By Nabilah Saiful and Enya Samuelle Oh
In what must be the busiest and most hectic day of the conference thus far, the Charleston Courier (CC) was able to, as per usual, sit in on the day’s council sessions. However, the Charleston Courier was also able to conduct our very own press conference, a joint effort with the people of the New York Daily Tribune (NYDT).
A Recollection of the day’s Council Events
We started the meeting with the Chairs dishing out some truths to the delegates on what they have been doing well and poorly on. Fortunately, the senators seemed to be much more sure of the stance today, with some retracting their previous stances and providing a clearer outlook on the issue at hand.
There has been some talk about the industrialization of Texas, which was heavily supported by Senator Jabez Huntington and heavily opposed by Senator George McDuffie. The possibility of this is quite slim from the perspective of George McDuffie due to the cost of transitioning from slavery to machinery. He reasonably states that “Transitioning to industrialization will take time, and will [Senator Jabez Huntington] be bearing the cost of the transition to machinery?”. The debate on the possibility carried on, and the chances that the delegates will come to a common consensus soon are slim.
It is presumed that the senators spent much of their time in unmoderated caucuses (which they enjoy very much, seeing as they call upon it frequently) discussing their new resolution. We all look forward to seeing the new and improved one as the previous one was less than satisfactory.
The Inefficiency of Senate
Something that the senators have consistently struggled with over the past 3 days is their inability to have a productive debate. There was much brought up about how senators “should not be looking for quick solutions”, summarised from John M. Clayton’s speech, but not much actually done to provide clarity that the senators desperately needed.
As the debate burned in flames with over-enthusiastic senators who joined the council meetings late and motions for unmoderated caucuses made left and right, the senators are still far away from coming up with a decent resolution. Despite somewhat coming to the consensus of annexing Texas, the reliability and quality of their resolution is still uncertain.
For this, the Charleston Courier, for lack of a better word, condemn the Senate. The past three days have been spent almost entirely in vain, as we watched the debate go endlessly and aimlessly in circles. The Charleston Courier is appalled at the lack of efficient and productive conversations in the senate. The Senate still seems far from reaching a consensus on the issue, and for us, we hold out on the hope that it can only go up from here.
Thankfully, we are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel as the senators seem to have come to their senses and reorganised their thoughts. Although debate has started almost entirely from scratch, we think it is a much wiser decision than trying to make sense out of incoherent chaos. This is one thing that the Charleston Courier commends the Senate on, as their maturity and ability to admit their mistakes to reestablish a more fruitful discussion is a decision that is tough to accept, and even tougher to commit to.
At the beginning of the 7th council session, the Charleston Courier was lucky enough to be granted the opportunity to conduct our very own press conference, in which we were able to pose questions to the senators, as well as clarify our doubts on their stances and agendas.
In response to a question posed by the CC’s very own Enya S. Oh, ‘Given the considerable feedback on some senators being inconsistent with their party values, how are senators now seeking to mend this gap?’, Senator Robert M. T. Hunter responded that he was not of the opinion that the matter would be a major issue, stating that it was a product of the misunderstanding of information by some senators in the council. He stated that he had a positive outlook for the rest of the debate, seeing as most of the senators had managed to gain clarity as to their stances on the issue (The Annexation of Texas). He ended his response saying that he believed that the Senate would be able to have more productive council sessions in the future as misunderstandings were resolved and mistakes amended.
In response to a question by the NYDT’s Parijaat Jain, [Huntington] has raised the suggestion of having other states purchase land from Texas at a price and industrialising Texas. How would you proceed if Texas was unwilling to participate in such sales, considering that they are a mainly agricultural state?’ Senator Arthur Pendleton Bagby replied that the Democrats do not support the plan, with the reasoning that Texas is a more agricultural state, and hence to industrialise the state would be a threat to the Texians’ livelihood. He then offered an alternative solution, which was to go ahead with the annexation without industrialisation, as the Texians are Americans, thus, their wish to be annexed should be respected and taken into account.
In a question posed by the CC’s Nabilah Saiful, ‘Does the Senate think that the international relations with as close a geographical neighbour as Mexico can be compromised for the sake of a stake over Texas?’, Senator Jabez W. Huntington replied that as much a neighbour as Mexico is, the Senate should hence by all means, try to forge bilateral relations. “We are not here to advocate for war.” Concluding her speech, she added that she believes the U.S’ relationship with Mexico should be preserved to the best of its ability.
The press conference, albeit faced with a number of unprecedented challenges, was overall a fruitful one. We were able to clear any doubts we had, as well as gain more valuable insight to the explanations and agendas behind the Senate.