Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1845-10-30

the other papers seen though win more or less reluc
lance, to acquiesce in the same conclusion. Indeed,
very general feeling pervades the community, that we
must reconcile ourselves as we best cam to Pexas
an inevitable evil.
The real fact, however, is, that Texas is no part of
the American Union, and no possible act Of hers can
make her So Nothing but the deliberate Legislative
action of Congress can consummate the annexation.
ALL therefore, which prevents efectual resistance
tothe measure arises from the state Of public opinion
To enlighten and animate public opinion Is the grea&
difficulty remaining. Let us examine the resolution
for annexng Texas: 1t provides that Congress doth
consent that the territory properly included within and
rightfully belonging to the republic OF Texas, may be
erected into new State, to be called the State of Tex
as with republican form of government to be adopted
by the people," in order that the same may be adj
mited as one of the States of the Union" This sec
ton clearly does not admit Texas, but merely gives
the consent Of Congress to Texas forming State Con-
stituton as a mode of preparing for its admission.
The I'd provides that the foregoing consent Of
Congress is given on certain conditions. The first is,
that said State to be formed subject to the just
ment by this government, of all questions of boun-
adry that may arise with other governments, and the
constitution thereof with the proper evidence of its
adoption by the people of Texas, shall be transmitted
to the President of the U. S. to be laid before Con-
gress for its final action on OF before the LIST day Of Jan
uary 1876"
1t is clear that as this constitution is to be submitted
to Congress for its final actonCongress may either
approve or dsapproye it, may admit or reject the St4
of Texas at its pleasure. Ifthe constitution be not
republican, or contains provisions inconsistent with
our system Of government, or fagranty unjust-then
the duty of Congress to reject it is manifest and inn
peratve. 1t being submitted to Congress for its final
action mean nothing, unless Congress is to have
the right of rejecting well Of accepting it.
The construction put upon this clause is not a new
one but it has been questioned, so far as Is
known by any who have examined it I le Texans
themselves so understood it, and their newspapers,
when the resolutions first published among them,
complained londy that Congress had still the power
ofreectng their application after they had presented
their State constitution.
The second condition confirms this view. 1t says,
"Sad State ,chen admitted into The Union," after ced-
ng to the United State all public cdices, fortfca-
tons, and long list of other things shall retain its
public funds" &c &c.
The expression ",chel, admitted into The Union"
could have only been used because those who framed
the resolution understood that this resolution did not
admit Texas This clause too follows Immediately
after the clause directing the transmission of the T&
an constitution for the final action of Congressshoh-
ing beyond dispute, that the admission of Texas de-
pended on the final action of Congress.
1t does not admit of questions, that if Congress does
not accept the constitution of Texas, it will remain
foreign nation.
The situation of Texas now, is in some respects
similar to that of Missouri after the dsgracei act had
been passed. by which the people of the territory of
that name, were authorized to form State constit-
ton, without any restriction in regard to slavery
After the State constitution formed, Missouri APP
piled for admission State, and Joint resolution of
both Houses Of Congress admitted her.
! But this resolution did not pass as a matter of
course, It was strenuousy resisted. 1t was carried
in the House by vote of 81 yeas, to 81 nays; and
in the Senate by vote of % yeas to IA nays.
lnthe case Of Illinois, after a similar act had au-
thorzed the formation Of State constitution, and
State constitution had been formed accordingly the
resolution for admitting her as State, was still resist
ed in the House, and passed by vote of III yeas to
"a nays.
Ifthese resolutions had been rejected Missouri and
Illinois would still have remained territories and a
change of three votes in the House, would have pro-
duced that result in regard to Missouri.
1t is not necessary to recapitulate the grounds on
whichEthe admission of those two States oppressed
after they had been expressly authorized to form a
State constitution. The cases are mentioned that the
lovers of precedents may that resistance is st in
our power, and fully justified by what has been done
on prior occasions, nearly parallel.
! There is, however, one great difference between
the situation of Missouri and Illinois, and that of
Texas After they authorized to form State con-
stutions they still remained territories Of the United
States But Texas, after forming State constitution,
still remains foreign naton and unless the represen-
taves of the northern States hereafter consent to adj
nit her, she will ever remain so.
The question, therefore, to the admission of Texas
as a State, is an open one and the members of the
next Congress are entirely Independent and unfettered
in acting on it by the resolution of the last Congress-
tmay perhaps be suggested by the friends of Texas
that the United States under honorary if not
legal obligation to annexher in consequence Of The
~ r Al a. l..
obligation to commit crime, But the terms profered
were clear The Texan constitution was to be sub
mtted to Congress, and if Congress dsapprove it then
Texas should remain for eign nation. The Texans
know the feelings Of the northern States in regard to
slavery and know too that the constitution will
be resisted in Congress- because it supports slavery
They have chosen to take their chance of the result
They know too the rights and responsibilities of the
next Congress. 1t is, therefore, breach of faith in
the northern States to oppose such constitution
There has always been less opposition by
then representatives to admission of new slave States
1t would be breach of faith to our conscences
and to God not to resist the admission Of Texas as
slave State.
But class of politicians who have hitherto opposed
annexation, say that further resistance is hopeless
therefore let us submit with becoming resigna-
ton to the order of things With this unworthy
and plsanimous suggestion we have no sympathy
Are we totakc it for granted that the new Congress
will be as mean spirited as the last? That all the
them Democratic representatives will prove traitors
before they have been tried?
Congress will always echo the will of the people,
when distinctly and strongly pronounced Shall we
assume that the great majority of the people of the free
States aequlesce In annexation, before they have eX
pressed an opinion on the subject? Man can never
know beforehand the result of his efforts that depends
on an a-wise providence But the path of duty is
plainly marked out to him. and he must never cease
to contend for right and justice, because he fears his
efforts will prove unavailing.
The mass of the people need nothing so much as
light Though many of the old political leaders have
taken the wrong path, and others stand still, let us
yet have confidence that the majority of our fellow
citizens will follow the rne course, when it is pointed
out to them.
light breaks out in the nor h. John P. Hale, the
only Democratic member of Congress from New
Hampshire who dared to resist annexation, was in
sequence prescribed by the leaders of his party. A
result quite unprecedented in New Hampshire has fol-
lowed. He has twice succeeded in preventing the