Speech of Mr. Barrow, of Louisiana, on the resolutions from the House of Representatives, for the admission of Texas as a new state into the Union. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 19, 1845. Page: 13 of 16
View a full description of this pamphlet.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
13
time declare his intention to abide by the compromises of the Constitution ; and then,
in the close, he might add that it would be very gratifying to him to see slavery abo-
lished throughout the world.
An honorable Senator from New Hampshire, (Mr. WOODBURY,) in a speech made by
him last season, when the Senate was in secret session, had declared, in the overflow of
his philanthropy, his ardent desire to see the whole world included within the area of
freedom ; and then he went on to say that he should not undertake to defend slavery,
but, on the contrary, would rejoice to see it abolished throughout the world. None
could be more delighted with such a result than he, expressing himself substantially in
the language of the British Minister. So gentlemen from Illinois and Pennsylvania all
said that the effect of annexation would ultimately be to abolish slavery. This, he
presumed, was an argument which they intended should have great effect at home.
The same argument employed at the South would not, he presumed, make very many
converts, inasmuch as the people of the South advocated this measure precisely and
mainly because it would strengthen and perpetuate the interests of slavery. For his
own part Mr. B. did not believe it would have any such effect, any more than he be-
lieved that it would ensure the military defence of New Orleans. His own belief was,
that its effect would be rather to weaken the South than otherwise. Mr. B., however,
would do the gentleman from New Hampshire the justice to say that he had at the same
time declared that he would stand by the compromises of the Constitution at all hazards.
What Senator or what Representative had, in the discussion of this question, said oth-
erwise ? Mr. B. had never heard any man, whether lie came from down East or up
North, speak on the subject at all that did not avow the same determination. Wherein
then did the Senators from New Hampshire, from Illinois, and from Pennsylvania,
who were all advocates of annexation, differ from those who opposed it? They all
professed that, in the abstract, they were against slavery as an evil, both political and
social, but they were all ready to spill the last drop of their blood in defence of the
compromises of the Constitution. Mr. B. would undertake to say that no Democratic
Senator from a non-slaveholding State would be found a firmer friend to the South than
his friend before him, (Mr. BATES,) or any other Whig Senator from the North, who
opposed this bill. They were all ready to abide by the compromises of the Constitu-
tution. So were the people every where. The great masses of the community in the
non-slaveholding States were all true to the Constitution. Mr. B. had travelled much
among them; he had associated with the most intelligent gentlemen in all the Northern
States, and he owed it to truth to say, it was no more than a simple act of justice to de-
clare, that he believed the non-slaveholding States were just as much attached to the
Union as their slaveholding brethren, and would no sooner consent to abolish the com-
promises on which it rested than they. He was no believer in the charges so lavishly
made to the contrary. And, further, he would say that these accusations were not only
untrue, but were propagated by some who knew them to be untrue, and who employed
them only as means to stir up prejudices and animosities, on which they them-
selves may ride into office. Yes, he believed there were men in the South, who,
for the sake of getting elected into any office, would say that every man in all the
North was a violent abolitionist, and ready to burn down every cottage in the South-
ern States, and set the slaves to massacre their masters. There were fanatics
at the South, as well as at the North. He believed that the abolition party, right-
ly so called, was very small; its leaders were fanatical, selfish, ambitious, and very
wicked men, and merited the severest punishment sanctioned by Lynch's code.
The party, as such, aimed at objects which never could be accomplished. It was de-
nounced, despised, and condemned by all other parties at the North, and was quite as
much abhorred by intelligent Northern men, whether Whigs or Democrats,. as it could
be by any body in the South.
But the fourth proposition urged in favor of annexation was, that Texas, when re-
ceived into the Union, would furnish a market for the manufactures of the North, and
the stock and produce of the West. A more preposterous position could scarcely be
taken. Suppose that hundreds of Virginians and thousands of Carolinians should
go to Texas, (for the country of course must be peopled from the United States,) they
I,
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This pamphlet 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 Pamphlet.
Barrow, Alexander, 1801-1846. Speech of Mr. Barrow, of Louisiana, on the resolutions from the House of Representatives, for the admission of Texas as a new state into the Union. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 19, 1845., pamphlet, 1845; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth498767/m1/13/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Schreiner University.