Texas and the Massachusetts Resolutions Page: 36 of 54
This book is part of the collection entitled: From Republic to State: Debates and Documents Relating to the Annexation of Texas, 1836-1856 and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
It will be perceived that this form of tie article only made
still more striking the intention of the framers of the constitution
to libmit its application to commlunities wxhich might thereafter
be formed within the limits of the Union. In this view
it is, that the incorporation into it of the word L"new," wvhich
was not in Mr. IRandolph's original proposition, is of great
consequence. We now cotme to consider the reasons why
this proposition, as reported by the committee of detail, was
subsequently modified into the shape in wlicih it now stands.
We thinik it can be made evident that the change was not designed
to 'avor any projects Ia of nrgee t of the ion, to
say the least of it. It appears that on the 29th of August,
when the article camne beflre the convention for consideration,
Mr. Gouverneur Morris obectte to it in its new
shape, because it llade tie adx(Lission of the Vestern States
upon equal teris xwith the original States, imtperative, withi
a single exception, relative to tie public debt then stbsisting.
"He did not is to throw oer to tro wr he hands of the
Western country." These are Iis words, as reported by
Mr. Madison. Hence it is to be inferred, that Ihe wished to
retain, in the hands of the Congress, the ability to make conditions
of admission even to tlose new cotmunixties about to
be formed within the limits of thie Union; the very principle
contended for, by the Northern States, it should be observed,
at the tilne of the admission of Missouri. Not being satisfied
with the article as it stood, he proposed tle following as
Sew States may be admitted by the Legislature into the Union; but
no new States shall be erected within the limits of any of the present
States, witlout he consent of the lwgislature of such State, as well as
of the general Legislature.
And this substitute being nearly the same thing witi the
article, as it actually stands, was adopted, six States voting
in favor, and five against it.
1lThe position of Vermont a territory at that time neither
in nor out of the Union, and seeking to be admitted without
the necessity of securing the consent of New 'York, appears
to have had a great eflict upoim the form in whiich this article
was ultimately adopted. Luckily, Ier situation has given
us a strong proof of a cumulative ciharacter liow nuch importance
the Iramers of the constitution attaced to th e word
"new," as joined to " States,' in the connexion of this artiele.
hr. Sheruian moved the fiolowing substitute, wilich
distinctly covers the ground assumed by :r. Walker, in his
Legislat r 1hall have power to admit oter States into the Union;
and new St%tea to fe nrmed by the divison or junetion of States now
in the Union, with tIm cnsent of the Legislature of such States.
Here’s what’s next.
This book 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 Book.
Adams, Charles Francis. Texas and the Massachusetts Resolutions, book, January 1, 1844; Boston, Massachusetts. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2355/m1/36/: accessed October 19, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .