But why should such trifling demonstrations alarm our poor slavery historians? The cause is simply this:-If slavery in the states is abolished, then the planters of the south will invest their capital in legitimate commerce, and, becoming thus a commercial community, they will find it to their interest to preserve the present tariff, in order to force a portion of the black population to become manufacturers, and in that case the great anti-tariff revolution that was to be brought about in Mexico and the United States, through the medium of the free trade views of the Swampites of Texas, would, together with the pro-slavery writers' anti-tariff arguments, all fall to the ground. However, there is another point involved in the question of the abolition of slavery in the United States, which the Texans may very reasonably view with great alarm. It will presently be proved, with the assistance of the writings of the Texan advocates, that persons of northern habits cannot labour in the cultivation of the soil of Texas, owing to its unpropitious climate; therefore none but negro labour can, by any possibility, be employed to develope the resources of the country, her staples being cotton, sugar, rice, coffee, indigo, and tobacco, all of which require the constant attention of the labourer in the open field, at those seasons when the sun is most ardent; consequently, the abolition of slavery by the United States would at once blast the bright and fondest hopes of the young republic; for, to introduce slaves from any other country except the United States and French colonies, is piracy, and punishable by death, while a law, passed by the Texan congress in 1835, prevents "the importation and immigration of free negroes and mulattos into Texas." And the Texans have also passed an act to compel all free persons of colour, and free negroes, settled in Texas, to quit the republic: therefore it will be seen that Texas cannot hope (owing to her own infamy and inconsistency, that of expelling free men from her republican soil,) to see her resources developed by free negro labour, and, unless Texas can maintain her position as a slave-holding republic against the combined moral force of Mexico, England, and the northern states of the American union, she must not trust to slave labour. That Mr. Kennedy did not take this view of the subject, founded on facts, is somewhat surprising, and to be lamented. However, it is to be hoped that he is fully "impressed with the delicacy of his task, coming forward, as he does, quite as much in the character of a panegyrist as of an historian ;" and, in order to test Mr. Kennedy's pretensions to accuracy in both these capacities, I have placed the laws of the benighted Mexicans" in juxta-position with those of his beloved, enlightened, free, generous, and noble Anglo-Texan race, who tread "the bowers of a second Eden-fair, indeed, serenely fair, as a Madonna's aspect-those gardens of the desert." 66 "Those boundless unshorn fields, where lingers yet The beauty of the earth, ere man had sinned— These are but an humble specimen of Mr. Kennedy's poetical embellishments. But, in conclusion, I beg to refer the reader to the Appendix for the laws of Mexico and Texas, as regards the "accursed system of slavery." This I deem the only way of refuting, indisputably, the extravagant assertions of Messrs. Kennedy, Hamilton, and Ikin, as also " the board established" at Exeter Hall "on anti-slavery principles." CHAPTER VIII. Territorial History-Political, Conventional, and Natural Boundaries-Climate of Texas-Mrs. Holley's and Mr. Kennedy's Climate of Texas-Geology of Texas-Mountains-RiversGeneral Statistics-Hints to Emigrants, &c. THE territorial history of Texas has already been discussed in detached parts. However, it forms such an important item in the geography of a country, that it will be necessary here to recapitulate those points that have been alluded to in the preceding pages. The political boundary of Texas Proper, under the old Spanish regime, embraced an area of about 88,000 square miles, as defined on the map, while the remainder, which will be described as forming the territory of Texas Proper under the Mexican republican regime, formed a part of the province of Coahuila. Soon after the establishment of the independence of Mexico, many alterations were proposed as regard her territorial divisions, but it was not until the federal republican constitution was established that these alterations were made. At this period it was deemed prudent to equalize the elective franchise of the states that were to form the Mexican federation as nearly as possible, and therefore a portion of those states which possessed a greater population was transferred or annexed to those less populous, and thus the territory lying north of the boundary of Texas Proper, under the Spanish regime, to the Red River, and in a line almost due north from the source of the river Nueces to the junction of the 100th parallel of longitude, with the 34th of north latitude, was taken from the province of Coahuila, and annexed to the province of Texas, marked on the map as Texas Proper under the Mexican republican regime On the 11th of March, 1827, the constituent congress of Coahuila and Texas divided the territory of the state, in accordance with the republican constitutional act, into three departments, namely, Bexar, Monclova, and Saltillo, and Texas was also divided into the three following: Bexar (in Texas,) the Brazos, and Nacogdoches. The boundaries of these departments were marked on a map, and subsequently defined without any degree of local accuracy. The three departments of Texas were subdivided into grants or colonies under the Empresario System; but the condition on which the grants were made, never having been fulfilled, except by Stephen Austin, one of the grantees, the |