C6 
 
BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
Digitized by the Internet Arcliive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
JUNIUS TEACTS. 
 No. IX. 
 
 JlTNE,] PUBLISHED EVERT MONTH. [1844.* 
 
 [ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 
 
 BY juwirs. 
 
 Auihor 01 ••Tbe Crisis of the Country,** and other Tracts of 1840. 
 PmCk 3 c§nis iingle, $2 50 cts. per 100, or $20 per 1000. 
 
 Tracts publishkd 
 
 No. L THE TEST, or Partibs trim by niRiR Acts. 
 " 11. THE CURRENCY. 
 " III. THE TARIFF. 
 « IV. LIFE OF HENRY CLAY 
 " V. POLITICAL ABOLITION 
 « VL DEMOCRACY. 
 " VII. LABOR AND CAPITAL. 
 « VIIL THE PUBLIC LANDS. 
 « IX. ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 
 
 0:7=* NOTICE :— Committees, Clubs, and all persons desirous of obtaining these Tracts, 
 *.re requested to send their orders, with remittances, to the publishers, Greeley ^ McElrcUh, 
 Ttibmve Office^ New York^ who will promptly forward them to any part of the Union, as may 
 oe directed. Remittances by mAi\ post paid or free, at the risk of the proprietor. Price for 
 any one of the series, $2 50 cts. per 100 copies, or $20 per 1000. 
 
 DCP" Postmasters are authorized by law to make remittances under their frank. 
 
 ■ P 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 PUBLISHED BY GREELEY & McELRATH, 
 
 TRIBUNE BUILDINGS, 160 NASSAU STREET. 
 
 1844. 
 
 • ■■ — — — — . r. 
 
 fBntered acrording to the Act of Congress, in the vear 1S44, by Calvin Colton, in the Clerk's office o^ 
 the District Court of the United States, in and for the Southern District of New York.] 
 
 Ct^ All violations of copyright are forbidden. 
 £One Sheet Periodical, Postage under 100 miles Ij^ cenU ; orer 100 miles a|.] 
 
 129 
 
2 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 
 
 § 1. Mr. Clay'^s Position on this Question. 
 
 It is defined in his Raleigh Letter, of April 17th, 1844, addressed to the Editors of the Na- 
 tional Intelligencer. 
 
 1. He was opposed to the cession of Texas to Spain, in the treaty of 1819. 
 
 "When the trc.ily was laid before the House of Representatives," says Mr. Clay, " being a member of 
 that body, 1 expressed the opinion which I then entertained, and still hold, that Texas was bacrificed to Lbe 
 tcqaisition of I" lorida. " 
 
 2. Mr. Clay acknowledges the validity and bona fide obligations of the treaty of 1819. 
 
 "If," he says in the Raleigh letter, " we made too great a sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we ought to 
 
 t&ke care not to make loo great a sacrifice in the attempt tore-acquire it We have fairly alienated our 
 
 title to Texas by solemn national compacts, to the fulfilment of which we stand bound by good faith and 
 national honor. It is, therefore, perfectU idle and ridiculous, if not dishonorable, to talk of resuming our 
 tHle to Texas, as if we had never narted with it. We can no more do it, than Spain can resume Florida, 
 Prance Louisiana, or Great Britain the American Colonies, now composing a part of the United States." 
 
 The " national compacts" above alluded to, are, first, the treaty of 1819, and next, all our 
 official recognitions of that transaction in our intercourse and arrangements with Mexico and 
 Texas, based upon it, in regard to boundary, &c. Granting that the cession of Texas to 
 Spain, in 1819, was unconstitutional, as some think, as tee did it, we cannot plead our 
 own laws to the prejudice of a foreign power, to whom we have made engagements. How 
 could they know 1 Besides, if we choose to break the treaty by breaking our faith, on thi» 
 ground, we lose the Floridas, our sole title to which is based on that instrument. It would 
 be singular if a man should plead as an apology for violating a contract, that when he made 
 it, he overlooked certain rules of action, which he had prescribed to himself! Is not this the 
 principle involved in this case 1 If a man has sworn to his own hurt, as a just man he 
 must abide by it. Such special pleading would be stamped by every fair mind as dishonest 
 in a private individual — in a nation, infamous. Mr. Clay has always maintained, and still 
 maintains, that, in parting with Texas, we committed an error to our own hurt. But to 
 seize upon it now, on the ground of this error, would be shameful violence. 
 
 3. Mr. Clay thinks, that our recognition of the independence of Texas, on our own esta- 
 blished, published, and well known principle of acknowledging the Government de facto 
 (actual) of any country, without regard to other dejure claims (claims of right), does not at 
 idl affect the relations of Mexico and Texas, as belligerent parties. 
 
 "Thatn«»gociation," says Mr. Clay, "did not affect or impair the rights of Mexico, or change the relatioac 
 which existed b<;tween her and Texas. Siio, on the contrary, has preserved all her rights, and has continued 
 to assert them ; and so far as I know, yet asserts her right to reduce Texas to obedience." 
 
 This position of Mr. Clay rests on matter-of-fact ground, and is incontestible. Our Gov- 
 emment has proclaimed to all the world, that such is our doctrine, all the world know it, and 
 such, invariably, has been our practice, till Mr. Tyler got up his treaty of annexation. There 
 is no principle of our government longer established, better known, or more uniformly main- 
 tained. Every administration, till the present, has acted upon it. We have never befort 
 sought, but always declined to meddle with the controversies of foreign states and nations. 
 It is a most delicate affair, when, for our own commercial advantage, we have acknowledg- 
 ed the independence of a state that is in controversy with a parent state for national rights, 
 we go yet farther, while the dispute is pending, and undertake to decide it by our own arbi- 
 trary act, for our own benefit! Mr. Tyler says, in his message to the House of Representa- 
 tives, of June 10th, "The Executive has dealt with Texas as a power independent of all 
 others, both de facto and dejure." So it would seem. But it is the first time in our history 
 that our Government has ever done a thing of the kind, and not less a violation of our prin- 
 ciples, than a departure from our practice. It is an outrage on the customs and laws of 
 nations. 
 
 4. •'Under these circumstances." savs Mr. Clay. " if the govomment of the United States were to acquire 
 Texit, It woald acquire alona with it all the Incumnrancea which Texas is under, and among them the actual 
 or suspended war between Mexico and Texas. Of that consequence there cannot be a doubt. Annexation 
 and war with Mexico are id<'nUcal. ' 
 
 The " suipended war" is the case of a supposed armistice, which was proclaimed by Presi 
 dent Houston, June 15th, 18'13. ''jiU the incumbrances which Texas is under," ure, first, her 
 debts, asserted by her Commissioner in treaty with Mr. Tyler, to Ik; fire millions of dollars, 
 but very prudently provided for in said treaty to the amount of ten miilioris, since swelled to 
 twenty-two milLionx by rre<lible evidence, and very likely in the end could not be satisfied with 
 fifty milliona. All this liability, more or less, is of course incurre<l by annexation. Next, we 
 ■hould incur all her tmity oblijjations with (Jreat Britain, France, Holland, and other pow- 
 ers, which might be disagreeable, and very inconvenient. There would be no escape from 
 this, as is distinctly intimated in Mr. Everett's official letter of the 18th of May to Mr. Cal- 
 houn, and is farther determined in the advocacy of the treaty of annexation, on the authc : ity 
 ^ 130 
 
I'^of Vattel, that one treaty cannot vitiate the oblig:ation3 of a former treaty. This sword of 
 ■^ Tyler, Calhoun, Walker & Co., by which they cut their way to a hitherto undiscovered plat- 
 form (we shall by and by see what it is), happens to have two edges, and the edge wkich 
 they did not see, may prove the sharpest. Mr. Everett reports Lord Aberdeen to have said 
 «,in the House of Lords, the 17th of May, in answer to a question from Lord Brougham, " that 
 -»the annexation of Texas raised a question, as he believed, new and unexampled in the history 
 trof public law, which demanded and would receive the earliest attention of her Majesty's Go- 
 jkjVernment." Mr. Everett inferred, that the point of this question was " the effect oi a union 
 fbetween two separate and independent States on their prcuoufi/yexistinjj relations with other 
 y bowers." Loixl Aberdeen spoke with reserve. The tkird incumbrance is that more particu- 
 ,j»rly specified in Mr. Clay's letter. '• Annexation and war with Mexico, are identical.^* A 
 -i^^ourth and contingent incumbrance is, what may accrue from " the previously existing rela- 
 fiiions of Texas with other powers," which may also be war with very formidable opponents. 
 ) 5. Mr. Clay thinks, that a war with Mexico is not to be regarded with levity. He says, 
 
 > "I know there are thoae who regard such a war with indifference, and as a trifling affair, on account of the 
 J weakness oJ' Me.vico, and her inability to inllicl serious injury ujiDn liiis country. Bui 1 do not look upon it 
 .thus hghUy. 1 regiud all wiirs us great calaiuit.c:;, to be avoided iJ' possible, and honorable peace as the Uru- 
 eM pohcy of this country. What the United Stales most need arc union, peace and patience." 
 
