John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique — John Shaqi
John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A CritiqueWilson, Hill Peebles
History
John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique
Wilson, Hill Peebles
Brown, John, 1800-1859
The debate upon the measure developed the existence, in the North, of a
growing hostile sentiment toward slavery, which confirmed in the minds
of Southern statesmen the necessity of keeping the number of Slave
States equal, at least, with the number of Free States; for only by thus
maintaining a balance of power in the Senate, could legislation adverse
to slavery be prevented. Also, the limitations of the compromise
agreement emphasized a further necessity; the acquisition of additional
territory south of 36° 30' from which Slave States could be created in
the future, to balance the admission into the Union of prospective Free
States. This resulted in a propaganda for territorial expansion
southward. In pursuance of such policy, the revolt against Mexico, by
Texas, was probably encouraged.[60] In discussing the recognition of the
Republic of Texas, in January, 1836, Mr. Calhoun said, "It prepared the
way for the speedy admission of Texas into the Union, which would be a
necessity to the proper balance of power in the Union between the
slave-holding and non-slave-holding Commonwealths, upon which the
preservation of the Union and the perpetuation of its institutions
rested.[61]
The State of Vermont "apprehended that the political strength which the
annexation of Texas would give to the slave-holding interests, would
soon lead to a dissolution of the Union, or to the political degradation
of the Free States"; and, in pursuance of that apprehension the
"Legislature of Vermont adopted a set of resolutions protesting against
the annexation of Texas or the admission of any Slave State into the
Union," which was presented in Congress.[62] Having respect for Northern
sentiment, Congress kept Florida waiting six years: until Iowa was ready
to come into the Union.[63] The South consented readily to the
settlement of the "Oregon Boundary Question" at 49° north latitude
instead of 54° 40'. In fact, at the time the Democratic National
Convention of 1844 declared our title to the whole of Oregon as far as
54° 40' to be "clear and unquestionable," Mr. Calhoun, secretary of
state, had proposed to Her Majesty's representative to settle the
controversy by adopting the 49th parallel as the boundary.[64] Texas was
admitted into the Union; the articles of annexation providing that it
might be subdivided into five states, at any time it chose to make such
division. Also, after a war of conquest with Mexico, Upper California
and New Mexico were added to the public domain.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account