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: 4 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:
404
thirteen independent colonies of America? It met four years after the treaty of peace.
Having found that the articles of the Confederation worked badly during the war, and
worked still worse after the peace, they met to amend these articles ; but, having as-
sembled for that purpose, they soon discovered that it would be better to construct an
entirely new Constitution; and, to put the proper construction on the new instrument,
it would be necessary, first, to look at the old, and it was especially so in this case.
Now, the articles of Confederation had contained a provision in express terms for the
admission of Canada into the Union whenever she chose to come, and other colonies,
(British,) as soon as nine States out of the thirteen should give their consent. Those
articles contained no provision for the formation of new States out of territory belonging
to the old colonies ; but the new Constitution did : it provided for the formation of
States out of territory lying within the chartered limits of the States which formed the
Constitution.
Now, Mr. B. asked, whether, if the design of the framers of the Constitution, in in-
serting this section respecting the admission of new States, was to admit foreign States,
would they not have said so in express terms ? The omission to do so could not have
been an oversight, nor could it have been from any apprehension that, if they did use
plain terms on the subject, it would lead to a renewal of the war, because the discussions
in the committee were secret, and the minutes of their proceedings had not been pub-
lished to the world. Yet no such language was to be found in the clause. The dif-
ference between the articles of Confederation and the new Constitution, in this matter
of receiving States, consisted in this : that, under the Confederation, provision was made
for admitting one foreign State by name, and others when two-thirds of the States
should agree to it; whereas, under the new Constitution, provision was made to admit
new States formed out of territory then within the Union. Mr. B. did not wish to be
understood as saying that Congress could not now lawfully admit new States formed
out of territory not within the United States in 1783 or 1787. All he meant to say
was, that the framers of the Constitution had provided for the admission of States to be
formed out of any territory which should be within the Union when such new States
should apply for admission. Canada had been specifically named in the articles of
Confederation, but she had not availed herself of the permission thus given, and utterly
refused to join us in achieving our independence of Great Britain.. When the Conven-
tion therefore met to form the new Constitution, that overture was not renewed. While
we were in the midst of our struggle with a Power so far our superior, we had been
seeking alliances in every quarter ; but when the struggle was over, and our indepen-
dence triumphantly won, this desire for foreign alliances ceased, and fortunate was it
for us that it did so.
The Senate had been told that the Convention did contemplate the admission of Can-
ada. He wished gentlemen would put their finger on a solitary fact in the history of
that Convention which would authorize such a position. Mr. B. had read, with the
greatest care, the whole record of these debates, and he defied any gentleman to point
him to a line, or word, or letter, which showed that the men then assembled had the re-
motest expectation that Canada would ever join this Confederacy. On the contrary,
the whole book was full of the evidence that their eyes were turned to the great West,
and not to the North, although they looked to that quarter for two new States, New
Hampshire and Maine. The true cause of many of the changes and modifications
which took place in the proposition moved by Governor Randolph, touching the admis-
sion of new States, was to be found in the peculiar condition which Vermont then oc-
cupied. Th, State of New York claimed her territory as being within the limits of
that State ; yet the people of Vermont had acted independently during the whole of the
Revolution, and denied the right of jurisdiction which New York claimed. The ques-
tion was, whether she was to be considered and treated as a foreign State. There was
not one man in the Convention who so considered her ; but, from her peculiar position,
it was difficult to frame a clause so as to include and fit her case. It was supposed to
be necessary to allow a new State to be formed out of the territory of other States, be-
cause Vermont had organized a Government of her own, though her territory lay within
the limits of New York. To meet that difficulty, a proposition was made by Roger
Sherman, ltat Congress should have power to admit other States and new States.
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/m1/4/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Schreiner University.