Surrogate Arguments in the Controversy Over the Annexation of Texas to the United States

Abstract

Surrogate arguments stand for other arguments that it is undesirable to make explicitly. They are selected through topical choice, a mode of strategic maneuvering. In the 1840s controversy over the annexation of Texas, the argument to avoid was that annexation would extend slavery. The need for strategic topical choice is illustrated by the failure of a prominent counter-example. Then three surrogate arguments are examined: nationwide economic benefits, thwarting a conspiracy, and respecting public opinion. Surrogate arguments also refuted reinstatements of the original argument.