 ^ As to the weakness of Mexico, as relied upon in the project of annexation by force of 
 ijlffins, Mr. Clay thinks "it would be more compatible with the dignity of this nation, and less 
 ^dishonorable," to attempt a like enterprise against a strong than against a weak power. In 
 .,view of ''all the incumbrances which Texas is under," as above noted, certainly a war with 
 ■ Mexico is not to be lightly regarded. Will Mexico venture on such a contest, relying upon 
 ber own strength \ She must be very stupid in doing so. Will she not see the tendencies 
 of the opinion of mankind in such a case, and estimate, not unadvisedly^ her chances of preying 
 .on our rich commerce by commissioning privateers, and for forming powerful alliances, ofien- 
 .aive and defensive 1 Hence Mr. Clay asks : — 
 
 "Are we perfectly sure that we ahould be free from injury In a state of war with Mexico 1 Have we any 
 security, that countless numbers of foreign vessels, under the authority and Hag of Mexico, would not prey 
 upon our defenceless commerce in the Mexican Gulf, on the Pacific ocian, jmd on every other sea and 
 ocean 1 What commerce on the other hand, doos Mexico offer as an indemnity for our losses, to the gallantry 
 and enterprise of our countrymen { This view of the subject supposes, that the war would be confined to 
 Ihft United States and Mexico, as the only belligerents. But have we any guaranty, that Mexico would obtain 
 no allies among the great European powers ? Suppose any such power;!, jealous of our increasing greatness 
 and disposed to check our growth and cripple us, were to take part in behalf of Mexico in the war, how woald 
 the different belligerents present themselves to the world 1 vVe have been seriously charged with an Inor- 
 dinate spirit of territorial aggrandizement, and without admitting this portion of the charge, it must be owned, 
 that we have made vast acquisitions of territory within the last forty years. Suppose that Great Briiain and 
 France, or one of them, were to take part with Mexico, and by a ma^iifesto, were to proclaim, thai their ob- 
 jects were to assist a weak and helpless ally, to check the spirit of ''ncroachmenf and ambition of an already 
 overgrown republic, seeking still farther acquisitions of territory ; to maintain the Independence of Texaa, 
 disconnected with the United States, and to prevent the farther propagation of slavery from th" United States ; 
 what would be the effect of such allegations upon the judgment of an impartial and enlightened world 7" 
 
 This, as cannot be denied, is a tremendous hypothesis, and a tremendous question, not 
 less instructive in view of the jealous disposition of European powers towards the United 
 States. It is prophecy, which needs no other inspiration than the sagacity of the great 
 statesman who uttered it. We are at this moment on the verge of the most momentous war 
 of all histoiy, the responsibility of which will be charged at our door. 
 
 6. The domestic aspects of the question, independent of foreign. Admitting that Mexico 
 would give her consent, 
 
 " I do not think," says Mr. Clay, " that Te.ras ought to be received into the Uni<n, as an integral portion of 
 it, in decided opposition to the wishes of a considerable and respectable portion of the confederacy. . . Mr. 
 Jefferson expressed the opinion, and others believed, that it never was in the contemplation of the framers 
 of the Constitution, to add foreign territory to the confederacy, out o( which new slates were to be formed." 
 
 ' Mr. Jefferson felt the importance of acquiring Louisiana, and fore-shadowed in a letter to 
 •JLevi Lincoln, Aug. 30, 1803, an ex post facto amendment of the Constitution, to sanction thm 
 ;deed, at the end of which he says — 
 
 " I quote this for your consideration, obperving, that the less that is said abnnt any Con.stitntional dilBcaltj, 
 the better, and that it will be desirable for Congres.-s to do what is necessary, in silence. " 
 
 In a letter to Mr. Brackenridge, Aug. 12. 1803. he says : — ' 
 
 " The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, ?ti]l less for Incorporating fbreifm 
 nations into our Union. It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasinj[> mn \m- 
 
 Kortani adjacent territory, and saying to him when of age, I did this fi>r your good ; I pretend to no right 10/ 
 ind you ; you may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can. I tliought it my duty," &c. 
 
 In a letter to Wm. C. Nichols, Sept. 7, 1803, he says :— 
 
 /{fc 
 
 " I am aware of the f irce of the observations you make on the power given by the Constitution to Con/JjJ^ 
 to admit new States into the Union, without restraining the subject t<> the territory then constitnti'- ^^ 
 United States. But when I consider that the limits of the United iSiates are precisely fixed by the \,,wthe 
 1783, that the Conaliiuiion exon-ealy declare-^ iiaelf to he mad-. f.>r the United Stales. 1 cannot help bj/j ^f -j^ 
 Intentioa was, only to permit Congresa to admit into thi Union n«w Status, which should be form^ ^ 
 
 131 
 
terrhory, for which, and under whoM mthorltj alone, they were then acting. I do not believe H wa« meant, 
 that Ihey might receive England, Ireland, Holland, &c., as would be the case on your construction. Our pecu- 
 liar Bfcurity is in the possession of a wriiien Constitution. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider 
 the treaty-making power boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." 
 
 "We do not quote these passages from Mr. Jefferson, to show, that, if he was right in this 
 opinion, Texas could not be annexed. It appears that Mr. Jefferson himself got over this 
 difficulty, in the case of Louisiana, by proposing an ex post facto amendment of the Constitu- 
 tion, and rendering an account to the nation for the irregularity. Nor do we cite this, to put 
 Mr. Clay on that ground. We have no right to put him there, or elsewhere, where he has 
 not distinctly taken up his own position. Personally, we have another mode of getting over 
 this difficulty, viz., by an act of national sovereignty, which the Constitution does not expressly 
 forbid, and which no party, or no " considerable portion of the confederacy," objects to. Such, 
 precisely, were the transactions which added Louisiana and Florida to the Union, and nobody 
 has ever objected to them since. Such are many acts, on a smaller scale, some of them 
 important, which are constantly being done by this Government. Where, for example, is 
 the authority in the Constitution for laying out the Congressional burying-ground, for taking 
 and using the Smithsonian legacy, for building an observatory, for erecting the magnificent 
 public edifices at Washington, for setting up the Patent Office, which is fast growing into a 
 Home Department of the Government, for fitting and sending out the Exploring Expedition, 
 &c. &c. ? These and many others, are all acts of national sovereignty, not expressly forbidden 
 in the Constitution, to which no party, scarcely any body, objects. It is virtually legislation 
 on the no-objection principle — the harmonious exercise of national sovereignty. We do not 
 know that Mr. Clay has taken ground on this principle, in the respect he feels obliged to rei> 
 der to "the wishes of any respectable and considerable portion of the confederacy," on the 
 question of Annexation ; but we think he is right in his position, certainly prudent. There 
 are grave doubts as to the constitutionality of the measure ; no express authority can be cited-, 
 and who would be warranted, in such a case, to trample on " the wishes of a considerable 
 and respectable portion of the Confederacy ?" The majority cannot rightfully put do\yn the 
 minority, which rises up and invokes the Constitution as a shield, demanding authority for 
 an act of alleged injustice. This is a mete, a boundary, over which a fair man will not, dare 
 not, leap. The annexation of Texas, as now proposed, is a great, a momentous question, 
 sprung upon the country at an unexpected moment, with a view to force it, before it can be 
 considered, because it is known that "a considerable and respectable portion of the confede- 
 racy" is not prepared for it, would perhaps oppose it. Mr. Clay, a republican from the be- 
 ginning, is manifestly, though he does not say it, shocked at such a violation of democratic 
 principles — at an attempt to force upon the Union a foreign sovereignty, without asking leave 
 of the people ! He proposes, that the people should have time to consider it ; and as it is a 
 measure of doubtful Constitutionality with many, he would feel bound to respect the objec- 
 tions of " a considerable and respectable" minority. He says : — 
 
 "I think It far more wise and important to compose and harmonise the present Confederacy, na it now exists, 
 than to introduce a new element of discord and distraction into it. In my humble opinion, it should be the con- 
 stant and earnest endeavor of Americin f^talesmeii, to eradicate prejudices, to cultivate and foster concord and to 
 produce general cnntentmeni among all pans of our Confederacy. And true wisdom, it seems to me, points to 
 the duty of rendering its present munii>ers happy, piosperous, and sati^sfied with each other, rather tlian to mtro- 
 dttce alien members, against the common consent, ajid with the certainty of deep dissatisfaction." 
 
 Mr. Jefferson proposed to take Louisiana, " in silence^^ — '* the less said the better," because 
 he knew the people would be satisfied. He said, " we shall not be disavowed." It has 
 recently been proposed to take Texas, " in silence," and by stealth, because it was known, that 
 the people would be dissatisfied, and that it could not be done openly without strenuous op- 
 position from the most respectable quarters. 
 
 7. In the apparent motive which actuates this precipitate movement, is developed an 
 alarming element of future strife and disunion between opposing sections of the confederacy. 
 Mr. Clay says, " It is useless to dispjuise, that there are those who espouse, and those who 
 oppose the annexation of Texas on the ground of the influence it would exert in the balance 
 of political power, between two great sections of the Union." He thinks, that nothing could 
 be "more unfortunate, or more pregnant with fatal consequences," than a struggle of this 
 kind. " If to-day Texas be required to add strength to one part of the confederacy, to-morrow 
 Canada may be required to add strength to the other," and where and in what is such a strife 
 to end 1 It needs no prophet's ken to answer. All see the end of it. 
 
 8. •' If," says Mr. Clay, " any F/Uropenn nation entertains any ambitious designs upon Texas, such as that of 
 colonizing her, or In any way subjujatinn h<r, I Hhould regard it as the iniperaiiveduty of the Government of the 
 United States, to oppose to sucli deAipno the most firm and determined resistance, to the extent, If necessary, of 
 appealing to arms, to prevent the accomplishmrnt of any such designs." 
 
 Well, we do not see what more the hottest annexationist can ask than this. The sole pre 
 ^t assigned for the movement, so far as appears, is this very thing, which, Mr. Clay says, 
 ^*''d impose " an imperative duty on the Government of the United States to oppose it, if 
 
 ***^ wy, even by an appeal to arms." We should then have the public law of nations on 
 
 132 
 
our side. Any fowigii EuTopean interference in the affairs of Texas, would be a just occasion 
 of offence to us, and we could never consent to it, as it might endanger our interests, and im- 
 pair our political and national rights. They who are for immediate annexation, cannot go 
 farther than this. Mr. Clay declares, that he would defend this right against all the world. 
 and light for it if necessary. To all European nations, his language is — Hands off of 
 Texas— and they, who know Mr. Clay, will believe, that it will not be his fault, if they are 
 
 not kept off. But these immediate annexationists want to fight before it is necessary before 
 
 it can be done with honor — when it is sure to incur the reprobation of mankind — and when 
 it may bringdown upon us the combined hostility of the most powerful nations. No man 
 would grasp the sword quicker, or with a more resolute will, than Mr. Clay, when a Euro- 
 pean power should make tangible demonstrations of a meddling interference in the affairs of 
 Texas. But, like Captain Tyler, who cuts off heads for the suspicion that the wearers are 
 " Clay men at heart" the immediate annexationist would fight all the world on the presump- 
 tion, that there is somebody in it, who has an evil thought, though he cannot tell who it vs. 
 We denzdud the evidence. 
 
 " From what I have seen and hoard,'' says Mr. Clay, " I believe, that Great Britain has recently, formally, and 
 ■olemnly disavowed any such aim or purposes — has declnrt'd that sh« is desirous only of the independence of 
 Texas, and that she has no intention to interfere in her domestic institutions." 
 
 It appears, that /our separate and distinct official disavowals of this kind, from Lord Aber- 
 deen himself, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, two through our Minister Mr. Everett, and 
 two through Mr. Packenham, British Minister at Washington, were in the hands of our Go- 
 vernment, when Mr. Clay wrote this letter — all communicated in the space of three months. 
 They were volunteered — gratuitous — altogether unusual. They were disavowals, not only of 
 •^ any desire on the part of the Government of Great Britain to establish a dominant influence 
 in Texas, whether partially dependant on Mexico, or entirely independent," or to interfere in 
 her domestic affairs ; but also of any desire or design, " openly or secretly, to disturb the 
 internal tranquillity of the slave-holding states, or to injure the prosperity of the American 
 Union." Even Thomas Hart Benton, a right good hater of the British, and always suffi- 
 ciently jealous of them, was constrained to say in the Senate — " This is enough for me. 
 That Government is too proud to lie." It is remarkable , that the British Government should 
 have taken such special pains to contradict the statements and correct the misrepresenta- 
 tions of a secret agent of President Tyler (supposed to be Mr. Duff Green), on which the 
 treaty of annexation was founded; and still more remarkable, after those aisavowals were 
 made, that a treaty, based on such a false foundation, should be persisted in, and defended by 
 the veiy documents which contained the disavowals! Not less remarkable is the fact, 
 that the letter of our Secretary of State to Mr. Packenham, finding reasons for the treaty in 
 the papers of disavowal, was dated six days after the treaty was signed, thus evincing that this 
 letter was an after thought — an ex post facto production ! Most unfortunate was this British 
 Minister, in having his words, which were designed for peace, thus perverted to kindle strife. 
 What ]\lr. Benton believes in this affair, we may safely have some respect for. 
 
 9. Mr. Clay's position on the annexation question, leaves it precisely where it was. He 
 opens and shuts no door on this question, nor does he put his little finger to one. He frankly 
 ventures on some suggestions, which, perchance, may prove prophetic. But Mr. Clay, so far 
 as we can see, is not committed or pledged to any course of policy on this question, other 
 than — 1. To maintain the faith of treaties. 2. Not to violate our rule of non-intervention, 
 where our position is neutral. 3. To do what he can, fairly and honorably, to secure the 
 independence of Texas. 4. To see that our own republic receives no damage by European 
 interference in the affairs of Texas. 5. To oppose, if necessary, by force of arms, all such 
 machinations. 6. To leave the question of Annexation open and unembarrassed, for the 
 future decision of the parties concerned, after they shall have had a fair and sufficient oppor- 
 tunity to consider it. And 7. To help the countiy through the critical posture, into which 
 ambitious men, reckless of consequences, have brought it. This is the position of Mr. Clay 
 on the annexation question, as we understand it. He would not pick a quarrel, where we 
 could only reap dishonor, and where we would chance to have the world against us. And we 
 have reason to believe, there is no part of the Union and no interest, no feeling or prejudice on 
 this subject, which Mr. Clay does not regard with impartial and patriotic concern. 
 
 § 2. Mr. Van Buren^s Position on Annexation. 
 
 To understand this is alike important and pertinent, as it goes to determine the position of 
 Messrs. Polk and Dallas — names but little known till lately, but whose whereabouts we are 
 required to notice, since the misfoitunes of our political opponents have suddenly made these 
 gentlemen prominent. The question of the annexation of Texas had been twice in Mr. Van 
 Buren's hands for official action, first as Secretary of State under General Jackson, and next 
 as President of the United States ; and we must do him the honor to say, that he treated the 
 robject in both cases with ability and fidelity. His official action, and the grounds of it, were 
 
 133 
 
8 
 
 Mr. Clay are well enough agreed, except that Mr. Clay goes a little farther, and boldly says, 
 he would "appeal to arms" in such a case. Mr. Polk's reasoning is C7 this wise: — 1. Our 
 title to Texas was good. (Granted.) 2. We parted with it most unwisely.'' (So says Mr. 
 Clay.) 3. Therefore, we have a perfect right to it ! We would add, 4. Why consult Texas, 
 since our title was " indisputable," and since we gave it up " most unwisely?" According to 
 this reasoning, we can take Texas whenever we please, though she might get in bad humor, 
 and try to annex herself elsewhere. We should only have to fight for her at last, and are sure 
 to be obliged to fight by taking her now. But Mr. Polk says, " I have no hesitation in de- 
 claring, that I am in favor of immediate annexation." Enough. 
 
 As for Mr. George M. Dallas, when he had never dreamed of so high a destiny as to be a 
 candidate for the Vice-Presidency of the United States, he wrote the following letter: — 
 
 Philadelphia, Feb. 5, 1844. 
 
 Mt Dear Sir— I cannot resist the impulse to tell you hovr much delight I have taken in reading your 
 pamphlet on Texas, Ac. It is comprehensive, clear, argumentative, and eloquent. Nothing can remove or 
 resist your facts, and I defy ingenuity to assail the justice and int«'grity of your deductions. In the midst of 
 all my distractijn at the bar, my head has been running on this topic for some months, and your admirable 
 brochure comes to me like manna in the way of starved peonle.— I cannot tell you without using words you 
 might consider extravagant, how highly I appreciate your labors, and how sincerely, as an American Demo 
 ern, I thank you. 
 
 Truly, and ever your*, GEORGE M. DALLAS. 
 
 Hon. R. J. Walker. 
 
