DOCSLIB.ORG

The Texas Question As a Factor in the Sectional Struggle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Texas Question As a Factor in the Sectional Struggle NO. THE TEXAS QUESTION AS A FACTOR IN THE SECTIONAL STRUGGLE THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Edwin Dale Odom, B. A. Denton, Texas August, 1956 TLEL OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . .0 . iv Chapter I. THE ORIGIN OF THE TEXAS QUESTIONS. .I . 0 1 II. ANEXATION REJECTED. * 0 35 III. FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT AND RE-EMIERGENCE . 0 52 IV. PARTY POLITICS AND THE TEXAS TREATY. " 0 74 V. THE ELECTION OF 1844: MANIFEST DESTINY OR SECTIONALISM"?. * * . * . 92 VI. THE TRIUMPH OF MANIFEST DESTINY. - * . 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY. .1 * *. 128 iii PREFACE The question of Texas annexation was considered by con- temporaries as one of the most vital issues ever to confront the United States. Once consunated, the Texas question was lost in the controversy roused by the Mexican War and the consequent struggle over the issue of the expansion of slavery. However, for many years afterward, the argument raged as to whether or not the project to add Texas to the Union was an attempt by Southern slaveholders to expand and enhance the institution of slavery. Since the turn of the century historians have been inclined to take a more un- biased look at the annexation question and have generally concluded that the annexation of Texas, though advocated at times for sectional reasons, was really only a part of the great expansion movement by the United States which inter- mittently, but steadily, prevailed for more than a century after independence was established. Had sectional jealousy and bitterness not been present, Texas would have come into the Union some nine years earlier than it did. There might have been war with Mexico at that time, but it would have been a war less fraught with sectional significance. If the Texas question is considered to be an integral part of manifest destiny, there still remains unanswered the question of how much, and in what way, the contro- versial Texas question influenced the sectional struggle. iv The Texas question could have been an important factor in causing sectional animosity, or it could have been only a symptom of sectional bitterness already present; it could also have been a combination of both. As one might sus- pect, there is no simple, clear-cut answer. This thesis is an attempt to study the Texas question in its setting with particular emphasis on the sectional ramifications of the issue. It is not an attempt to document the diplomatic negotiations which led to annexa- tion. It is not an attempt to prove that it was the Texas issue which irreconcilably divided the North and South, bit it is an effort to assess the importance of the Texas question as a factor in the sectional struggle, by studying the origin, struggle, and climax of the effort to annex Texas to the United States. The chief concern here is with politics and sectionalism in the United States in the years, 1835-1846, and the way in which they affected, or were af- fected by the question of Texas annexation. Oply in- cidentally, and insofar as they affect the matter under consideration, is there any concern with affairs and events in Texas. v CHAPTER I THE ORIGIN OF THE TEXAS QUESTION That land north of Mexico, bordering the Gulf of Mexico, and lying on the southwestern border of the United States played a part in the course of affairs of the United States for over half of the nineteenth century. Just how much that block of land that came to be known as Texas influenced American affairs is difficult to measure, but it must be con- cluded that from the time of Phillip Nolan's hopeless fili- buster in the year 1800, Texas remained in the back of the minds of many restless, ambitious and adventurous Americans. Phillip Nolan, Aaron Burr, August Magee, Bernardo Gutierrez, James Long, and the men who plotted, dreamed, and acted with them were adventurers , but they also should be re- garded as representative of an era, and a nation; an eager, ambitious, confident, and aggressive nation. These men, however, were not builders, only dreamers, and as such were not to accomplish as much as were the more cautious and substantial element which succeeded them. However, those who followed them were only a little more cautious and con- servative, and just as confident and ambitious. In order to see the way in which the question of Texas became a major political problem in the United States in 1 2 the 1830's and 1840's, it is necessary to trace the develop- ment of American interest in Texas. As a fertile