Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-01-17

Now, what was the history OF the transforms
ton OF this article? And how could II be shown
that the general power then given was preserved
in its new form? II gentlemen would turn 10
the 4lh volume of Elliolis Debates on The Con-
silu,ion, they would find that, IN The Conven-
ton which sa, for the formation oil Inc new Con-
silnlion, Mr.. Randolph offered nc following pro-
position:
"Tha. provision ought 10 be made Tor the adj
mission OF States lawfully arising within the
limits of The United States, whether from vo-
luntary junction Of Government ana territory,
or otherwise, with the consent OF number oil
voices in the National Legislature less The
whole"
This proposition directly coniravened Inc spl-
rt OF the previous article in the Confederation
That allowed the admission OF foreign States,
this did not. And, moreover, IL was equally oP-
posed 10 The whole view and purpose OF The peo-
pie, in calling The Convention and demanding a
new Constitution, which was to augment The
powers, and enlarge the scope OF Inc Federal Go
vernment And what was The lale oil THIS pro,
position? Did the Convention approve OF and
adopt it? No. II was voted down. But, fur
Their, in mage 1863 it would be found that in the
drausht of a Constitution by committee OF five,
which was reported on The 9th OF August 1857,
the l7th article declared that
"New States, lawfully constituted or estab-
lished within The limits OF the Y. States, may be
admitted BY the Legislature into this Govern
ment," &c
This, TOO. was voted down, and in its stead the
existing provision OF the Constitution was adopt
ed by vote of six States 10 FIVE. Now, when
gentlemen went to the root OF the matter, they
would perceive that The original article, which
specifically provided for The addition OF one TO
reign State and left an open door for the admis-
cio NJ 9TH hp
adopted, so enlarged as 10 provide for the admis-
sion of new States generally. The phrase was
indefinite, and who was he that had the authority
To declare what were its limits? None could
point them out; it had none but such as might be
found in the good sense Of the people, and in the
guaranty, elsewhere given, that every new State
should have Republican form of Government.
If this article was, as some gentlemen contend
ed, confined 10 the reception OF new States formed
within the boundary of the Union, why was the
proposition OF Mr. Randolph voted down in the
Convention? And why did that Convention
adopt in its place different article more en-
larged in its terms? Obviously il was intended
that The power Of Congress 10 admit new States
should be left an unlimited power.
The proposition, therefore, OF the gentleman
from Kentucky, came up, as he had stid 10 the
very letler, and what was better, 10 the very spirit
OF the Constitution. This provision was insert
ed as one great means Of providing for the com
mon defence and the general welfare. And MIR.
Y. preferred the proposition OF the gentleman
from Kentucky, because on that plan we could
get possession of Texas BY Texas ceding 10 us
her territory, Just as Virginia and many of the
other States had ceded theirs. This resolution
provided for her doing the same thing, and that
strictly within the puryiew Of the Constitution
Mr. u would say 10 the friends OF the measure
hat fhnf hnu lpi q
might incline towards some ether OF the several
projects which had been presented, and however
well convinced some gentlemen might he that
| Congress now possessed the power 10 receive 10
reign territory into The Union, (and Mr.. Y. enter
tanned no doubt that by long process of reason
ing that position might be logically established,
they had still better adopt this proposition, because
il effected the same purpose in more direct
manner, and more in conformity with the letter
OF the Constitution. Other plans might perhaps
be pausiblv objected 10, bul no man could 81
| cut down The power contained in the words O
the Constitution that il would not apply TO State
| living conlessedly without The existing boundaries
| of the Union.
Considering The cultivated mind, clear under
standing, and enlarged views of the honorable
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.. Winthrop,
| Mr.. y. had been astonished 10 hear him say thai
the Constitution adopted BY our patriot fathers
was by them intended 10 apply only 10 the terrific
nv then within the United States. This, surely
was loo Darrow-mnded view Of things 10 he
| worthy of the mind of any true friend OF our
| American liberty. The Constitution applicable
| only 10 what were the bounds Of the Union when
| il was framed! Why, where, then, must Lousi-
ana and Arkansas, and Missouri stand2 Al the
adoption of the Constitution these were not with
| in the limits Of the United States. And would
the gentleman from Massachusetts maintain that
these three States were now uncoDSlilulionally
within the limits OF the United States! Had the
people Of Louisiana and the people OF Arkansas
and Missouri no share in the guarantees OF the
Constitutions Did they possess no rights by IL
and under il? The gentleman would not say SO.
Ye, these were States which lay without and be-
You'd the territory of the United States when the
article was framed which empowered Congress Ia
receive new States into the Union. They had
come into the Union-they had received a cheer
iul welcome. And what Republican freeman
would close the doors Of this, our fellowship OF
freedom, 10 any who in proper spirit came and
knocked for admission?
Ii appeared very singular 10 Mr. Y. tina, there
were only two instances in our history where
treaties had been made by which foreign coun-
tries were allowed 10 diminish the extent of our
territory. And the negotialors of both happened
to come from the Stale Massachusetts. Where
ever our territory had been clipped, and privileges
enjoyed by our citizens had been taken from them,
il had been done under the auspices Of two gen.
temen from Massachusetts. Why was lhis?-
Was il thai their hearts were 50 narrow, and their
views so contracted, that their sympathes could
not 90 an inch beyond that precise area of terri
tory possessed by us at The framing of the Consli-
tuition? Or, did il not rather arise from the old
Federal lcaven which vet worked in the hearts OF
the children Of that Commonwealth, and which,
to this day, was ever ready and disposed 10 cur
tail the liberties Of mankind? which was ever
prone 10 cilcumscrihe them within as small a
space as possible, and which seemed 10 have an
Unborn procivitv towards beslowing on few The
monopoly of rights and blessings which God had
given alike to all?
Mr.. Y. should iorhear dlating on the merits
ana bearings OF the proposition OF The gentleman
from Kentucky, but would leave them TO he better
said and more clearly sci forth by that gentleman
himself.
And now, 10 the second point Il would he
presumed, he admitted whether the admission
had an auspicious bearing on ourselves or not,
that The honor OF 4 nation MAS The brightest Jew
ell it possessed and that is character before the
nations Of the world should be guarded by its
representatives with all that sensitive soicudc
and watchlulness with which they would guard
tnclr own. NOW, Wudt were tue ldclS III our IT,
la,ion 70 the people of Texas? Mr.. y. was not
going TO argue for remuneration, for on that
point doubts might be and were entertained; he
was speaking 10 the proposition TO annex Texas
10 The United States. BY the treaty Of 1919, il
We had any right or power or claim over Texas,
we ceded them all to the Government of Spain
Whatever our title was We yielded it 10 her; but
Spain had not perfected her title; she never had
taken possession; the people of Texas resented
and resisted our acl; they rose in arms against il;
they complained that their will and wishes had
not been consulted in the matter, and Indignantly
denied that they could be coded away ike herd
of beasts; They complained that We had for
gotten their righls-and they declared with
ono voice, thai they would not abide By our
act; and they accordingly resisted the pow
er and possession OF Spain ill 1921, when they
conformed themselves 10 the terms Of general
coniederacy, which united the Mexican States
What was the condition OF Texas under that con-
federated Government Had they los, their
rights7 Surelynot. Though our mouth after the