 Mr. Dallas is evidently in an ecstacy here. What was it that set him up thus lofty o\ 
 these stilts of poUtical satisfaction "? The answer is, that Mr. Senator Walker, of Mississippi, 
 the High Priest of the Tyler Treaty of Annexation, the caterer for the altar, and the expouncler 
 cf all law on the subject, /or that side, commenced his work early in January last by a pub- 
 lic letter, to which this note of Mr. Dallas refers. That letter proves anything, for anybody. 
 For example : — It proves that the annexation of Texas is the sure and only way to get rid 
 of slavery in the United States ; that it is the only way to support our Tariff system ; that it 
 is the only way to break down the Tariff system ; that it is the only sure mode of fortifying and 
 perpetuating " the institution of slavery ;" that Texas never owed allegiance to Mexico ; &c. &c. 
 It meets all tastes, all passions, all interests, on this question, North or South, or anywhere. 
 rA«rf/brc, all should go for annexation. {Seethe Letter.) This is the Document which put 
 Mr. George M. Dallas into such ecstacies, as his note, above, indicates. It was "a brochure'^ 
 that came to him "ZiArc manna in the way of starved people.^' He could not tell all the satisfac- 
 tion he felt, without being " considered extravagant.''' If Mr. Polk could have written a let- 
 ter, without thinking that he was a candidate for the Vice Presidency, we might have had 
 another " bi-ochureJ' Both of them, however, stand pretty fairly and thoroughly committed 
 for "■immediate annexation." Such is their position. 
 
 § 4. It is a poor rule thai wont work both ways. 
 
 We have seen how skilfully the argument for " immediate annexation" is adapted to all 
 tastes and interests. Mr. Senator Walker, whose reasoning is so commended by Mr. Dallas, 
 and who ^as made himself so prominent in support and defence of the Tyler treaty, main- 
 tains, that we can acquire and can cede territory constitutionally ; but is obliged to rely upon 
 the principle, that we could not constitutionally cede away Texas. Therefore, the treaty of 
 1819 is mUl ami void. Texas is ours — " ail our own?'' This, so far as we can see, is the techni- 
 cal ground, or the special pleading, on which " immediate annexation" is based. It is said, that 
 in our treaty of 1803, with France, by which we purchased Louisiana, we guaranteed the 
 ri»ht to all the inhabitants of that territory, to come into the Union as a state, or states, 
 whenever their population should be sufficient, according to the terms of the Federal com- 
 pact This is true. And in pursuance of that engagement, we have already made three 
 States, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas. The authority of Vattel is then cited, to show, 
 that a State or nation cannot make a new treaty with a new party, to vitiate a former treaty 
 with another party. Consequently, the treaty of 1819, with Spain, which ceded away Texas, 
 is null and voxd. The citizens of Texas have a constitutional right, on this foundation, to 
 claim admission into our Union, as a separate and independent State. This is the argument 
 of Mr. Walker, and the ground on which the Tyler treaty of annexation was based. It is, 
 we believe, the sole ground on which the " Immediatists," when hardly pressed, can fall back. 
 — Let U8 consider it : — 
 
 In the first place, we have made three States out of the territory acquired by the treaty of 
 1803. In the second place, the Spaniards, in the valley and on the bank of the Rio del Norte, 
 and any other Spaniards, occupants of Texas, when it was ceded by us to Spain, in 1819, 
 did not object, and do not to this day object, but prefer to remain under Mexico. In the third 
 place, they who now apply for annexation, were not inhabitants of Texas in 1819, and there- 
 fore cannot plead the right claimed for them. In the fourth place, when they went there, 
 voluntarily, they voluntarily took the oath of allegiance to a province of Mexico, and by that 
 act oUem/aUd thenuelveg from our Union. In the fifth place, and consequently, they caimot 
 
 136 
 
9 
 
 claim the rights of American citizens. In the sixth place, as a matter of fact, they never 
 have claimed those rights, but they present themselves to us as alicjis, soliciting annexation 
 as an alien sovereignty. In the seventh place, Texas, as a piece of territory, is evidently in a 
 mute condition, and cannot assert the rights of a party in this question. Where, then, is the 
 party entitled to claim admission to our Union on such a ground ? No such party has ever 
 yet presented itself It will, therefore, be time enough to consider its claims, when it does. 
 The argument amounts to this : — We confess ourselves to have been rogues in the treaty of 
 1819, for a supposed benefit then, that we may profit by our roguery in a beneftt now. The 
 Texans are too modest to take any advantage of our confession, and come to us with a man- 
 ly front, soliciting annexation as an alien State. We, desiring the Union, but finding obsta- 
 cles in our relations with Mexico, suddenly discover a flaw in an old contract, of which no- 
 body complains, by which no parly was injured, but which can be mended by breaking later 
 contracts, and by defrauding a party, which lives to complain, does complain, and peradven- 
 ture may sue for redress. What is the name of such a case in law ? "We do not deny that 
 the cession of 1819 was unconstitutional, if any choose to have it so. We have done many 
 unconstitutional things in our history, which cannot be undone. It is said, that Mr. Clay 
 Was of opinion that this treaty was unconstitutional, and that he offered a resolution in Con- 
 gress, in 1820, to that efl^ect. The Constitution was our own rule, not a rule for Spain, nor a 
 part of the law of nations. The rights and interests of a vast variety of parties, and of 
 whole nations, have been established on our error. Can we rightfully assert that error to 
 dispossess them ? If we claim Texas on this ground, we must give up Florida, which was 
 acquired by the same treaty, and which has already cost us Jifty millions. Is not this the 
 case, and the consequence ? 
 
 § 5. A state of War. 
 
 The " Immediate .Annexationists,-^ aware of the critical position into which they were about 
 to plunge the country, in its relations with Mexico, have denied that there \s a state of war 
 between Mexico and Texas. Mr. Senator Walker says, that ever since the battle of San Ja- 
 cinto, in 1836, the relations between Mexico and Texas have "been a state of peace — of 
 profound peace."* He moreover says that the Government of Mexico " is not now, and never 
 UHU the Government of Texas," and that " the people of Texas never owed or rendered it 
 any allegiance." 
 
 The PubliciatB, or writers on International law. say, that " war ig a controversy by lorce. Nations are said 
 to be at war, not only when their armies are ensaged, but also wlien they have any matter in dispute which 
 they are determined to decide by the use offeree, and have declared by words, or shown by certain actions, 
 that they are determined so to decide it. War, therefore, signifies not only an act, but a state or condition.'* 
 — Rutherford. " Custom has so far prevailed, that not the act, but the state or disposition now goes by that 
 name" (war.)— Grorttw. 
 
 In Kennedy's " Texas," the Anglo-American population of Texas, the party now in con- 
 troversy with Mexico, is stated to be 200,000, and the Mexican population, within the borders 
 of the Republic of Texas, he puts at 100,000 ; a later authority makes it 150,000, This Mex- 
 ican population lies chiefly on the left bank of the Rio del Norte, is entirely subject to Mexi- 
 co, and so far as we know, they prefer Mexican jurisdiction. Mexico not only maintains an 
 undisturbed civil jurisdiction over these parts of the Republic of Texas, but has military oc- 
 cupation thereof, with hostile intent and hostile demonstrations — is in Bhori encamped in the 
 Republic of Texas, without having experienced any disturbance of its position. The Re- 
 public of Texas is not only in actual military dispute between these belligerent parties, but 
 jt is at least doubtful, which party is most strongly entrenched on the premises. If we take 
 Ml*. Tyler's Message to the Senate, accompanying the Treaty, who says, " I repeat^ the Ex- 
 ecutive saw Texas in a state of almost fiopeless exhaustions^ we may fairly conclude, that Mex 
 ico is much the strongest party on the ground. She is there, confessedly, in military array, 
 and in undisturbed possession of no inconsiderable portion of the territory and population of 
 Texas. The people she governs without dispute, and by their own choice. Mr. Tyler, in 
 his last Annual Message, and all his official documents, referring to the subject, calls this 
 ** WAB." So do our Secretaries of State, Messrs. Webster, Upshur, and Calhoun, in all that 
 they say about it. So do the public functionaries of other nations in their' correspondence 
 with the belligerent parties and other powers on the subject. So do the authorities of Mexi- 
 CO and Texas. President Houston oflficially proclaimed an armistice, the 15th of June, 1843, 
 but prematurely, as it was not consummated. Mexico and Texas have been continually fight- 
 ing, oy sea and land, since 1836, whenever they could, and Mexico has officially notified our 
 Government more than once, that the Annexation of Texas to this Union will be regarded by 
 Mexico as an adoption of the war, and in this she still persists, even down to the return of, 
 dispatches to Washington, June 17th, 1844. Will anybody say, fiis is lot a staXi of war be- 
 tween Mexico and Texas ?— Mr. Senator Walker calls it '^aprofovmi ymctT 
 
 137 
 
10 
 
 § 6. Amtncan Doctrine of Neutrality and Non-intervention towards BellirjereTxts. 
 
 " Peace with all nations, and entangling alliances with none,** was the advice of Washing- 
 ton, and this principle has been sanclioiicd by our practice from that time to this, except as, 
 in regai-d to the first part of this advice, just provocations have summoned us to arms — for 
 which also we are advised by the same authority, " in peace prepare for war." Not to " en- 
 tangle" ourselves in the quarrels of belligerents, has ever been the policy of our Government, 
 till Mr. Tyler got up the Treaty of Annexation. In the recognition of the independence of 
 the South American States, of Mexico and Texas, the successive administrations of Monroe, 
 Adams, Jackson, and Van Buren, were careful to advise all whom it might concern — they 
 published it to the world — that this act, " in no sense or degree," went or could be construed 
 to determine the merits of the controversy pending, or which party was in the right. Our 
 principle and aim always have been to acknowledge the government ik facto (actual), but 
 never to judge the question of right between belligerents, knowing, that by this last decision, 
 as to rig}U, we should render ourselves liable by the law of nations, to be held responsible as 
 a party in the contest. The Committee of the House of Representatives, on Foreign Affairs, 
 1822, reporting in favor of recognizing the independence of certain of the South American 
 States, said, " Whatever might be the policy of Spain in respect to her former American Colo- 
 nies, our recognition of their independence can neither affect her rights, nor impair hei 
 means in the accomplishment of that policy. Should Spain, contrary to her avowed aim and 
 acknowledged interests, renew the war for the conquest of South America, we shall observe, 
 as we have done, between the parties, an honest and impartial neutrality" 
 
 President Monroe, in recommending this recognition, said, " It is not contemplated, there- 
 by, to change, in the slightest degree, our friendly relations with either party. Of this friendly 
 disposition, an assurance will be given to the Government of Spain." The Secretary of State 
 Raid to the Spanish Minister, in his correspondence on the same subject, " This recognition is 
 not intended to invalidate any right of Spain." Mr. Forsyth, acting under the instructions of 
 President Van Buren, in 1837, says to General Hunt, the Texan Ambassador, applying for 
 Annexation, — 
 
 " In determining with respect to the Independence of other countries, the United States have never taken 
 the question of right between the contending parties into cousi leralion. . . This was the course pursued 
 with respect to Mexico herself. It was adhered to when analogous events rendered it proper to investigate 
 the question of Texan independence. . . The question ot the annexation of foreign independent Stares to th& 
 United States, has never before been presented to this Government." With regard to the purchase of Loiti- 
 siana and Florida, Mr. Forsyth says: — "The circumstance of their being CiHonial possessions ol France and 
 Spain, and therefore dependent on the MetropoUtaii Governments, renders those transactions matprially dif- 
 ferent from tliat which would be presented by the question of the annexation of Texas. . . The President 
 thinks it inexpedient, under existing circumstances, to agitate the Constitutional question. . . So Ions ai 
 Texas sliall remain at war, while the United States are at peace, with her adversary, the propo.silion ofthe 
 Texan M nister Pl'-n-jjotentiary necessarily involves the question of war with that adversary," &c. (Soe 
 further on this point, $ 2./ 
 
 Such has been the uniform practice of our Government, till Mr. Tyler, in his Message to 
 the House of Representatives, June 10th, of the current year, appealing from the Senate to 
 that body, said — " The Executive has dealt with Texas as a power independent of all others, 
 both de facto and de jure^^ — and here the Rubicon was passed. That act, sanctioned, would 
 have involved us in war. ^s it is, but for the favorable consideration, on the part of Mexico 
 and other powers, arising out ofthe rejection of the treaty by the Senate, it might even yet 
 involve us in war. The act itself, and its accompaniments, were acts of hostility^ by the law 
 of nations. 
 
 § 7. Recrimination. 
 
 It is said, that President Adams, in 1827, and General Jackson, in 1829, made suit to Mexi 
 CO for Texas, before the independence of Mexico was acknowledged by Spain, which is the 
 same thing as to negotiate with Texas alone for Texas. It is not the same thing. 1, ^e- . 
 cause negotiations were at the same periods opened with Spain, and there is no evidence, 
 that either Mr. Adams or General .Jackson contemplated getting Texas without the sanction, 
 of Spain. On the contrary, there is evenr reason to believe that they considered such con- 
 sent indispensable* 2. It is maintainea, by the Immediatists, that Mexico has suffered a 
 lapse of her rights, by lapse of time — eight years — and by default of asserting them. We have 
 seen how she asserts them ; and if they have expired in eight years, much more had the rights 
 of Spain expired in 1827 and 1820, the first period being seventeen and the second nvWfwi years 
 after the commencement ofthe Revolution, in 1810. By the Treaty of Cordova, in 1821, the 
 independence of Mexico, and her ability to maintain it, were acknowledged, and the extinc- 
 tion of the power of Spain in Mexico, was declared. It is true the king refused to ratify the 
 treaty, and afterwards, in 1829 occupied Tampico with a small force forty-four days, when it 
 was reduced and surrendered. In 1836, Spain, contrary to custom, acknowledged the inde- 
 pendence of Mexico, because Cuba needed it for purposes of commerce. But she did not 
 
 138 
 
11 
 
 acknowledge the independence of ITolland till seventy years af^er her revbU, aii^sljli's^tl 
 clainns her rights over Colonies which have hocn independent for a quarter of a century, 
 more or less. Unable to take care of herself, she lets them alone, and other nations, by com- 
 mon consent, have virtually settled the question for her, as in the case of Holland. Never- 
 theless, neither Mr. Adams nor General Jackson, so far as appears, would have taken Texas 
 without the consent of Spain. 3. Our relations with Mexico are widely different from our 
 relations with Spain. Spain was beyond sea, and the Treaty of Cordova had acknowledged 
 her power in Mexico to be extinct, as in fact it was. She could not take care of herself, but 
 was under the protection and in the hands of European powers. Whereas, Mexico is a bor- 
 der Republic ; we have treaty engagements with her for amity and Intercourse, corresponding 
 with our relative position and mutual necessities; in 18.31, we made a special treaty of 
 boundary with her, cased on our treaty with Spain, in 1819, thereby recognizing the rights of 
 Mexico over Texas, which is a treaty still, with all its obligations unimpaired, so that, as ber 
 twcen us and Mexico, Texas is a province of Mexico, notwithstanding that we acknowledge., 
 Texas as the Government de facto, so long as she maintains her ground. This is our doc- 
 trine and our practice. 4. Mexico has kept uninterrupted possession of 2000 miles of the 
 Republic of Texas, in one direction, extending so far into the heart of it, as to embrace the 
 whole of some and parts of other of her departments, some large and important towns, and a 
 population but little short of that which acknowledges the jurisdiction of Texas. As a neu- 
 tral power on terms of amity with both, we are not entitled to decide their relative rights and 
 claims, nor can we lavvfully interfere in their disputes. We have as good a right to negotiate 
 with Mexico alone for Texas, as with Texas alone, and are equally bound to respect the 
 claims of both. 
 
 § 8. The Weakness of Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Senator Walker says — " If Mexico should make war on us, it would excite nothing but 
 pity and derision, as well among women and children, as among men." We say — " Let not 
 him that putteth his harness on, boast himself as he that putteth it off 
 
 " He's doubly arm'd who hath his quarrel just." 
 