field for adventurers Texas first began to be of significance to the United States. In the year 1800, when the United States had no vestige of a claim on Texas, an adventurer named Phillip Nolan organized an expedition into Texas. His twenty-one man force left Natchez for Texas ostensibly to trap wild horses, but the Spanish Garrison at Nacogdoches broke up the expedition after Nolan's mea hag begun catching wild horses and had established themselves on the Brazos River. In 1803 the United States began its course of gigantic land appropriations with the purchase of the Louisiana ter- ritory. Napoleon's negotiators led Livingston and Monroe to believe that the land known as Texas could be made a part of the Louisiana transaction with a minimum of effort. True, most Americans at that time were more concerned with the ac- quisition of Florida, than Texas, but Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson were planning to make Texas the stepping stone for an acquired Spanish empire. Burr's expedition never got far past the planning stage, but in 1812 another group went much further. Augustus Magee, a former lieutenant in the United States army, and Bernardo Gutierrez, a Mexican liberal, led an army of considerable size into Texas in that 1 Texasalmanac, 1868, pp. 60-64, cited in Hubert H. Bancroft The North Mlexican StAtes and Texas (San Francisco, 1889), I, 15-19. 3 year. Their force consisted of about three thousand men at most, about eight hundred of whom were Anglo-Americans, while the remainder were Mexicans and Indians. Gutierrez and Magee thought to take advantage of Spain's troubles in Europe with Napoleon's occupation army, to throw off the Spanish hold on Texas, and perhaps Mexico as well. Their army met with some initial success, capturing Bexar (San Antonio), the most im- portant Spanish stronghold in Texas, but it was decisively defeated and scattered on the Medina River below San An- tonio.2 It is true that the United States would probably have been successful in gaining control of Texas at this time had the government chosen to openly assert its claims to Texas, but it chose not to do so, even though no claims were dis- avowed. It is also true that Spain was taken aback by the sale of Louisiana to the United States, because she did not relish her as a next door neighbor. A big factor in the failure of the Gutierrez and blagee expedition was Spain's determination to maintain Texas as a buffer state peopled with Indians unfriendly to American expansion, and gar- 3 risoned with Spanish soldiers. 2 Bancroft, II, 19-24. 3 Clarence R. Wharton, ThejRepublic jfTexas, (Houston, 1922), p. 19. 4 Actually, very few people in the United States were much interested in Texas before 1820. Even the attempted expe- ditions into Texas were mainly for the purpose of making Texas and Mexico independent of Spain, even if the partici- pants did have visions of having a great deal of influence in the new independent country. They were not particularly intended to add any territory to the United States. However, ac- the United States government was very much interested in quiring Spanish territory on the east side of the Mississippi River. Florida was a constant source of friction between the two countries, and the situation rapidly got out of hand in the years immediately following the war of 1812. To some extent, due to Andrew Jackson's exploits in Florida in 1817, Spain decided she must relinquish Florida or have it taken, but at the same time the Spanish government attempted to bolster her claim on Texas by insisting that the United States renounce any claim they might have on it as a result of the Louisiana Purchase. When the treaty, purchasing Florida and renouncing all claims on Texas, was concluded in February of 1819, it received the warm approval of the 4 press as well as the United States Congress. There were however, some voices raised against the proceedings, particularly in the WViest. The redoubtable Thomas Hart Benton from the Missouri territory blasted the 4 Thomas Hart Benton, Igrt Years View (Boston, 1854), I, p. 16. trade in the St. Louis newspapers. Benton insisted that the United States could have had Texas as well, and that it was due to the presidential ambitions of the Southern men in Monroe's cabinet that the government did not take as much as Spain offered. Benton contended that the Missouri con- troversy raging at that time so alarmed the presidential as- pirants in the cabinet that they gave away Texas so it could never become an issue which might subvert party lines and throw the country into turmoil over the extension of slavery. He decided that this must be the case after he had received the inside information on the proceedings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Dispute Over the Annexation of Texas and Opposition to the Mexican War Prior to Texas's Independence, the Nueces River Was R
    American Studies Mr. Carlson The Dispute over the Annexation of Texas and opposition to the Mexican War Prior to Texas's independence, the Nueces River was recognized as the northern boundary of Mexico. Spain had fixed the Nueces as a border in 1816, and the United States ratified it in the 1819 treaty by which the United States had purchased Florida and renounced claims to Texas. Even following Mexico's independence from Spain, American and European cartographers fixed the Texas border at the Nueces. When Texas declared its independence, however, it claimed as its territory an additional 150 miles of land, to the Rio Grande. With the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States adopted Texas's position and claimed the Rio Grande as the border. Mexico broke diplomatic relations with the United States and refused to recognize either the Texas annexation or the Rio Grande border. President James Polk sent a special envoy, John L. Slidell, to propose cancellation of Mexico's debt to United States citizens who had incurred damages during the Mexican Revolution, provided Mexico would formally recognize the Rio Grande boundary. Slidell was also authorized to offer the Mexican government up to $30 million for California and New Mexico. Between Slidell's arrival on December 6, 1845, and his departure in March 1846, the regime of President Jose Herrara was overthrown and a fervently nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes seized power. Neither leader would speak to Slidell. When Paredes publicly reaffirmed Mexico's claim to all of Texas, Slidell left in a temper, convinced that Mexico should be "chastised." American Studies Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Self-Discipline: the Power to Expel, to Exclude and to Punish
    Fordham Law Review Volume 41 Issue 1 Article 2 1972 Congressional Self-Discipline: The Power to Expel, to Exclude and to Punish Gerald T. McLaughlin Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerald T. McLaughlin, Congressional Self-Discipline: The Power to Expel, to Exclude and to Punish, 41 Fordham L. Rev. 43 (1972). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol41/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Congressional Self-Discipline: The Power to Expel, to Exclude and to Punish Cover Page Footnote Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University. Professor McLaughlin received his B.A. from Fordham University, and his LL.B from New York University, where he was Managing Editor of the Law Review. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol41/iss1/2 CONGRESSIONAL SELF-DISCIPLINE: THE POWER TO EXPEL, TO EXCLUDE AND TO PUNISH GERALD T. McLAUGHLIN* R ECENT events have again focused attention on Congress' power to discipline its members for personal misconduct. On April 19, 1972, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct1 recommended that Texas Representative John Dowdy be stripped of his right to vote on the floor of the House or in committee as a result of his conviction for bribery and perjury.2 On that same day, two Senators argued before the Supreme Court that the Constitution forbids the executive branch from investigating the official conduct of a member of Congress, and delegates all responsibil- ity for punishing members' wrongdoing to each house of Congress.3 Finally, on June 29, 1972, a Supreme Court majority in United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members
    Order Code 93-875 Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Updated November 12, 2008 Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Summary The authority of the United States Senate (as well as of the House) to establish the rules for its own proceedings, to “punish” its Members for misconduct, and to expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of Members present and voting, is provided in the Constitution at Article I, Section 5, clause 2. This express grant of authority for the Senate to expel a Senator is, on its face, unlimited — save for the requirement of a two-thirds majority. In the context of what the Supreme Court has characterized as, in effect, an “unbridled discretion” of the body, expulsions in the Senate, as well as the House, have historically been reserved for cases of the most serious misconduct: disloyalty to the government or abuses of one’s official position. The Senate has actually expelled only 15 Members — 14 of those during the Civil War period for disloyalty to the Union (one of these expulsions was subsequently revoked by the Senate), and the other Senator during the late 1700s for disloyal conduct. The House of Representatives has expelled only five Members in its history, three during the Civil War period, one in 1980, and another in 2002, after convictions for bribery and corruption offenses related to official congressional duties. In the Senate, as well as in the House, however, other Members for whom expulsion was recommended have resigned from office prior to official, formal action by the institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Issue of Saber
