By Blaise Hwang and Parijaat Jain
Breaking News: In a sudden turn of events, the now tabled resolution (which was presented yesterday by Senator Jabez W. Huntington) seems to have created a shockwave which has rippled through the United States and beyond.
Texas’ Tantrum
Amongst other things, the aforementioned draft bill (which many have dubbed the Huntington resolution) proposed a clause which the senators backing it said would “allow for Texas to be annexed without upsetting the balance of slave and free states in the US”. It detailed that Texas would be annexed but would be prohibited from voting on issues regarding slavery until Iowa was annexed. However, the resolution stated, Texas would still be expected to pay taxes to the US federal government upon annexation. This sparked a huge public outcry in Texas, with protesters of the Huntington resolution gathering in Austin. As it stands at the time of writing, US-Texas relations are more tenuous than ever.
Diplomatic implications aside, this clause was perplexing and illogical for several reasons. Firstly, as Iowa was already a state within the United States at the time of proposal, it was simply illogical to ‘attempt’ to annex it as a state. Furthermore, this ‘solution’ is diametrically opposed to the basic American principle of “no taxation without representation”, which is in fact what drove our ancestors to seek freedom from the British.
Article II Clause 9 of the Huntington Resolution, which proposed the taxation of Texas while not permitting it to vote on “issues regarding slavery until Iowa is annexed”
While it is laudable that the Senate is seeking to avoid a political tilt in favour of slavery states, violating the founding principles of our nation is certainly not the way to go about it. The New York Daily Tribune would certainly be the last to wish for the political seesaw to drop towards slavery, but even we agree that the ability of tax-paying states to vote is an inalienable right, one that must not be violated at all costs.
On The Brink In a Blink
As yet another result of the Huntington resolution, the US Senate has managed to further incur the wrath of Mexico with their careless decisions. Shortly after the release of the resolution, Mexican troops were observed along the Rio Grande. WHat was even more concerning was the fact that despite the resolution being tabled shortly after, the number of troops stationed along the Mexico-Texas border remained unchanged. It seemed startlingly obvious that it was the Senate’s decisions which had pushed Mexico and the US to the brink of war.
It was a great shame to see the senators disregard the possible consequences of war with Mexico in debate despite these worrying developments. Some senators, such as Senator Clayton, even went as far as to comment that “war with Mexico is inevitable” and concluded there was no solution except for retaliation. Even when senators were questioned on whether or not they had considered the social and moral implications of waging war so readily, they were reluctant to address these valid concerns and simply repeated that they were “sure the US would come out on top”.
Many senators, both Democratic and Whig, went even further down the path of violence to suggest the deployment of troops to the border in preparation for war, as a viable solution. Such rash decisions were truly an unpleasant surprise, and one can only hope that the US Senate soon revises their perspective on the matter. Even in the case of victory, the unnecessary loss of American lives would forever be a stain on our nation.
Inner Disputes
Mexico’s outrage was not the only thing stirred up by the Huntington resolution. With a proposed suggestion to absorb Texas’ debt and pay it off with taxpayer’s money from other states, the Senate managed to draw the ire of many US citizens. Outbreaks of protests in several state capitals as well as the denunciation of the US Senate were resultant issues which the Senate could have easily avoided, had they put more thought into their decisions.
Nevertheless, this incident seems to have opened the Senators’ eyes to the opinion of the American public. One hopes that the US Senate will pay greater detail to these views and take them into account when they next make a decision.
Similar Yet Different
In an admirable turn from previous sessions, day three’s session showed senators concretising their viewpoints and contributing more productively to debate. However, this soon led to senators pointing fingers at each other and merely castigating each other. Rather than a productive debate, the US senate spiralled into a discussion of whose opinions were more valid.
This was not just an issue between the Democrats and the Whigs, but within the Whig Party as well. Northern and Southern Whigs found themselves fighting each other instead of working together towards their shared goals, leading to considerable confusion in decision making.
Mechanical Mistakes
The Senate saw an influx of new ideas as senators tried their best to provide solutions to assist the annexation of Texas, specifically in regards to the issue of slavery. In particular, Senator Huntington raised the innovative idea of encouraging industrialisation in Texas. This proposal, she said, would “help move Texas away from slavery”, a statement that was supported by Reverdy Johnson.
Senator Johnson told the Senate: “I’d like to remind all of us that we came from slavery. The only difference is that free states were able to reduce their reliance on slavery through mechanisation”.
While this proposal seemed promising at first, this idea was soon shot down by the rest of the Senate. Many Democratic senators critiqued that slavery was far too intertwined with Texas’ economy for the proposal of mechanisation to be remotely possible. With little consideration for real-world logic, the senators’ aspirational goals were merely bold dreams. The infeasibility of their plan and lack of positive reception - from both the Senate as well as Texians - was unfortunately their downfall.
Filibusters Galore
While the US Senate did seem to have approached the issue with renewed vigour they slowly slipped back into their roundabout ways. With repeated arguments and several unmoderated caucuses, the Senate displayed various methods of filibustering.
The penultimate session eventually ended inconclusively, with no decision being reached. The New York Daily Tribune can only hope that the senators are finally able to resolve the issue in the ultimate council session. One hopes to see more productive discussion in the last session and hopefully, a peaceful conclusion to this issue.
References:
“Tabled, But Not Forgotten” by the chairs of the US Senate
“In Washington, "Taxation Without Representation" is History” from Boundary Stones