 Let us consider this imputed weakness of Mexico. The Florida Indians were weak^ 
 but it took us some half dozen years, and it is said to have cost us forty miliums, to subdue 
 them. These Indians were comparatively accessible, and begirt by impassable seas. Be- 
 tween us and Mexico, in case of war, lies a waste of a thousand miles, to be marched over, 
 the almost undisputed domain of wild and fierce aboriginal tribes, if they choose to make it 
 90, and for which they might have strong inducements. Ten to one they would be in the 
 melee. With the numerous tribes of those vast regions against us, a civilized army would 
 chance to perish before them, as did the legions of Napoleon on the plains of Russia. Aid 
 they would not be without, while we have enemies. But, it may be said, we would move 
 quick, and strike a sudden blow. And would Mexico be asleep ? " Forewarned, foreai-med. " 
 In such a cause, she would be united to a man and ready for the fight. Such, we under- 
 stand, are her feelings now. She would await us on her own ground, can at any moment 
 bring ten, probably twenty times more force into her own fields than we can move towards 
 them ; and they would fight by their fire sides, for their fire sides — for their altars and their 
 sacred home. Do we count on raising a large force 1 Armies require money, and money 
 must be voted. In a republic, war, to be vigorous, must have the heart of the people enlisted 
 in it. They must know and feel, that they are in the right. Will it be so in this case 1 If 
 not, you are beaten, before you begin. In such a case you cannot march an army one inch 
 towards Mexico. You will have no army. Your half dozen regiments — what are they ? Do 
 you talk oi volunteers ? How will you coax them at the end of a seven days' march and .sore 
 feetl Where is your commissariat, without an appropriation adequate to the enterprise? 
 If you could raise troops, you are without clothing and food. You have to ask the people for 
 supplies, and the people, peradventure, dorCt like the war. You did not consult them. By 
 this time, Mexico has filled her chests with millions of gold, for commissions sold to count- 
 less privateers, which, in six months, will have destroyed fifty millions, more or less, of your 
 commerce; and with that gold, armies will come quick, move briskly, and fight \yell. By 
 this time, too, Mexico may have formed her alliances, offensive and defensive, with Great 
 Britain, or France, or both. M. Guizot, prime minister of Louis Philippe, it is said by a 
 Paris Journal, the ConstitvUionnel, has already recorded his protest, in behalf of France, against 
 the annexation of Texas to us; and Mr. Everett tells us, that, on the 17th of May, Lord 
 Aberdeen said in the House of Lords, that this affair " raised a question unexampled in the 
 history of public law, which would demand and receive the early attention of Her Majesty's 
 government." It appears to be morally certain that in our breach of faith with Mexico, for 
 purposes of conquest, or for such objects as will be attributed to us in this case, Mexico will 
 kave much sympathy, and not unlikely will be able to form any alliances required to make 
 
 A30 
 
12 
 
 her formidable to us by sea and land. It will be a war of sentiment — of opinion, as well as 
 of interest — and the opinion of the world will be against us, right or wrong. If we provoke 
 the world to oppose our war for the annexation of Texas, it will chance to cost us htmdrtdg 
 ofrmUions, without getting Texas. Strong and invincible as we may be, when imited in a good 
 caiue, it would be a rash enterprise to brave the opinion, and set at defiance the powers of 
 the civilized world. We have presented this picture as Si probable futttre, on the contingencies 
 supposed ; and honestly, we can conceive nothing more probable. The annexation treaty 
 brought us to the verge of a war, such as history has rarely, if ever, recorded. Mexico weak ? 
 That depends entirely upon circumstances. There is no power on earth so strong as she 
 would be against us, if the world should pronounce us in the wrong. 
 
 § 9. For whose advantage is Immediaie Annexation, 
 
 It seems to be generally understood that the project of annexation has some connection 
 with slavery. K Mr. Senator Walker's theoiy (one of his theories), to wit, that annexation 
 will open a natural outlet of slavery and of African blood, to merge itself with the already 
 partially colored races of the tropical regions of this continent, till it disappear from its pre- 
 sent latitudes, and vanish into freedom — if this theory should prove a sound one, there will 
 of course be no objection to annexation among those who dislike slavery. But if the motive 
 is to establish slavery more securely, they who go for it on that account, will doubtless think 
 it prudent to consider whether the annexation of a foreign state will not be regarded by many 
 as surpjissing the powers of the Constitution ; and whether this opinion may not be enter- 
 tained to such an extent as to put in peril the security now afforded to slavery by the Con- 
 stitution itself, so long as the present bounds of the republic are not extended? As things 
 now are, no power can Constitutionally disturb the slave States in the matter of slavery. But 
 if they insist on having Texas, while a general impression prevails that such a union is un- 
 constitutional, the present rights of the slave States, as determined by the Constitution, may 
 be held as forfeited. This, as will be seen, would put slavery in a new position, and possi- 
 bly might defeat the object of annexation as alleged. If, indeed, this has been foreseen, and 
 the plan of a southern and independent slaveholding Confederacy be relied upon to meet the 
 case, that, too, is at best a contingency, and one that might properly claim much grave re- 
 flection before it is attempted. Now the slave States are secure, and can have slavery as long 
 as they choose to maintain it. But break away the dam, and it is not easy to tell where the 
 waters will run. It should be well considered, that, while the people of the free States, na- 
 turally and generally averse to slavery, will feel bound to defend the Constitution for the 
 whole republic within its present limits, they would as naturally be reluctant to aid in em- 
 ploying tne powers of the Federal Government, which were professedly set up to give and 
 secure freedom to mankind, to extend yet farther, and farther to fortify the domain of slavery. 
 
 It ought doubtless to be fairly stated and well settled, whether Texas is to be annexed for 
 the common and equal good of all parts of the Union, or only for the supposed good of one 
 section ? There is a heavy debt to fall upon the country by this transaction, according to 
 the developments of the Tyler treaty. If Pennsylvania is not to be benefited, will it be fair 
 to add one or two millions to her present burden of forty millions, to nay the debts of a 
 foreign state, when she cannot pay the interest on her own debt except by direct taxation ? 
 Thenard-working and hard-fisted people of the free States, who live by the sweat of their 
 brows, and who look upon labor as an honor, and not as a servile brand, will want to know, 
 if this El Dorado of the south west will be a field for them to find gold in; or whether, if 
 they go there, they will have to work, side by side, with slaves ? If they are to buy it, and 
 pay for it, they will wish to know, whether they are to get their money's worth ? 
 
 § 10. Immediate Annexation in the Ught of Political Economy. 
 
 Tbat Texas would add much to the geographical perfection of this Republican Empire, is 
 certain; that it is a great and valuable country, is no less true; that it is likely to constituta 
 a part of this Union, at a future day, may easily bo believed ; but a little reflection will show, 
 that its immediate annexation as a slave State, will of necessity and rapidly revolutionize the 
 commercial condition of the present slave States, and tend to impoverish them. The market 
 for the staples of the South, in which the wealth of the slave States consists, is a limited one, 
 and must remain so, with slow and slight variations; and it is well known, that those States 
 arc capable of enhancing the supply of these staples to an indefinite amount, which a grow- 
 ing demand would instantly call forth. Let Texas be annexed, and the field for the produc- 
 tion of these staples, more especially of Cotton and Sugar, would be almost instantly trans- 
 ferred to the more inviting soil of this new member of the family, and the laborers (the slaves) 
 must go too. Texas alone, under our fostering government and adequate culture, would, 
 after a short season, furnish all these most important staples to the full demand of the market 
 at much lets cost, and the chief business of the present slave States would be to raise negroes ! 1 
 
 140 * 
 
13 
 
 The South would be removed into the South West, and a vast desert would be created be- 
 tween the two great sections of the Union (if Union there would be after b\\c% a revolution) 
 — a mere stable for the breeding of slaves ! And slave-breeding itself would soon flag, and give 
 place to other inventions, which necessity and poverty might suggest. There is no power 
 that could prevent a result of this kind, in the case supposed, though we may be unable ex- 
 actly to estimate the extent of it. It may perhaps be said, that this transfer of the field of 
 Cotton, &c., is inevitable, annexation or no annexation, and that it will be better to have it 
 under our own control. If it is inevitable, why precipitate the ruin of the Southern States ? — 
 But we do not think it is inevitable. As a province of Mexico,Texa8 would never be a competi- 
 tor of any section of this Union, and as an independent State, Mr. Tyler solemnly declares he 
 ^ found her in a state of almost hopeless exhaustion." No doubt he did find her so. So far from 
 *.hreatening to rival any of the States of this Union, in a separate and independent existence. 
 It is much more probable, that a half century to come would not find Texas relieved from the 
 ruinous effects of her social profligacy and her financial prodigality, if it could ever be done. 
 If the people of the South are so filled with concern on account of Abolition at home and Abo- 
 lition abroad, as to be willing to throw away the shield of the Constitution, and plunge head- 
 long into such a suicidal abyss, it will at least amaze all sober thinking men. 
 
 But it is said, Texas will throw herself into the arms of a European power, if we do not 
 take her. There is not a nation on earth that would accept the boon, without our consent 
 Witness the repeated and gratuitous disavowals of the British Government of any such in- 
 tent, within a twelvemonth past. So long as we maintain the plighted faith of our neutral 
 position, and adhere to our principle of non-intervention with belligerent States, we can at 
 least respect ourselves, and we shall certainly have the strongest possible ground to defend 
 our rights of contiguity to Texas, founded on the public law of nations, against aggressors. 
 As a fragment of a border and friendly power, to which we are bound by a treaty of amity 
 and good faith, Texas, itself on our border, cannot claim the right, first to rebel, thereby 
 opening a field of war and disturbance between us and our ally, and then to put or Jidmit €ui 
 enemy there. Nor can Texas fairly accuse us of unkindness. It is not a case in which 
 kindness can overlook principle. She cannot demand of us to set her up on our own ruin, or 
 to our own dishonor. Charity is out of the question, so long as our national faith, our owa 
 public professions and engagements, forbid its exercise. 
 
