Texas and the Massachusetts Resolutions Page: 37 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:
This substitute adopts the word "other" instead of the
word n' ew," and, still more significantly, it opposes it to the
word ' new" that follows, as applied to the creation of States
to be formed by dividing or uniting existing States. It can,
therefore, lardly be doubted, that this was considered as testing
the sense of the convention upon the article as it stands.
The substitute was designed to include a power of admitting
other States, whether old or new.' The article, as it stands,
confined itself to fiture communtiies about to be fortmed in
the forests of the West. How vmiuch force is then due to the
decision of the conlvention wlhich rejected the substitute, six
States voting in the negative, to five in the affirmative, and
tien adopted the article as proposed by Mr. MIorris, eight
States votingg in favor, and three against it!
We are conscious how very dry all merely constitutional
questions are to the great mass of readers. We have, therefore,
endeavored to condense this history much more than is
altogether to the avanttag of the argument. So conclusive,
howexver, does the view of it which iwe have taken seei to us
that we are villing to let it go even in its present shape, without
any furthlr amplification. We trust, that after this the
public will no longer listen to any pretence of power to be
derived under this article, at least, for the annexation of a
foreigin State to the Union. If the act is to be done at all, it
is surely not to be done by men sworn to support the constitution,
in the face of a distinct declaration of its sense, by
those who were engaged in its cotstruction.
The last of the three modes by whiclh Mr. Walker thinks
that the annexatiol n ay be effected, is through the act of any
one of the States of the Union, with the sanction of Congress.
. He derives this remarkable power not friom any
direct authority given in the constitution, but by implication
from that clause of the tenth section of the first article, which
forbids any State from entering into any agreement or compact
with another State, or with a foreign power, without
having the consent of Congress thereto. Blt if this consent
can be obtained, lie thinks the power to make such a cotmpact
remains in the States unaffected by the prohibition, and
that under cover of these words '' comipact or agreel ent,"
any one of tlhem mlay, at its pleasure, ierge into itself, or be
xmerged into any foreign State.
This is, to say tll least of' it, a new view of tle constitution
of tIe Uniited States. So fi r as tihe. annexatiol of Texas is
concerned, we regarda it as presentitng the least dangerols
mode of effecting it which hlas yet been suggested; and could
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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/m1/37/: accessed June 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .