A Brief Preface:
On the 9th of June, the New York Daily Tribune and the Charleston Courier were fortunate enough to conduct a joint press conference with the US senate. This conference served the purpose of clarifying doubts that had arisen during the course of debate and filling in the gaps that Senators had left. The press conference also prompted Senators to consider aspects of the annexation of Texas which they had previously ignored or disregarded.
Enclosed below is a transcript of the aforementioned press conference. Do note that sentences may have been edited minimally for clarity (such as the deletion of ‘ums’ and other pauses), and that in some cases, the section of a senator’s reply which we felt represented their stance was presented (to avoid rambling and repetition affecting our readers’ understandings of the transcript).
The New York Daily Tribune has taken the utmost care to honestly report the proceedings of the press conference. Readers may rest assured that the transcribed contents follow the senators word for word.
[TRANSCRIPT START]
Qn1: 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: Personally, despite some senators having differing views as mentioned earlier, it was all due to information not being understood by most senators. So it doesn’t seem to be a major issue right now as most of us have gotten the right idea and our stances back on track in alignment with our party values. We should be able to quickly get back on track and solve the issues caused by any discrepancies.
Senator Reverdy Johnson: I’d like to first mention how senators aren’t really bound by their party values. More so, they are bound by the obligation to the state they are representing. For instance, even though I am a Whig, I govern the state of Maryland and it is heavily a slave state. Therefore, most of the senators are representing more of their individual state rather than their party’s stances. Even though there are irrevocable changes to their party’s stances that we still should follow - for instance the Whigs despise slavery- it is not by any means binding to us. We hope to reconcile this difference by being able to find compromise between the two parties.
Qn2: 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: I think, in this senator’s very humble opinion, Mexico is a neighbour, and as much as the United States has its own trajectory, we should by all - by hook or by crook - try to accommodate our neighbours as well. After all, as you can see, especially in the case of Mexico, there are our southern neighbors. We must try our best to forge bilateral relations, because we are not here to advocate for war. We are here, as legislators, to ensure that we can reach somewhat of a consensus - and to a certain extent, compromise. So in my humble opinion, I believe that our relationship with Mexico should be preserved as best as possible.
Senator Albert C. Greene: This senator believes strongly in putting Americans first and this senator firmly believes that even by causing tensions with Mexico and Britain, we’ll be placing the welfare of Americans first. This is something the senator feels is worth believing in.
Senator William Woodbridge: We do not want to compromise our relationship with Mexico, that’s the entire agenda. But it seems like the Democrats are actually against it at this point in time.
Qn3: How does the Senate plan to address the immediate threat of the Mexican troops currently stationed along the Texas-Mexico border?
Senator Arthur Pendleton Bagby: I would like to state that the Senate currently has plans to basically militarise our southern borders and ensure that a quota of at least 50 thousand servicemen is met, to counter the threat that the Mexican army brings to us in this case.
Senator Robert M.T. Hunter: As my fellow senator has just said, we plan on militarising the Texas-Mexico border, mainly due to the fact that, despite our lack of desire to go to war with Mexico, we have to prioritise our nation and hopefully future state’s safety over diplomatic ties.
Senator John M. Clayton: I think personally, and speaking on behalf of the Whig party, we have always tried to advocate for peace, and seeing the recent updates given to us by our chairs and a US military general who actually visited our council the other day, we have realised that diplomacy is out of the window. And since we do not want war ourselves, the only viable solution right now is to withdraw our intent to annex Texas at all costs… Unfortunately, our efforts have been stymied by the Democratic bloc.
[Please note that at this point in the conference, several senators were called out of the Senate press conference due to an administrative error on the part of the Senate chairs. As such, it should be noted that some senators were unable to respond to the latter questions due to their absence.]
Qn4: Given the recent news of protests breaking out in several states due to the now tabled Senate bill proposing that US states pay increased taxes to aid Texas’ economy. While it is true that the bill has been tabled, the ensuing outrage means that many states still have ongoing protests. How is the senate planning to address this issue?
Senator Arthur Pendleton Bagby: Regarding the protests that have erupted because of the resolution, I think that the Senate has listened to the population. We will seek the public’s opinion and try to improve on our resolutions.
Qn5: In the wake of the resolution that was tabled earlier today, the president of Texas has expressed that the extent of Texas’ indignation is so great that they may even consider approaching Britain for help instead. Considering that this threatens the United States’ long held Monroe Doctrine, how do the members of the Senate plan to assuage Texas in the short term?
Senator Robert M.T. Hunter: We definitely do plan on sending troops to militarise the border to provide them a sense of security from the looming threat of the Mexican armies, which are also stationed at the border at the present moment. Secondly, we plan on trying to meet their requests as much as possible, which looking at the update, means that Texas wants full voting rights as soon as they are annexed along with taxation. We cannot do much besides provide them security in the short run, but we will do as much as we can.
Qn6: To those who support the industrialisation of Texas as a way to move it away from slavery, how would the Senate like to proceed if Texas was unwilling to participate in such matters, considering they are a mainly agricultural* state?
*(this refers to the fact that agriculture relies heavily on manpower, and in Texas’ case, slave labour)
Senator Arthur Pendleton Bagby: I think the press delegate made an excellent point. I would just like to state that the Democrats do not support this plan as we find that Texas is a mainly agricultural state. Thus, we cannot undermine their livelihoods and destroy the economy by changing them into a more industrialised state. In the case of Texas not responding to the Whig Party’s original ideas, what we will do is to proceed with the annexation as after all the Texians are Americans and we should respect their will to join America.
Senator Robert M T Hunter: I personally am against the idea of industrialising Texas for the same reasons. If Texas were to refuse the request, which I see as something we should be expecting, due to their huge dependency on labour for their agriculturist economy, it would not be something that would have any severe response due to the fact that it is merely a request more than a forceful option. Henceforth, Texas would still be annexed into the United States with the same decree it would be given if it were to industrialise in the first place.
Qn7: It seems that many senators are amicable with the idea of a war with Mexico on the basis that the United States is practically assured victory. Have the implications of war regardless of victory, such as loss of American life and social instability, been accounted for?
Senator Robert M T Hunter: Frankly speaking, if we were to only look at the loss of lives that we would incur by going to war with Mexico, we fail to take into account the effects of what would happen if we didn't go to war with Mexico. Firstly, as expressed by their President, they would go to Britain for advice over us. Thus, we would lose Mexico's partnership and would have a strained relationship with them in the future. Second of all, Britain gaining a foothold in our continent is not only a social problem but also a huge economic crisis that would burden us even more in the future. And who’s to say that Mexico still wouldn’t go to war with Texas or us? In a sense we would still end up being involved in it one way or another just because it’s in our continent
[TRANSCRIPT END]
A Briefer Conclusion
Subsequent to the press conference, the US Senate did move on to consider some of the aspects both news agencies had brought up which was highly beneficial for debate.
However, the Senate’s overall fixation on war preparation is certainly concerning. The New York Daily Tribune hopes that senators will be able to move towards a perspective more similar to that expressed by senators such as John M. Clayton of the Whig party (refer to Qn3), wherein war is not regarded as “inevitable” but rather as an absolute worst case scenario.
Other than this, the senators seem to have a fairly united stance on other issues - a bright ray of hope indeed for a council previously plagued with indecisiveness.