 § 11. It is said tee want Texas for defence against Free- Trade and War, 
 
 As to war, whatever be our limits, we are exposed to that, and the wider they are, the 
 ipreater the exposure. It is not difficult to see, that we already have a sea-board long enough 
 to defend against a powerful maritime foe, without adding five hundred miles to the line, 
 with all the costs of fortifying it. Texas, as a neuti-al State, in a time of war with Great 
 Britain, or any European nation, would be a wall of defence, instead of a battle-field ; and it 
 will be our business to see, that she stands neutral, if she chooses to be independent We 
 have had two warswith Great Britain, with her jurisdiction bordering upon us from the 
 Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, and with far greater facilities of descent upon us, than 
 Texas would afford, even if she were a British province. As for Free Trade, smuggling, and 
 e11 that, if a Tariff is necessary to us, it will be necessary for Texas, and for the same reasons. 
 She is not so rich as to be able to do without a revenue. In 1838 she adopted the revenue 
 laws of the United States — not as they stood then, for thev were not high enough — but as 
 they stood a year before. Even if she could afford, or should be foolish enough, to sacrifice 
 herself on the altar of free trade, smuggling through her would be much more difficult than 
 over the boundary between us and the British dominions on the North, of which we have so 
 little, as to hear nothing. 
 
 § 12. Tlie Tnie Reasons for Immediate Annexation. 
 
 Mr. Benton, in the Senate of the United States, has, we believe, stated them truly. 1- Spec 
 ulation in Texas funds and land scrip. 2. To make political capital for the Presidential Elec- 
 tion. And 3. To dissolve the Union, and erect a Southern slave-holding Confederacy. The 
 first panders to the second, and the third is a conspiracy by itself. It is a singular fact, in the 
 currentof events, that the great, and for a long time dominant political party of this country, 
 which has always laid claim to clean hands and pure hearts in their aversion to and exemp- 
 tion from the influence of stock-jobbers, moneyed capitalists, and a moneyed aristocracy, 
 have at last formed an alliance with a stock-jobbing interest in amount far greater than the 
 entire capital of a National Bank, and as much more dangerous than a bank, as the former 
 is perfectly irresponsible, intangible, and beyond the reach of any law, while the latter is 
 amenable to the Government and the people. Such precisely is the position of this great 
 party at this moment Thev have at least a hundred millions of dollars ps political capital 
 to speculate upon, and all which can be bought with this amount of money in prospect, prop- 
 
 141 
 
L eriy distributed, will inure to their benefit. This capital is worth littie or nothing without 
 I- their success ; milk it, it mounts instantly to par, and to a premium. The interests and peo- 
 [' nle of this Union, maybe — mmi inevUabli/ be injured to an inestimable amount ; they may 
 h be ruined 5 but the fortunes of the leaders of this party, and of those who buy them up, are ati 
 Vetake. It is a great stake, and will be fought for desperately. 
 
 r • As for the conspiracy ol treason, to dissolve the Union, and erect a Southern slave-holdini 
 W Confederacy, it is not for us to bring the proof, when Mr. Benton and the great " Globe" itsefl 
 p have confessed it — have themselves brought the charge. The Beaufort, Kdgfield, Barnwel 
 [ - Sumter, St. Helena, and other resolutions reported to us from South Carolina, and paraded iai 
 [- the Globe, item by item, smelling so rankly, so foully of treason, and so interpreted by! 
 [' the Globe itself, are enough to settle the question o{ fact. Mr Benton and the Globe knew,! 
 K that the people of this country were not ready to be precipitated over such a precipice, intoj 
 [. the abyss below. They knew, that the Polk and Dallas Ticket had been made up by thesej 
 l* conspirators ; that the South Carolina Delegation did not comi? into the Convention at Balti-. 
 [• more, till this nomination was made: and that when they did « «.>me, they were received wit" 
 r most tumultuous and deafening shouts of applause, in symjriihy of a common triumpjB 
 ■••Mr. Benton and the Globe knew, that the conspiracy was hat* hj»d, when they saw it strut 
 I ting abroad, and proclaiming its designs. Feeling for the safety of a common cause, and no| 
 p' being able to conceal the facts, they confessed them, put their finger upon them, and sprui 
 l-'to the rescue of Polk and Dallas, from such imminent peril — ha too late. A Southern Coi 
 I -vention of the Conspirators was already proposed at Nashville, Tennessee ! It may be stoi 
 \' ped — quite probable — but it was ^roposcrf — and proposed at N.vsuvilt.e! We .aonor 
 f- Benton and the Globe for the honest warning they have given to the country 
 
 f: § 14. The Debts of Texas 
 
 I- If they do not themselves know what they are, how can anybody else know ? They have] 
 V'. sold land scrip, and borrowed money wherever they could at ten per cent, but can render n< 
 I i- reliable account. We can easily see by the evidence of their own history, debiting the Stat 
 \\ioT the lands acknowledged to be sold, and adding to that some of their earliest loans, howl 
 XL^eyh^^GWseA M'p seventy-seven millioiis of dollars. Whether the unascertained actual debts] 
 • are seventy -seven, or fifty, or twenty millions more, it is impossible to say. The Texan Conn»j 
 missioncr, who treated with Mr. Tyler, said, he believed the debts were not more than 
 millions ; but Mr, Tyler was generous enough to assume ten millions. Whether this gratuityJ 
 of five millions was to be distributed among those who helped Mr. Tyler, in the matter of thisj 
 treaty, we are not informed. Any how, the Texan functionaries could easily run up tl 
 debt from five to ten millions, before the settlement. Mr. Clay, in his Raleigh letter, supposeij 
 the debts may be thirteen millions. Since that time, in about two months, they have mounM 
 ed up to twenty-two millions, by the transpiring of new evidence. Growing at this rate of foul 
 and a half millions a month, they would be seventy-eight millions at the end of twelve month»1 
 more. No doubt, if we were to take Texas, as a man does his wife, "for better for worse,"! 
 we should have a prodigious draft on our treasury, especially when we consider what a finej 
 opportunity there would be to forge evidences of debt. We should hope, in such a case, thj 
 there are no rogues in Texas, and that they have been grievously slandered in the naught 
 words thai have been said about them. At best we must conclude, that the amount of thrfl] 
 debts of Texas is very uncertain. It is pretty generally understood, that all their valuably] 
 lands are well shingled over with titles. No wonder that the holders of Texas bonds should] 
 desire to find a pay-master in the United States, or that the owners of Texas land 6crij>j 
 should exert themselves to give a value to it by " immediate annexation." One thing is ce^f 
 tain, that in buying Texas, we buy all her debts. 
 
 § 15. The Menaces of Texas. 
 
 When General Hunt, the Texan Minister, applied to our Government for annexation, in 
 1837, he said to Mr. Forsyth, " The under.sigtiod will not conceal from the Honorable, the 
 Secretary of State, the apjn-ehension that any delay in the conclusion of the treaty of annex- 
 ation, may be fatal to its ultimate accomplishment." And then he goes on to speak of the 
 probability, in case of Ijeing refused, that Texas will form connexions with European powers, 
 prtjudicial to the interests of the United States. To which Mr Forsyth, with exemplary 
 uignity, replies, " In that case, this Government would be consoled by a consciousness of the 
 rectitude of its intentions, and the certainty that, although the hazard of transient losses 
 may be incurnnl by a rigid adherence to just principles, no lasting prosperity can be secured 
 when they are disregardfvl." This was indeed princely conduct. It was more than that: It 
 mounts to the dignity of Christian principle, and was a just rebuke. From that time to this, 
 we have been menaced in the same way, directly or indirectly; and Mr. Tyler tells us "«m>u> 
 All these menaces are answered by Mr. Forsyth. Texas, and all concerned, 
 142 
 
# 15 
 
 should know, that we are not to be brow-beaten into a breach of faith and a violation of th« 
 law of nations for fear of such conseciuences. Great Britain has t^iven us her word of honor 
 — which Mr. Benton savs, " is enouii;h for me" — that she will neither ofl'end nor injure us by 
 forming connexions of this kind. Respect for the political, social, and commercial rights of 
 parties in such juxta-position,is a recognized principle of the law of nations; and, il' Texaa 
 18 disposed to be singular, we may be consoled, as Mr. Forsyth says, for having done right. 
 The truth is, Texas cannot do wrong in such a matter, if she would, because she can mid 
 no iiviropean power that would be party to il. In the last resort, " if necessary," as Mr, 
 Clay says, " we could appeal to arms," rather than tarnish our honor, or have our right* 
 trampled on. 
 
 § 16. Assumption of State Debts. 
 
 It is pretty manifest, that the "Lone Star" would be slow in moving towards our consteHa- 
 tion, to have her glory merged in our beams, if she were not in peril of being blotted from the 
 firmament. She modestly asks us to adopt her war, and pay her debts, as the condition of 
 being snugly packed in our society. Texas being, as Mr. iJpsnur said to Mr, Muiphy, "per- 
 secuted by an unrelenting enemy" (that is, being in Mr. Walker's state of " profound peace"), 
 and, as Mr. Tyler says, " in almost hopeless exhaustion," it is not bo much a wonder she* 
 should be willing to have us take her war off her hands; nor could she naturally object, 
 that we should take her debts too. Not to speak of the expenses of the war, is it right that 
 the States of this Union, about half of which are already in debt on their own account about 
 iu}0 hundred millions in the aggregate, should be obliged to add to their hiwAcns fifty or even 
 tto€7iti/ millions, to pay the debts of Texas, as a compliment to her condescension in taking 
 rank with them, that she may come in scot free, and not be hereafter vexed or trammelled 
 with debt? The indebted States have never asked such a favor; they do not expect it ; no 
 man or party has asked it for them ; they would not take it because they believe it is uncon- 
 stitutional. All parties agree that it is unconstitutional. It is singular that this hitherto 
 insuperable difficulty of assumption, should be so suddenly and so easily got over to the tune of 
 tens or scores of millions, when a foreign state wants the benetitof it! The trick of saying 
 she is not a State of the Union, but only in the process of becoming one, will hardly do. It 
 will be the most natural thing intiie world, for the indebted States to say, " Well, gentlemen, 
 pay our debts too, and vj^ will think of it." And the unindebted States must have their share 
 of the bonus. How is it possible to avoid this universal assumption — this great charily ? Admit- 
 ting that Texas is a prodigal son, who has spent all "with harlots and in riotous living," and 
 that it is fit to rejoice over his return, ragged and miserable though he be, there is no 
 good reason why he should be exalted over the heads of the rest of the family, who have serv- 
 ed from the beginning in contributing to the common weal, and in creating this ability to 
 assume the debts of others. 
 
 § 17. The Union— Nullificaticm. 
 
 When Mr. Senator McDuffie said in his message as Governor of Georgia, in 1836, " If we 
 admit Texas into our Union, while iilexico is still waging war with that province, Avith a 
 view to" (re-) "establish her supremacy over it, we shall by the veiij act itself, make ourselves a 
 party to the war,^^ it cannot be denied, that he acted in good fealty to this great Confederacy. 
 It was a genuine spark of the virtue of " Old '76," and in harmony with his oath of alle- 
 giance to the Federal Coostitution. But when, in the early part of the first session of the 
 28th (present) Congress, he presented to the Senate of the United States his project of ^Ar« 
 Confederacies, and attempted to show the advantages that would result from the consumma- 
 tion of such a plan, there was something startling to the feelings of that body. As an inge- 
 nious hypothesis, it might be innocent; but the time and the place did not seem to be most 
 suitable. The Hon. George Kvans, of Maine, in noticing this, was constrained, in common 
 charity, occasionally to throw in some such remarks as this : — " I presume the honorable 
 Senator was not serious.^' But subsequent events have cast light on the inception of that 
 project. It would seem that Mr, McDuffie, and many others with him, are scriwis, and that 
 Mr. Van Buren was set aside at the Baltimore convention, and Mr, Polk put forward, as a 
 part of apian to dissolve the Union, and erect a Southern Confederacy! We have already 
 noticed that Mr Benton and the Globe have considered the developments sufficient to war- 
 rant a recognition of the /ad of such a conspiracy, and to bring the charge. They did it so 
 promptly, to save Messrs, Polk and Dallas from being involved in the responsibility. How 
 far these candidates are cognizant of such designs, it is impossible to say ; but that they were 
 nominated to carry them out, or to permit them to be carried out, if occasion should require, 
 there cannot be a doubt. They are the m^ of those conspirators, put forward as tools. 
 
 The Spectator, Mr, Calhoun's organ at the city of Washington, pluming the conspiracy 
 on this grejit achievement, says : — " Never was there a more remarkable proof of her power, 
 
 143 
 
16 
 
 « 
 when xmited'* ^tlie power of the South), "than in controlling the nomination of that Conven- 
 tion. Sue made one hrave sally, and swept all opposition before her. Texas defeated Mr. Van 
 Bwen?^ The Charleston Mercury, another Calhoun organ, says, "Mr. Polk's views on the 
 Tariff, the Bank, arid the all-absorbing question of Texas, are Southern to the back bone." 
 
 It may be supposed we have said enough to show — indeed it should be deemed quite un- 
 necessary to say — that this Union, as it now is, under the shadow of the Constitution, is a 
 glorious republican fabric. We do not say, that it cannot, or ought not to be, at a proper 
 time, enlarged by the annexation of Texas. Personally, we have been, and still are disposed 
 to tliink favorably of such an acquisition, if it can be made harmoniously, and without preju- 
 dice to the social, commercial, or political interests of the Union as it now is. But it 
 ** Texas or disunion'^ is now to be forced upon the country, per fas aut nefas, vi et armis, 
 without regard to consequences, we pray God, that the projectors of this rash scheme may 
 be disappointed. Of this glorious Union, we say, let it not be assailed by rude hands. 
 Esto perpetitor-LET IT NEVER PERISH! WO TO THEM WHO WOULD DE- 
 STROY IT! 
 
 § 18. A " Swell Mob.'' 
 
 Anybody who has been at St. Bartholomew's Fair, London, or to any other similar freat 
 assemblage of that metropolis of the British Empire, will have chanced, in all probability, 
 to know what a " swell mob'^ i|, For example : — the pick-pockets prowl about in squads 
 among the thrones, and* all of a sudden a " swcW^ is felt, and a rush made. You can't tell what 
 it is, nor what it is for, but you are borne onw^ard because you can't help moving with the 
 ^tioell." By the stretching of necks all arounfi you, it would seem there is something ahead 
 which all are anxious to see, and you also strdtch your neck, and with all the rest ask,— 
 What is it? The rogues have diverted your attention from yourself and your pockets, and 
 you do not perhaps know, till you have got to your lodgings, that vou are robbed ! The 
 ^ swell mob^^ had so effectually blinded your eyes, that they had the best possible chance, with- 
 out your suspecting, at the moment, what they were at; and so you have lost all there wai 
 in your pockets, and they have got the booty. 
 
 Now, this "immediate annexation" movement is a political ^^ swell mob^^ got up by roguei 
 to make or mend their fortunes by it. The old issues of Tariff, Currency, Land Distribu- 
 tion, Retrenchment, and such like, on which the people have made up their minds, and are 
 prepared to act, and act right — these must aU be thrust aside, because there is no profit in 
 them for rogues, and an ignis fatuus is held up and kept dancing bewre the public eye, till the 
 people can see and think of nothing else. Look! beliold! it is Texas, away off in a bog yon- 
 der! Who hears of or who sees anything but Texas ? 
 
 We had never heard much about Texas bfefore : but Texas is all — everything now. All othei 
 questions — all other issues most important to the country, and for which the nation has been 
 struggling for a quarter of a century, are forced into the back ground, just at the moment when 
 all was about to be aecided right — (no doubt it will yet be so decided), and a ^'- swell mob^ 
 rushes upon the stage, to pick the people's pockets ! You don't exactly know what the mat 
 ter is — but there is something away ahead yonder — what is it ? It is Texas. The people 
 stretch their necks to see what this Texas is, and while they are intent on the unseen object, 
 the hands of a gang of rogues are in their pockets ! 
 
 It will be seen by every one, that this Texas Annexation movement is nothing but a 
 "swell mqb;" and if so, it is no less certain, that it is got up by rogues. One laughs — ^he 
 may as well lau2:h as cry — when he finds, how slick he has been robbed by a " swell mob." 
 He laughs at their dexterity, and at his own simplicity. He was as innocent as could be, 
 when they were rushing on him, and rushing past him, and seeming to be after something 
 ahead, and begging his pardon for running against him, or pushing him down, while he hino- 
 self was as anxious as they appeared to be, to see what in the world all this fuss could be 
 about ! Lo ! and behold ! when it was all over, it was all nothing ! But when he gets home 
 hr ^- '■ \'- has lost his pocket book! Who wouldn't laugh at such an ingenious cheat, 
 h dupe? It is to be hoped, that the people of this country will understand 
 
 th I . swell mob," before it is too late ; and that, instead of being pushed down and 
 
 robbed, they will rush upon the horde of thieves, and throw them into the ditch. The rogue* 
 are of three classes. 1. Theovyners of Texas scrip and land claims. 2. The political stock-' 
 iobbers. And 3. The Nullifiers. Captain Tyler stole the thunder from the first class; the 
 Locos stole it from the Captain ; and everybody sees the feathei in the caip of the NuUifien^ 
 
 144 
 
^