    1st Cavalry Division Association Non-Profit Organization 302 N. Main St. US. Postage PAID Copperas Cove, Texas 76522-1703 West, TX 76691 Change Service Requested Permit No. 39 SABER Published By and For the Veterans of the Famous 1st Cavalry Division VOLUME 70 NUMBER 4 Website: www.1CDA.org JULY / AUGUST 2021 It is summer and HORSE DETACHMENT by CPT Siddiq Hasan, Commander THE PRESIDENT’S CORNER vacation time for many of us. Cathy and are in The Horse Cavalry Detachment rode the “charge with sabers high” for this Allen Norris summer’s Change of Command and retirement ceremonies! Thankfully, this (704) 641-6203 the final planning stage [email protected] for our trip to Maine. year’s extended spring showers brought the Horse Detachment tall green pastures We were going to go for the horses to graze when not training. last year; however, the Maine authorities required either a negative test for Covid Things at the Horse Detachment are getting back into a regular swing of things or 14 days quarantine upon arrival. Tests were not readily available last summer as communities around the state begin to open and request the HCD to support and being stuck in a hotel 14 days for a 10-day vacation seemed excessive, so we various events. In June we supported the Buckholts Cotton Festival, the Buffalo cancelled. Thankfully we were able to get our deposits back. Soldier Marker Dedication, and 1CD Army Birthday Cake Cutting to name a few. Not only was our vacation cancelled but so were our Reunion and Veterans Day The Horse Detachment bid a fond farewell and good luck to 1SG Murillo and ceremonies.
    [Show full text]
  • K:\Fm Andrew\21 to 30\27.Xml
    TWENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1841, TO MARCH 3, 1843 FIRST SESSION—May 31, 1841, to September 13, 1841 SECOND SESSION—December 6, 1841, to August 31, 1842 THIRD SESSION—December 5, 1842, to March 3, 1843 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1841, to March 15, 1841 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—JOHN TYLER, 1 of Virginia PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—WILLIAM R. KING, 2 of Alabama; SAMUEL L. SOUTHARD, 3 of New Jersey; WILLIE P. MANGUM, 4 of North Carolina SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—ASBURY DICKENS, 5 of North Carolina SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—STEPHEN HAIGHT, of New York; EDWARD DYER, 6 of Maryland SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JOHN WHITE, 7 of Kentucky CLERK OF THE HOUSE—HUGH A. GARLAND, of Virginia; MATTHEW ST. CLAIR CLARKE, 8 of Pennsylvania SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—RODERICK DORSEY, of Maryland; ELEAZOR M. TOWNSEND, 9 of Connecticut DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—JOSEPH FOLLANSBEE, of Massachusetts ALABAMA Jabez W. Huntington, Norwich John Macpherson Berrien, Savannah SENATORS REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVES 12 William R. King, Selma Joseph Trumbull, Hartford Julius C. Alford, Lagrange 10 13 Clement C. Clay, Huntsville William W. Boardman, New Haven Edward J. Black, Jacksonboro Arthur P. Bagby, 11 Tuscaloosa William C. Dawson, 14 Greensboro Thomas W. Williams, New London 15 REPRESENTATIVES AT LARGE Thomas B. Osborne, Fairfield Walter T. Colquitt, Columbus Reuben Chapman, Somerville Eugenius A. Nisbet, 16 Macon Truman Smith, Litchfield 17 George S. Houston, Athens John H. Brockway, Ellington Mark A. Cooper, Columbus Dixon H. Lewis, Lowndesboro Thomas F.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson Ideas for a Destined Conflict
