The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 16, July 1912 - April, 1913 Page: 246
464 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Southwestern Historical Quarterly
stitution for the whole of it, not a part. "I insist, sir, that we have
no right to say that California is not the California we took her to
be when she became part and parcel of the United States." He
thought it might be possible later, if Halleck's proviso, were ac-
cepted, to divide the territory; but this would have to be done by a
joint action of Congress and the State Legislature,-the Convention
could not do it.'
Such arguments were absurd, McCarver exclaimed. Suppose the
convention which formed the constitution for Louisiana had, for
similar reasons, attempted to include the whole of the Louisiana
territory within the limits of the state. The two countries,
Louisiana and California, stood upon the same footing. Both had
been obtained by treaty, one from France and the other from Mex-
ico. Both contained territory enough for several states. Would it
not have been a "monstrous doctrine" for Louisiana to insist that
the whole of that vast territory belonged to them, therefore they
would include it all within the boundaries of their state? "We oc-
cupy a similar position here. We have a tract of country purchased
either by the blood or treasure of the United States, known as
California." To imagine that Congress would permit them to in-
clude all of it within the boundaries of their state was the most ab-
surd of absurdities.2
Furthermore, the eastern boundary had already been designated,
Botts urged. "General Riley proclaimed the eastern boundary
of California in his proclamation, and the people said amen. I say
that he, in his proclamation, called upon the people of California in
pursuance of instructions, if you please,-California as laid down
in certain described lines-to form this Convention, and they,
through their representatives, have excluded slavery for themselves;
and is it for you, sir, now to reverse that decision ?" He did not
believe the Convention could do it. Most assuredly the people liv-
ing within certain limits had no right to make rules for people be-
yond those limits. Such an act would violate every republican
principle of justice; "Why, sir, is it necessary at this day, in this
enlightened country, to stand here and argue and prove that peo-1Browne, Debates, 185-187.
2Ibid., 187.246
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 16, July 1912 - April, 1913, periodical, 1913; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101058/m1/254/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.