for a mere nominal equivalent, why, then the Senator is not quite so scrupulous as to the right to do so -- as the State which I have the honor in part to represent once had the misfortune to learn, to her ever- lasting regret." In the course of his remarks Mr. Wiley, with prophetic vision, declared that the territory we would acquire was far from being worthless territory and only an Indian country, as Mr. Webster claimed. He predicted the development of California into a rich agricultural country, particularly Upper California. He predicted the vast mineral wealth of the Pacific slope and rich deposits of gold within the territory to be acquired. This speech was made on May 16, 1848. Gold in large quantities was discovered in 1848, and in the spring of '49 there was the greatest rush of peaceful migration westward that the world has ever witnessed. Upwards of 50,000 emigrants went by land and sea from the east to the region west of the Rocky Mountains to California, where many of them remained and laid the foundation of the development of one of the largest and richest States in the Union. Had the views of Mr. Webster prevailed, California would have been part of Mexico today and the development of the United States in the west would have been far different than at present. Instead of a nation reaching from ocean to ocean, the republic of Mexico, a far more populous and powerful nation, would have cut us off from the Pacific, and Japanese who are attracted to Cali- fornia by soil and climate, would have swarmed on to the coast unrestricted, and have presented to us a Japanese question that would have been of tremendous national embarrassment, rather than of local importance, as it is at the present moment. The vision of the Down East Yankee was sound, though it was at variance with the ablest legislator of that day, Daniel Webster. (c) 1998 Courtesy of the Androscoggin Historical Society ************************************************* * * * * NOTICE: Printing the files within by noncommercial individuals and libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter information is included. Any other use, including copying files to other sites requires permission from the submitters PRIOR to uploading to any other sites. We encourage links to the state and county table of contents. * * * * The USGenWeb Project makes no claims or estimates of the validity of the information submitted and reminds you that each new piece of information must be researched and proved or disproved by weight of evidence. It is always best to consult the original material for verification.