{"character_count": 5083, "word_count": 941, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9377999901771545], "ccnet_perplexity": [1808.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



vading the whole world Thus shall We


lose the mosi important IN numerical


strength at the ballot box; stiil more impor-
tant If We should be driven 10 the cartouch


box S our last s. f nee And hat are the
"a vantageS " hich we are TO gain bY this


measareg mean we of the slavehoidng


States Are We more secure against for
eign atiack2 The question is not whether


Loa1siaua will be more secure with Iexas
than Without 1t. think Ii easy 10 demon>
state that such would not be tae case. Bu,
the Ieal question Is will Texas be more Sc
cure than Louisiana now is2 For Texas
will then be a portion OF our Union. and W
shall be under the same obligation 20 protect


} exss as we now are TO ptott CT Louisiana.


Win our railroads and rivers we can as
sembie three hundred thousand nen in thir-
" days in New Orlrans, or at any other
poin, in the sIsveho.ding States No, so
with Texas There would be no means of
transporting troops to Texas but by the dam
eelous navigation Oft Gulf thus encoun-
terIng all the Inconvenience In the defence
which an invading enemy would have In
the attack; aud, with a superior hostile IA
val force In command of the Gulf Of Mexi
co, which is TO be anticipated IN the event Of
such an invasion. our troops Gould mol BE
at all La any event. il would
be transferring the conflict from the land.
where we should be Absolutely impregnable,
TO the water where we nighi be The weaker
power. Then. again instead of the impsss
able vamps lying between the Mississippi
and Texas. a natural and impregnabie for
we should have an increased ma
rine frontier OF several ledred miles. and d
land frontier of txo thousand. Withouf rleeis
mountains or swamps. or eny the slightest
natural barrier. unless we could realize the
veiy bright idea Of General Cass Of annex
ing all the contiguous territory. 10 do
which. we must round ofo boundaries by
going to Cape Horn and the Pacific.
know ONLY one instance of an equally sa
gac;ous suggestion as that of Gen Cass
bout contig guouS territory. and that vas OF
the farmer " ho said that he discovered that
the squirrels destroyed only the outside rows
of his corn, and that he would secure him
self against future depredations by planting
no outside row. Ii am descending from
the diguily Of The subject, il is because ridi.
cue is the only proper reply 10 such an ar.
goment Il is said that the annexation OF
Texas will increas the political power OF
he slaveholding States ana their vote IN
Congress Such cannot be the result IN the
House of Representatives, for The slaves will
only be difIused; their number will 10. b.
increased that is perfectly clear. But il has
been said that Texas viii be divided into
four or five States, all OF which will be Slave
States, and oil course represented IN The Sc
nate, and thus give to the South conserva.
tive, a checking power. Ii believed that
the non -slayeholding States would concede
us this would disregard all minor objec-
lions and 90 for the measure. But does any
sane man really believe it2 Will the non.
States. having a majority IN
the Senate, as Legislative body. surrender
that majority. and also the majority in the
House, as an alternative electoral oodv OF
Pre- sdenl2 Will they divide Texas into
four States, and give those four States equal
power in the election OF President with n
York Pennsylvania. Ohio. and Massachu'
setts2 Would we under like circumstances.
consent 20 the annexation Of Canada. and di
vide It into four or five Statesl Would |
we do this at the risk ofa foreign war; and
more especially if oar Northern brethren
wuh a most remalk kabie frankness. were 10
announce % us that their great motive in
desiring 1t was to take the polllicai power
out of our hands and place 1t In their owa2
And are they less sagacious IN pefeeiving
their Interests, less prompt In pursuing them
or more liberal in sacrificin them than we
area Such certainly is mel the general esti |
mate Of their character A striking fact IN this
matter is, that. al the very threshold OF Ibis |
question. II has been proposed by two Sena-
tors fon. slave holding States N,r Benton
aud Mr.. Henderson, To divide Texas into
an quail number of slave-holding and non
States What :hen will We
have gained in political slrengh2 IF South
efn Senators begia by making this eonees-
sion, there must be sons show OF reason on |
that side. And Is tito be supposed that the |
members from the non-slaveholding States |
will yield the poinil As 10 The Missouri /
the obvious reply which will |
be, .hal that comprom Sc was made with re- |
ference TO the territory which was then IN |
cluded n the Union, and not TO future ac
QUESTIONS by purchase or conquest In case |
OF such division. shall we have gained /
anyt ing By having non siavebolding States |
1f the Union on our south western border IN /
stead of a foreign non.siaveholding Slale2 |
d. cidedly prefer the lauer; for II IS not to |
be denied that our Northern brethren. In |
this respect at least, IA lille more than kin |
and a little less than kind" often commit out |
RACES upon our rights which would not BE- /


