216
WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1850
for this Union-for their fatherland. It was not by her advance- ment nor devising; it was merely the alternative submitted to her repeatedly, positive and unconditional in its character. And if the South curtailed her upon her advent into the Union, and it suits her to preserve her integrity and her spotless reputationt she has an undoubted right to alienate, not from free soil, such portion of her territory as she could spare and as suited her convenience; but her high motives, so far as she was represented in my humble person, was to conciliate and reconcile the great interests of this country. It was a higher object than pecuniary considerations, a higher object than sectional feelings that animated my heart; and I am satisfied that my colleague felt as he ought to do; for he manifested it with an ability and earnest- ness that precluded any necessity of participation on my part in the debate. Well, sir, to show the fallacy of the assertion that free soil has been advanced and southern interests depressed or injured by any cession that has been made by Texas, it was suggested by the honorable gentleman from Tennessee that so long as Texas remained entire and undivided, so long as she would have the control of the territory north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. Sir, she must remain entire and inseparable to do that; because if a new State was created out of the portion north of that line, it would necessarily accrue to free soil; and if you let her remain entire without any division or partition into States, you would preclude her from the formation of four new States, in addition to the present one, in accordance with the articles of annexation. You would restrict her to a single State, sending here two southern Senators, when she would otherwise send ten to this body. Mr. President, I cannot conceive that in voting for that bill that free soil, or any soil but American soil, has been regarded. I regard it, sir, above any sectional considerations. Well, sir, it was a direct reflection upon the Senators from Texas, that they were either stultified, or that for want of perception they would concede anything that would be prejudicial to the South. Sir, are they not inseparably connected with the South? Are not their productions southern? Are not their institutions southern'! And why were they set apart? If they coulrl not perceive what were the interests of their constituents, they were unworthy of a seat on this floor. If they are pursuing a course of policy which is not suited to the interests of Texas, you must impute unworthy
Powered by FlippingBook