    Lesson Ideas for A Destined Conflict Excerpts from Curriculum Guide For Teaching Texas History Written by Yvonne Pittman, Educational Consultant Assisted by M. Elizabeth Appleby, Curator and Lisa A. Struthers, Library Director San Jacinto Museum of History This work was made possible through funding from: Fondren Foundation LyondellBasell Meadows Foundation Houston Endowment Inc. The Gordon A. Cain Foundation Elkins Foundation Union Pacific Foundation BNSF Railway Foundation San Jacinto Day Foundation The Dow Chemical Company H-E-B Tournament of Champions Written by Yvonne Pittman, Educational Consultant Assisted by M. Elizabeth Appleby, Curator and Lisa A. Struthers, Library Director San Jacinto Museum of History Copyright 2015 San Jacinto Museum of History Published by the San Jacinto Museum of History One Monument Circle La Porte, Texas 77571-9585 281-479-2421 www.sanjacinto-museum.org [email protected] August 17, 2015 Contents Lesson Plans Lesson Plan: Texas Annexation 1 Lesson Plan: Mexican War and Early Statehood 14 Strategy Descriptions and Graphic Organizers SDA Document Analysis 20 Walk-About Review 22 Historical Markers Activity 23 Propaganda Exercise 24 Introduction The goal of this guide is to enhance your students’ visit to the exhibit A Destined Conflict: The U.S. - Mexican War. The lessons were excerpted from Curriculum Guide for Teaching Texas History, which is available for download at http://www.sanjacinto- museum.org/Education/For_Teachers/. Lesson documents are in PDF format for ease of downloading, but Word versions are available to teachers on request to insure modifications are simple for classroom use. Related images are at https://sanjacinto- museum.smugmug.com/CurriculumGuide in the 4B Texas Annexation and 4C-Statehood sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Justice Stanton by James W
    At Sidebar Mr. Justice Stanton by James W. Satola I love U.S. Supreme Court history. Sometimes, the more arcane the better. So, for my At Sidebar con- tribution, I want to share a little bit of what I love.1 Perhaps calling to mind the well-known story behind Marbury v. Madison, here is a lesser-known story of a presidential commission not delivered on time (though in this case, it was not anyone’s fault). The story of Mr. Justice Edwin M. Stanton.2 James W. Satola is an As one walks through the Grand Concourse of attorney in Cleveland, Ohio. From 2010 to the Ohio Supreme Court building in Columbus, Ohio 2016, he served as (officially, the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center, an FBA Circuit Vice which had a first life as the “Ohio Departments Build- President for the Sixth ing,” opening in 1933, then restored and reopened as Circuit, and from 2002 the home of the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004), one’s to 2003, he was Presi- dent of the FBA Northern eye is drawn to nine large bronze plaques mounted District of Ohio Chapter. on the East Wall, each showcasing one of the U.S. © 2017 James W. Satola. Supreme Court justices named from Ohio.3 This story All rights reserved. is about the fourth plaque in that series, under which reads in brass type on the marble wall, “Edwin Mc- Masters Stanton, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1869-1869.” Justice Stanton? One finds no mention of “Justice Stanton” among the lists of the 113 men and women who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Early Justice, Federal Judicial Selection, 1789-1861
    University of North Carolina School of Law Carolina Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2015 The olitP ics of Early Justice, Federal Judicial Selection, 1789-1861 Michael J. Gerhardt University of North Carolina School of Law, [email protected] Michael Ashley Stein Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Publication: Iowa Law Review This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A4_GERHARDTSTEIN.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 12/8/2014 9:41 AM The Politics of Early Justice: Federal Judicial Selection, 1789–1861 Michael J. Gerhardt & Michael Ashley Stein I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 552 II. AN OVERVIEW OF EARLY FEDERAL JUDICIAL SELECTION............... 555 III. JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS FROM 1789 TO 1861 ............................. 564 A. GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JOHN ADAMS, 1789–1801 ............ 564 B. THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, AND JAMES MONROE, 1801–1825 ........................................................................... 572 C. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 1825–1829 ......................................... 576 D. ANDREW JACKSON AND MARTIN VAN BUREN, 1829–1841 ........ 581 E. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON AND JOHN TYLER,
    [Show full text]
  • Open Mangiaracina James Crisisinfluence.Pdf
