The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-02-24
the Joint resolution Of ls4b Texas. WIS snnex.


the joint resolution Of is4b Texas.wps spnex-
ed, with the right to form four additional
States out Of her territory; and such States
as were south 36e 30 min. were to come in
with or without slavery, as they saw proper;
and in such State or States as were north of
that line; slavery should be prohibited When
we had cut off north of36 80, and thus
circumscribed the boundary and diminished
the territory Of Texas, the question arose,
how many States will Texas be entitled 10
under this circumscribed boundaryl Ger
tainly not four, twill be argued. Why!
Because the original resolution of annexa-
ton provided that one of the States, if no
more, should bs north OF sc 80. 1t would
leave it, then, doubtful whether Texas was
entitled to two or three additional States un-
der the circunscribed boundary.
In order to put that matter to rest, in or
der to make final settlement, in order to
have it explicitly understood, what was the
meaning of Congress, the Senator from Va.
offered the amendment that nothing therein
contained should impair that provision, either
as to the number of States or otherwise; that
is, that Texas should be entitled to thu same
number Of States with her reduced boundar-
les as she wodld have been entitled to under
ner larger boundaries, and these States shall
come in with or Without slavery, being all
south Of 36 80, and fothing to impair that
right shall be inferred from the passage of
act. Such, sir, was the meaning Of that pro-
: position. And other construction of it would
stultify the very. character and purpose of its
mover, the Senator from Virginia. Such,
then, was not onl the intent of the mover,
but such 10 the leael effect of the law; &nd |
say that nom.e, s+ser reading the otheA -ser-
tons of the ia. hose TO which have re-
= ferred, can doubt that such was both the in
{ tent and the legal effect of that law.
Then Isubmit to the Senate if | have not
e convicted this manifesto, issued by the Aboli.
n tion confederates, OF being gross falsifca.
il ton Of the laws OF the land, and by that fal.
e sification that en- erroneous and injurious i'm
y preston has been created upon the public
mind! am sorry to be compelled to indulge
i in language of this severity; but there is nc
d other language that is adequate to expires.
e the Indignation with which see this attempt
ID not only to mislead the public, but to maigr
d my character by deliberate Justification of tht
n public statutes Of tho public records.
Sir, this misreprese ntation and Justification
D. does not stop here. In order to give create
IN plausibilty to their statement, they 60 further
and state that "it is soemnly declared, in thu
5, very compromise acts, that nothing here con
I'd taiaed shall be construed 10 impair or qualify
It the prohibition-qf slssesy north of SO 80
m and yet, in the faIe Of this declaration, tha
It sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown
D. Can presumption go further"
lie In the very teeth OF the statute, sayinl
q that they should come in with or without sla
IN very as they pleased, these men declare tha
e it is stated that it should be forever prohibited
p | repeat to them, "Could presumption go fur
Is ther!.' Not only presumption in making
s. these statements, but the presumption tina
l. they could avoid the exposure of their conduct
D. In order to give greater plausibili,y 20 thi.
r Justification OF the terms of the compromise
=: measures of 1850, the confederates also de-
id clare in their manifesto that they Qhe .err
10 torial bills for the organization of Utah ant
= New Mexico) "applied to the territory ac
1t quired from Mexico, and to that only. They
were intended as settlement of the controy
N ersy growing out of that acquisition, and o
,, thnt ina controversg. .s,,syA. They. must stand o
RI rail oy the.r own msrits."
submit to the Senate if there is an in
+ telIigent manin America who does not know
e that that declaration is falsifed by the statute
e, from which they quoted! They say that the
1t provisions of that Sill were confined to the
territory acquired from Mexico, when the
n very section of the law from which they quo.
e ted that proviso did purchase part of tina,
1t very territory from the State Of Texas. And
J. the next section Of the law included tha,
J. terrtoryin the new Territory Of Mexico. IL
J. took small portion,also, Of the old Louisiana
$ purchase, and added that to the new Territory
> OF Mexico, and made up the rest out oc the
t Mexican acquisition. Then, sir, your sta
$ tutes show, when applied to the map of the
: country, that the Territory of New Mexico
; was composed ofterritory acquired from Mex.
| leo, and also OF territory acquired from Texas
r and OF Territory acquired from France; and
yet, in dehance-af that statute, and in falsif-
: cation of its terms, we are told, in order to
deceive the people, that the bills were conf
{ ned to the purchase made from Mexico alone,
and in order to give it greater solemnty, as
was necessary while uttering a falsehood,
; they repeat ittwice, fearing that it would not
be believed the first time. Whit is more,
the Territory Of Utah was not confined to the
country acquired from Mexico. That Terri
tory, as is well known to every man who
understands the geography of the country, in
cludes large tact Of rich and fertile coun-
try acquired from France in 1903, and to
which the eighth section ofthe Missouri act
applied in 1926. Ii these confederates do
not know to what county. alude, only
reply that they should have known before
they utter alsehood, and imputed crime
to me.
But | will tell youto what country allude
By the treaty of 1919, by which we acquired
Florida and fixed boundary between the
U. 3. and Mexieo' ~ Nbeasdavy was made of
the Arkansas river to its source, and then the
line ran due north Of the source of the Arkan.
sas to the 42d parallel, then along ON the
42d parallel to the Pacific ocean. That line,
due north from the head of the Arkansas,