Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-04-24
An Unanswerable Argument in IA
vOr of Kansas. a

We gave the other day the example of
Arkansas which was admitted as a State on
the application of an independent convea-
ton of settlers, not made through Terrific
rial legislative authority, nor yet by pre-
vious authority from Congress. And we
now cite the example of Michigan, still
stronger, in asmuch as she was admitted on
the demand of an Independent convention
held in contempt of a previous convention
convened under the auspices of the rerr-
torial Government.
The facts are plain and the case conclu-
sve. We derive them from an abridgment
of the argument contained in speech of
the Hon. HENRY WALDRoN, member of
Congress from Michgan-as we find it in
the editorial correspondence, from Washing
ton, of the N. Y. Tribune:
In 1856 Michigan had outgrown her
Territorial swaddling clothes and was ripe
ior ira! sformation into State. But she
had an unsettled boundary dispute with Ohio
in, diving a strip of land on which the city
of Toledo has since grown up; there had
been serious collisions Of jurisdiction,
threatening others still more serious; and
Congress resolved not to admit Michigan
unless she would consent to quitclaim this
disputed territory. On this condition be-
ing made known, new constitutional con-
vention was held under the auspices of the
territorial government, which conven,io
decided not 10 accept admission on the con-
dition Imposed by Congress. So the ques-
ton seemed to be at rest
But not so: A movement was directly set
on fJot by voluntary popular agitation, out
side of and in defiance OF the Terrific ial
authorities, for another Convention, which
Was accordingly chosen and held, though
none but the friends of the movement re-
cognized it in any way, and two of the most
populuus counties were not at all represent
ed. This volunteer, Spontaneous Conven-
tiOn resolved tU accept admission on the terms
exacted by Congress and rejected by the
regular Conven. ion; and sent on the re-
quis;te documents. to Gen. Jackson, then
President. Gen, Jackson sent the proceed
ings and decisions of both Conventions to
Congress, without indicating any preference
ON his own part. They came at first before
the House, where the following proceedings
were had:
HOUSE, Jan. IL, lS36.-Memorial of the
Legislature of the State OF Michigan pre-
scnted. Mr.. Hannegan of Ind, moved that
it be rejected. Motion defeated Franklin
Pierce voting in the majority. Mr. Hanne-
gan then moved that it be received s'as the
voluntary act of private Individuals This
was adopted. but Frankiin Pierce voted in
the negative. On the question as to which
of the two Conventions should be recogn;z-
ed as representing the People of Michigan,
the Democratic Iiuuse decided in favor o!
the irregular or spontaneous Convention
franhtin Pierce voting in the majority.
When the question came in due course
before the Senate, Democratic } it was re-
lerred to its judiciary commi tee, whereof
Felix Grundy of Tennessee, was Chairman.
This committee sent out circulars to Mich
igan, to ascertain which Of these rival COncsn-
tons most truly represented the People of that
State, and which had received most of the
Peoples votes. A ter awaiting and receiv-
ing answers to these circulars, the Commit
tee rep Jrted that the Spontaneous COnren-
lion eas entitled 10 be accredited rather than
tie regular: and that Michigan should be
admitted on lis motion. This motion pre-
vailed; Yeas--Slas Wright, Benton, Buch-
anan, VIM. R. King, &c. Nays only 10.
rhe subject thereon went to the House,
where the acton of the Senate was affirm
ed, and the admission of the State compet-
ed:--l4S; Nays So; FrInhlin Pierce and
Isaac 1ouccy among the Yeas.
So Michigan came into the Union, on the
application of volunteer, anti-regular Con-
vcntion, just ike that of Free Kansas, and
voted for Van Buren, for President in 1885.