The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 16, July 1912 - April, 1913 Page: 257
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 Question of the Eastern Boundary of California 257
7. Conclusion
It will thus be seen that in every vote cast the majority of the
southern delegates favored the smaller boundary. In the first
case,-the Hastings proposal, offering the 118th degree of west
longitude,-eight voted for, and five against it. The same proposal
when it came up the next day received the vote of the eight south-
ern delegates who had formerly supported it, and was opposed by
the same southerners, five, who had formerly voted against it.
Shannon's proposal was supported by seven southerners and was
opposed by four from that section. Practically the same eastern
boundary,-the 120th degree of west longitude,-offered by Mc-
Dougal was supported by eight southerners while five from the
South rejected it. The second vote on the Gwin-Halleck proposal
had resulted in five for and eight against it. Five were cast for
and seven against the double proposal offered by Jones. Up to this
point the five southern delegates who had stood out for the ex-
treme eastern boundary were Gwin, Hobson, Hollingsworth, Jones
and Moore. Moore did not vote on Shannon's proposition. Jones's
proposal, however, was rejected by Gwin. Hoppe, a southern dele-
gate who had voted for the more contracted boundary, supported
the proposition. Hill's proposal,-the 115th degree of west longi-
tude,-was supported by nine southern delegates and rejected by
four. Gwin voted against it and Jones for it. In the third vote
on the Gwin-Halleck proposition four southerners were for it and
eight against it. The first clause of Jones's proposal was supported
by ten southern votes. The two southerners who voted against it
were Hill and Hobson. Hill had formerly voted for the contracted
boundary; Hobson, however, had consistently opposed it.
This evidence seems to show conclusively that the debate and the
votes had no sectional character. The majority of the delegates who
had immigrated to California from southern states were not only
not fighting to have the Convention adopt boundaries so extensive
that the constitution would be rejected by Congress, but they
were actually contending against that very thing. Every time they
had a chance to express themselves by their votes-with the possible
but not probable exception of the first vote taken on the Gwin-
H.alleck proposal, where the names of the voters were not given--tle
majority of them opposed the extreme eastern boundary. Even
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/m1/265/: accessed May 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.