The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-07-23

N A.
Hubbard, King, Knight, Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon,
Nicholas, Niles, Norville, Pierce, Preston, ,Rives,
Roane, Robinson, Sewer, Smith Of Conn, Wall,
Strange, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, and
Young-3l.
| 1914 THE admission Of Teas.
In 1914, when the treaty of the annexation
of Texas was before the senate of the United
States, in secret session, Mr.. Buchanan made
speech, which may be found in the Congress
sional Globe. In that speech he gave utter
ance to the following extraordinary language.
We beg our readers to mark its Significance
| He said: #
"In arrivingat the conclusion to support this
treaty, had to encounter but one serious OBJ
stace, and that was the question of slasery.-
Whilst have ever maintained, and shall ever
maintain, in their full force and vigor, the con-
stitutonal rights ofthe southern States over their
slave property, | yet feel strong repugnance
| by any act of mine to extend the limits of the
Union over new slayeholding territory. AT
ter mature reflection, however, Iovercame these
scruples, and now believe the acquisition of
Texas will be the means of limiting, not en-
larging the dominion of slavery.
S"In the government ofthe world, Providence
generally produces great changes by gradual
means There is nothing rash in the councils
Of the Almighty. May not then, the acquisi-
ton Of Texas be the means of gradually draw
ing the slaves far to the south to climate more
congenial to their nature; and may they not
finally pass off into Mexico and there minge
with a race where no prejudice exists against
their color? The Mexican nation is composed
of Spaniards, Indians and negroes, blended to-
gether in every variety, and would receive our
slaves on terms Of perfect social equality.
That the acquisition of Texas would ere
long convert Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky,
Missouri and probably others ofthe more north
ern slave States, into FREE STATES, entertain
not doubt .-.
But should Texas be annexed to the Union,
causes will be brought into operation which must
inevitably remove slavery from what may be
called the farming States. From the best in
formation, it is no longer profitable to raise
wheat, rye and corn, by slave labor. Where
these articles are the only staples agriculture,
in the pointed and expressive language of Ran
dolph, if the slave does not runaway from his
master, the master must run away from the
slave The slave will naturally be removed
from such country, where his labor is scarcely
adequate to his own support, to region where
he can not only maintain himself, but yield
large profits to lis master Texas will open an
outlet, and slavery itself may thus finally pass
the Del Norte and be lost in Mexico. One
thing is certain: the present number of slaves
cannot be increased by the annexation of Texas.
Il have never apprehended the preponder-
ance of the slave States in the councils of the
nation. Such fear has always appeared to
me visionary. But those who entertain such
apprehension, need not be alarmed by the ac-
quisiton of Texas. More than onehalf of its
territory is wholly unfit for the slave labor, and,
therefore, in the nature of things, must be free.
Mr. Clay, in bis letter of the 18th of pril last,
on the subject of annexation, states that, &C
cording to his information, the territory of Tex
as is susceptible Of a division into five States of
convenient size and form. Of these, two only
would be adapted to those peculiar Institutions
1 (slavery) to which | have referred; and the
other three, lying west and north of San An
tonic, being only adapted to farming and graz
ing purposes, from the nature oftheir soil, elm
ate and productions, would not admit of these
institutions. In the end, therefore, there would
be two slave and three free States added to the
Union. See Appendix to Congressional Globe.
vol Kill, part 9.
So then, (says the Vicksbarg Wing, Mr..
| Buchanan found only one ''serious obstacle" in
the treaty, "and that was the question of slave
ry.' He felt <'strong repugnance to extend
ing the limits of the Union over new slave
territory" and his scruples were finally over
come only because he believed that the acquisi
ton of Texas would be the ''means oflimiling
not enlarging, the dominion of slavery" He
looked to the acquisition of Texas as the means
/ by which slavery was to be drawn off into Mex
leo where negroes would 'mingle with race
where no prejudice existed as TO their color"
| He looked to it as the means of converting "Ma-
ryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and prob
ably other States, into free States" Indeed.
/ he was certain that such would be the effect of
thatmeasure, or, to use his own emphatic words.
Il entertain no doubt of it, Here then, was 3
compensation that might have satisfied Joshua
R. Giddings; for while Mr. Buchanan looked to-
the division Of Texas into FIVE States, two of
which were to be slave, the remaining three
were to be consecrated forever to freesoil. But
this stalwart friend to the south and the equality
of the States was not content even with this
advantage, and was only induced to vote for the
acquisition of Texas because it limited slavery,
because he entertained no doubt that four slave
States, and. probably others would be con
verted into free States. 1t does not require
much knowledge of arithmetic to follow Mr.
Buchanan in his calculations, and TO show who.
were to reap the advantages. Three new free
| States were to be acquired inTexas, while Ma
ryland Virginia, Missouri and Kentucky were.
by the same process, to be converted TO free
dom. Seven free States, to which add the loss
to the south of four States already slave, and
any man can see how Mr. Buchanan's $ scruples
were overcome. Really, we think that freesoil
gentlemen ofgreater scruples might have been
overcome by the force of his very effective arlth
meto.
...... @~~--~-~~-~->~~~--~-~-0-~
There is whole volume Of instruction in a.
newspaper report Of suit tried lately in North,
Danville, Vermont, 1t employed for two long