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY THE INFLUENCE OF THE 1830s NULLIFICATION CRISIS ON THE 1860s SECESSION CRISIS JAMES MANGIARACINA SPRING 2017 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in History with honors in History Reviewed and approved* by the following: Amy Greenberg Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Women’s Studies Thesis Supervisor Mike Milligan Senior Lecturer in History Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i ABSTRACT This thesis aims to connect the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 with the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Secession Crisis of 1860-1861. Prior to the Nullification Crisis, Vice President John C. Calhoun, who has historically been considered to be a leading proponent of secession, outlined his doctrine of nullification in 1828. This thesis argues that Calhoun’s doctrine was initially intended to preserve the Union. However, after increasingly high protective tariffs, the state delegates of the South Carolina Nullification Convention radicalized his version of nullification as expressed in the Ordinance of Nullification of 1832. In response to the Ordinance, President Andrew Jackson issued his Proclamation Regarding Nullification. In this document, Jackson vehemently opposed the notion of nullification and secession through various constitutional arguments. Next, this thesis will look at the Bluffton Movement of 1844 and the Nashville Convention of 1850. In the former, Robert Barnwell Rhett pushed for immediate nullification of the new protective Tariff of 1842 or secession. In this way, Rhett further removed Calhoun’s original intention of nullification and radicalized it.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Economic Impact of Texas Short Line Railroads
    1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-0-6887 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Sept 2016 TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TEXAS 6. Performing Organization Code SHORT LINE RAILROADS 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Fengxiang Qiao, Lu Gao, Daisy Saldarriaga, Boya You, Qing Li, Report 0-6887 Lingguang Song, Ahmed Senouci, Omkar Dhatrak, and Lei Yu 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Southern University University of Houston 11. Contract or Grant No. 3100 Cleburne Avenue 4800 Calhoun Road Project 0-6887 Houston, Texas 77004 Houston, TX 77204-4003 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report Research and Technology Sept 1, 2015 – Sept 30, 2016 Implementation Office P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract This report documents the analysis of the transportation and economic impacts of Texas short line railroads. Survey invitations were sent to 43 Texas short line railroads and 20 responses were received. The research team completed onsite interviews with 5 railroads and 3 community leaders. The software IMPLAN was used to estimate the economic impact of short line railroads at both county-level and state-level. Transportation impact analysis was conducted to estimate the cost by rail and the cost by diverted truck. Shipping cost, safety cost, maintenance cost, highway congestion cost, and emission cost were calculated in this analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthur Tappan
    ARTHUR TAPPAN Lewis Tappan and Arthur Tappan were descendants of Benjamin Franklin (which is perhaps why their father, and another brother, happened to be named Benjamin Tappan). Arthur received a common-school education and then served a 7- year apprenticeship in the hardware business in Boston, before establishing himself in Portland, Maine, and subsequently in Montreal, Canada, where he would remain until the beginning of the war of 1812. In 1814 he would engage with his brother Lewis in importing British dry-goods into New-York City, and after that partnership was dissolved he successfully continued the business alone. He was known for his public spirit and philanthropy. He was a founder of the American tract society, the largest donor for the erection of its 1st building, and was identified with many charitable and religious bodies. He was a founder of Oberlin College, also erecting Tappan Hall there, and endowed Lane Seminary in Cincinnati, and a professorship at Auburn Theological Seminary. With his brother Lewis he founded the New-York Journal of Commerce in 1828, and established The Emancipator in 1833, paying the salary of the editor and all the expenses of its publication. He was an ardent abolitionist, and as the interest in the anti-slavery cause deepened he formed, at his own rooms, the nucleus of the New-York antislavery society, which was publicly organized under his presidency at Clinton Hall on October 2, 1833. He was also president of the American Anti-Slavery Society, to which for several years he contributed $1,000 per month, but withdrew in 1840 on account of the aggressive spirit that many members manifested toward the churches and the Union.
    [Show full text]