-
PUBLISHED WEEKLY, BY
WILLUf W. HOLDER
EDITOR jfk PROPRIETOR.
THE COKSTITtTION AND THE UNION OF THE STATES THEY "MUST BE PRESERVED."
t V01
TERM
VOLUME X. NUMBER 49S.
S-93 PER AiVKiTJf,
RALEIGH, W. C, WEDAKSDAY, APRIL. 10, 1844.
TABLE IJT ADVANCE.
jf ; . ft.
TERMS I
THE NORTH CAROLINA STANDARD
IS PUBLISHED WEEKLY, AT
THREE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, IN ADVANCE.
Those persons who remit by Mail (portage paid) Five
Dollars, will be entitled to a receipt for Six Dollars,
or two years subscription to the Standard one copy
two years, or two copies one year.
For four copies, : : : : $10 00
fgfi : : : : 20 00
twenty" : : : : 35 00
The same rate for six months.
gCj-Any person procuring and forwarding five subscribers,
with the cash (015), will be entitled to the Standard
one year free of charge.
Advertisements, not exceedingourreen lines, will
ke inserted, one time for One Dollar, and twenty-five
cent for.eaeb. subsequent insertion ; those of greater
length, in proportion. Court Orders and Judicial Ad
vertisements will be charged twenty-five per cent
higher than the above rates. A deduction of 33 1-3
per cent, will be made to those who advertise by the
vear. fjCf- If the number of insertions be not marked
on them, they will be continued until ordered out.
Letters to the Editor must come free of postage, or they
may not be attended to.
LETTER OF Mr. WALEER,
OF MISSISSIPPI,
X.
Relative to the annexation of Texas : inrepiJP the call
of the people of Carroll county, Kentucky, to commu
nicate his views on that subject.
Washington City, Jan 8, 1844.
Gentlemen: Your letter, dated Ghent, Car
rol county, Kentucky, November 25th, 1843, has
been rcce.vea. u contains use resumuu . now be questioned, without menacing the organi
moetmrnfthft noon e of that county, in favor of I . ,L . ' a
the resolutions ol
the annexation of Texas, and requesting the can
didates for the presidency and vice presidency of
the Union to make " known to (yon) or to the
nublic" their views on this subject. As a com
mittee, you have transmitted me these proceedings
together with a special letter, addressed to me as a
candidate for the " vice presidency." requesting
my opinions on this question. lam not a candi- j
dated r the vice presidency, me only State in
which my name has been designated, to any con- j
siderable extent, for this station, was my own ; and ,
knowing how many, with much older and better ,
claims than mine, were named for this office for :
this and other reasons, by
20, 1843, addressed by me to the democratic con-; pfl into the existence of the government
vention which assembles this day in Mississippi, jnd of the Tjnjon
my name is withdrawn unconditionally. gj The obj.ct'mav be accomplished by act of
The treaty by which Texas was surrendered to j Congress, without a treaty. The language of the
Spain, was always opposed by me; and in 1826, constitution is: u New States may be admitted by
1834, and 1335, various addresses were made by the Congress into this Union ; but no new State
me, and then published, in favor of the reannexa-! shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction
tion of Texas; and the same opinions have been ; Gf any otner State; nor any State be formed by
often expressed by me since my election, in 1836, the junction of two or more States, or par of
to the Senate of the Uuion. j States, without the consent of the legislatures of
It was a revolution ia Mexieo that produced the ;the States concerted, as we'l as of the Congress."
conflict for independence in Texas. The citizens Thc grant is unlimited, except that the boundary
of Texas had been invited there by Mexico, under .of an existing Stale cannot be disturbed by Con
the solemn guaranty of the federal constitution of,gress without the assent of the State legislatures.
1824. This constitution, to which Texas so long " New States may be admitted by the Congress
and faithfully adhered, was prostrated by the usurp- j into this Union." This is the broad language of
er Santa Anna. After a severe struggle, the peo- 'the constitution; and, to confine it to territory then
pie of Mexico were subdued by a mercenary : acquired, is to interpolate most important woids
army: the States were annihilated, and a military into that instrument. Nor could it have been the
dictator wa3 placed at the head of a central des- intention of the frarners of the constitution to pre
uotism. In the capital of Mexico, and of the state j vent the acquisition of new territory. Louisiana
of Coahuila and Texas, the civil authorities were
suppressed by the bayonet ; the disarming of eve
ry citizen was decreed, and the soldiery of the
usurper proceeded to enlorce this edict. The peo- j
J . . rrt
pie of Texas resolved to resist, and perish upon
the field of battle, rather than submit to the des
potic sway of a treacherous and sanguinary mili
tary dictator. Short was the conflict, and glori
ous the issue. The American race was success
ful ; the armies of the tyrant were overthrown and
dispersed, and the dictator himself was captured.
He was released by Texas, and restored to his
country, having first acknowledged, by a solemn
treaty, the independence of Texas. After the fall
of Santa Anna, and the total route and dispersion
of the Mexican army, and when a resubjugation
had become hopeless, I introduced into the Senate
the resolution acknowledging the independence of
Texas. It was adopted in March 1837, and the
name of Texas inscribed on the roll of independ
ent nations. Subsequently, France, England, and
Holland, have recognised her independence; and
Texas now has all the rights of sovereignty over
her territory and people, as full and perfect as any
other nation of the world. It was to Spain, and
not to Mexico, that we transferred Texas by trea
ty ; and it was by a revolution in Mexico, and the
recognition of her independence, not by Spain,
but by this republic and other nations, that Mexi
co acquired any title to Texas. It was by a suc
cessful revolution, and the expulsion of Spanish
power, that Mexico, unrecognised by Spain, ac
quired all her right to this territory; and it is by
a similar successful revolution that Texas has ob
tained the same territory. These principles have
been recognised for many years by Mexico, and
by this republic ; and it is absurd in Mexico now
to attempt to recall her unequivocal assent to these
doctrines, and ask to be permitted to change the
well-settled law of nations, and Oppose the rean
nexation of Texas. It is an admitted principle of
the law of nations, that every sovereignty may
cede the whole or any part of their territory, un
less restrained by some constitutional interdict;
and which, if it exist, may be removed by the same
sovereign power whijjh imposed the limitation.
There is, however, no such limitation in the con
stitution of Texas, which is a single central gov
ernment, with the same authority to make the ces
sion, as appertained to France or Spain, in the
transfer of Louisiana or Florida. Nor does it
chancre the question of power, that these were dis- i
tant colonies; for the sovereignty extends alike
over every portion of the nation : and this princi- j acknowledged modes by which nations acquire
pie was fully recognised, when Mr. Adams, -as ; territory ; but if we can only acquire territory by
President, and Mr. Chy, as Secretary of State, in I treaty, then this ground, upon which we claim
1325 and 1827. by instructions to our minister at j title to Oregon, must be abandoned. It would be
Mexico ; and General Jackson, as President, and j strange, indeed, if the treaty-making power (which,
Mr. Van Buren as Secretary of State, by subse- i under our constitution, i purely an. executive
qnent similar instructions in 1829, endeavored to ' power) could annex territoiy, and yet that the
procure from Mexico the cession of Texas, then a j Executive, and both Houses of Congress corn
contiguous and integral portion of the Mexican bined, could not. Then if France or Spain had
confederacy. And if a nation may cede a portion J forever refused to code to us Louisiana or New
of her territory, being completely sovereign over ' Orleans, could we never no, not even by conquest
the whole, she may certainly cede the whole; and, j in war have occupied and annexed them by act
in any event this would be a question, not of our 'of Congress? Congress, then, having the un
Ti?ht to receive, but of the authority of the ceding doubted power to annex territory, and admit new
nation to make the transfer, or simply an inquiry, StaUs, and Texas having assented in advance,
whether wc obtained a good or a bad title. In ! may be either admitted at once, as a Territory, or
this case, the title would be unquestionable; for a State, or States, or Congress may provide for
Texas being independent in fact, and so recognis-. the prospective admission of on" or more States
ed by ourselves, and the great powers of Europe, from Texas, as has often heretofore been done as
as completely sovereign throughout her territory,
Mexico could make no just objection to the trans-
fer.
In 1836, this question, together with that of
ratifying their constitution, was submitted by the
constituted authorities to the people of Texas, who,
with unparalleled unanimity, (there being but
ninety-three dissenting votes,) decided m favor of
reannexation.
Texas, then, has already assented to the rean
nexation, not merely by the act of all her authori
ties, but of her people, and made it a part and par
cel of the organization of the government itself;
and he who, with the knowledge of these facts,
would now deny the power of Texas to assent to
the reannexation, must reject and discard the great
fundamental principle of popular sovereignty.
Surely, then, no one will contend that the monar
chies may transfer, and we receive, their colonies
and subjects, without and against their consent;
but that the entire people of a single republic, in
whom resides the only rightful sovereignty, can
not cede, nor we receive, their own territory, and
that monarchs have more power than the people,
and are more truly sovereign. Texas, then, hav
ing the undoubted right to transfer the whole, or
any part of the territory, there can be no differ
ence, as a question of constitutional power, be
tween our right to receive a part or the whole of
the territory
The reannexation. then, can be accomplished
Dy any one cf three modes. 1st, by treaty; 2d,
by an act of Congress, without a treaty ; and 3d,
by the authority reserved to each State, to extend
their boundaries, and annex 'additional territory
with the sanction of Congress.
1st. By treaty. This right was established in
jthe cession of Louisiana and Florida, and cannot
zation
of the government and integrity of the
Union
; for, bv virtue of this power, three States
and several Territories now compose a part of
the republic. In 1842. we acquired territory by
(treaty, and attached it to the States of New York
;an(j
V ermont. 1 here was there no disputed
boundary, for the call was for a certain parallel of
... j
wnen ma(je placed this territory within the un
doubtod Jimits of Cnnada . in consequence of
we had abandoned the fortreSS meeting- at
Rouse.g pointj and thc nd it occupjt.d, (which
wag & rf territory which we acquired
. , , ,84o The nuestion of the now-
fr m nnnATntinn tv tr trir fiflflrtl nun mrnr.
was not then a pail of the Union, but it was a
most important part or the valley of the Mississip
pi, containing New Orleans, and the whole of the
1.1 . I C I
western, and tne most essential part ot tne eastern
portion of that territory, with both banks of its
great river for many hundred miles above its
mouth, and the only outlet of the products of the
mighty valley starting at the Youghiogany in
Maryland, and the Alleghany in New York,
uniting at Pittsburg, where they form the Ohio,
to the outlet of all into the Gulf. If wc look at
the condition of many of the States when the
constitution was framed, we will find it could 1
i i J I i r l!JJ .u
never nave oeen auopieu nan it loroiuueii me ac
quisition of the only outlet of all the products of
the West. The waters of western Maryland, and
of western New York, commingle with those of
the Ohio and Mississippi. There stood Pittsburg
at the head of the Ohio: and one-third of Penn
sylvania is intersected by streams which water a
part of the great valley. Virginia then includ d
Kentucky ; three-fourths of her territory was States, and, with the consent of Texas, could be
within the great valley, and the Ohio and Missis- exercised. Perceiving, then, what power results
sippi itself were its boundary for more than a to the States, from the denial of the power of an
thousand miles. North Carolina then included ; nexation by Congress, let us agitate no such ques
Tennessee, and was bounded for hundreds of j tion in advance of a denial of its own authority
miles by the river Mississippi ; and Georgia then
embraced Alabama and Mississippi, and was not
only bounded for several hundred miles by the
great river, but advanced to within a few miles of
the city of New Orleans. Is it possible that all
these States, in forming the constitution, could
have intended to prohibit forever tbe acquisition
of the mouth of the Mississippi, then In the hands
of a -hostile and despotic foreign power? The
constitution contains no such suicidal provision ;
and all the historical facts, both before and after
its adoption, are against any such anti-American
restrictions. As to a treaty, it is only necessary
as indicating the assent of the ceding nation; and
!if that has been given already, as in the case of
Texas, without a treaty, our acceptance may be
made by Congress. Suppose the constitution of
Texas forbid the cession, except by Congress:
when their Congress passed the assenting law,
could not we accept, by act of Congress? Or
suooose Texas, or any other contiguous territory,
j was vacant and unclaimed by any power: could
we not annex it by act ot Congress i Une ot the
grounds assumed in Congress, and by our gov
ernment, in defence of our title to Oregon, is its
alleged discovery and occupancy by us, (long be
lore the treaty witn trance,;
DemST
one of the
I to other new States, the whole question of annexa-
tion not being one whether this government has
the power, but only how it must be exercised ; and
whether only by one of the branches of this gov
ernment, or by all combined. And if the power
vested in Congress by the constitution to admit
new States, does not of itself embrace territory
then constituting a part of the Union, as well as
all future acquisitions, there is no power to admit
new States, except of territory which was a part
of the Union when the constitution was formed;
but as this interpretation cannot prevail without
expelling three States from the Union and forbid
ding the admission of Iowa, it must be conceded
that this power of Congress to admit newStates
does extend to future acquisitions. This being
the case, what can be more cleaj than that Con
gress may admit a State or States out of Texas, if
her assent is given, as we perceive it has been, in
a form as obligatory as a treaty ? In truth, the
power lo annex territory by treaty does not so
so much exist as a mere implication from the treaty-making
power, as from the grant to Congress
to admit new States out of nny territory whatever,
although not then a part of the Union; and the
right to annex by treaty results mainl)' as a means
of obtaining, when necessary, the assent of anoth
er government, especially when that assent can
be obtained in no other manner.
Something like this was done by the annexa
tion, by Congress, of the Florida parishes to the
State of Louisiana. They had been claimed, and
remained for many years after the cession of Lou
isiana, in the exclusive occupancy of Spain, when
the American settlers revolted, assembled their
convention, declared their independence, and, by
a successful revolution, wrested this territory from
the dominion of Spain, and Congress recognized
the acts, and assumed and paid the debts of the in
surgent convention ; and the Legislature of Lou
isiana, after the adoption of her constitution, and
admission into the Union, without this territory,
subsequently, by mere legislative enactment, with
the consent of Congress, annexed it to the State of
Louisiana
3d. The annexation may be accomplished by
one of the States of the Union, with the sanction
of Congress. That each of the States possessed
the power to extend her boundaries before the
adoption of the constitution, will not be denied;
and that the power still exists, is certain, unless it
is abandoned by the State in forming the govern
ment of the Union. Now, there is no such aban
donment, unless it is found in the following clause
of the constitution: "No State shall, withouUthe
consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or
compact with another State, or with a foreign
power." Each State, then, may, with the con.
sent of Congress, "enter into any agreement or
compact with another State, or with a foreign
power." Texas, if not onis, is a foreign power;
and if she, by law, assents to the reannexation, in
whole or in part, to Louisiana, or to Arkansas,
and those Slates, by law, agree to the annexation,
it is "an agreement or compact" between a for
eign power and a State of the Union, and is clear
ly lawful, with "the consent of Congress." It
would not be a treaty, which is the exercise of an
executive power, but a compact by law, and pre
cisely similar to the numerous compacts, so call, d,
by which, by acts of Congress and of a State le
gislature, so many agreements, especially with the
new States, have been made by more legislative
enactments. Nor need the assent of Congress be
given in advance; it ivas not so given on the ad
mission of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Michigan;
but if given subsequently, it would ratify the pre
vious extension of their boundaries by Louisiana
or Arkansas. There are, then, these three modes,
by any one of which Texas may be reanncxed to
the American Union. 1st. By treaty; 2d. By
act of Congress, without a treaty ; and, 3d. By
the act of a State, with the sanction of Congress.
But, if it be otherwise, and the constitution only
applies to territories then attached to the Union,
and delegates no power for the acquisition of any
other territory, nor prohibits the exercise of the
pre-existing power of each State to extend her
boundaries, then there would remain in each Slate
the reserved right of extension, beyond the con
trol of Congress. I have not asserted the exist
ence of such a right in'a State; but, if the clauses
quoted do not confer the authority on Congress,
and the reannexation is refused on that ground,
then the annexing power, as a right to enlarge
their boundaries, would result to any one of the
by Congress, but discuss thc question on its wer
its alone.
Is it expedient to reannex Texas to the Ameri
can Union? This is the greatest question, since
the adoption of the constitution, ever presented for
the decision of the American people. Texas was
once our own ; and although surrendered by trea
ty to Spain, the surrender was long resisted by
the American government, and was conceded to
be a great sacrifice. This being the case, is it not
clear that, when the territory, which we have
most reluctantly surrendered, can bo reacquired,
that object should be accomplished ? Under such
circumstances, to refuse the reannexation is to de
ny the wisdom of the original purchase, and to
reflect upon the judgment of those who maintain
ed, even at the period of surrender, that it was a
great sacrifice of national interest.
Texas, as Mr. Jefferson declared, was as clear
ly embraced in the purchase by us of Louisiana
as New Orleans itself ; and that it was a part of
that region, is demonstrated by the discovery by
the ffreat Lasalle, of the source and mouth of the
Mississippi, and his occupancy for France west of
the Colorado. Our right to Texas, as a part of
Louisiana, was asserted and demonstrated by
Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John
Q.uincy Adams. No one of our Presidents has
ever doubted our title; and Mr. Clay has ever
maintained it as clear and unquestionable. Lou
isiana was acquired by a treaty with France, in
1803, by Mr. Jefferson; and in the letter of Mr.
Madison, the Secretary of State, dated March 31,
1804, he says, expressing his own viewsand those
of Mr. Jefferson, that Louisiana "extended west
wardhEAP the Rio Bravo, otherwise called Rio del
Nort&Orders were accordingly obtained from
the Spanish authorities for the delivery of all the
posts on the west side of the Mississippi." And in
his letter of -the 3lst January, 1S04, Mrr Madison
declares that Mr. Laussat, the French commis
sioner who delivered Afre possession of Louisiana
to us, announced the " Del Norte as its true boun
dary.'"' Here, then in the delivery of the posses
sion of Louisiana by Spain to France, and France
to us, Texas is included. In the letter of Mr.
Madison of the 8th July, 1804, he declares the op
position of Mr. Jefferson to the " relinquishment
of any territory whatever eastwaid of the Rio
Bravo." In the letter of James Monroe of the
8th November, 1803, he incloses documents which
he says " prove incontestable " that the boundary
of Louisiana is "the Rio Bravo to the west ;" and
Mr. Pinckney unites with him in a similar decla
ration. In a subsequent letter not to a foreign
government, but to Mr. Madison of the 20th
April, 1805, they assert our title as unquestiona
ble. In Mr. Monroe's letters, as Secretary of
State, dated January 19, 1816,andJune 10,1816,
he says none could question "our title to Texas;"
and he expresses his concurrence in opinion with
Jefferson and Madison, "that our title to the Del
Norte was as clear as to the island of New Or
leans." " In his letter, as Secretary of State, to
Don Onis, of the 12th March, 1818, John Quin
cy Adams says: "The claim of France always
did extend westward to the Rio Bravo ;"" she
always claimed the territory which you call Texas
as being within the limits, and forming a part, of
Louisiana. After demonstrating our title to Tex
as in this letter, Mr. Adams says: "Well might
Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe write to M. Ceval
los, in 1805, that the ciaim of the United States
to the boundary of the Rio Bravo was as clear as
their right to the island of New Orleans." Again,
in his letter of the 31st October, 1818, Mr. Adams
says our title to Texas is "established beyond the
power of further controversy."
Here, then, by the discovery and occupation of
Texas, as a part of Louisiana, by Lasalle, for
France, in 16S5; by the delivery of possession to
us, in 1803, by Spain and France; by the action
of our government, from the date of the treaty of
acquisition to the date of the treaty of surrender,
(avowedly so on its face:) by the opinion of all
our Presidrnts and ministers connected in any
way with the acquisition, our title to Texas was
undoubted. It was surrendered to Spain by the
treaty of 1819; but Mr. Clay maintained, in his
speech of the 3d April, 1820. that territory could
IW L U L- Ul fcC OH.r&ii lid lt-H J J IVJ. J
quently that, notwithstanding the treaty, TexaW
not be alienated merely by a treaty : and conse-
was still our oicn. In the cession of a portion of
Maine, it was asserted, in legislative resolutions,
by Massachusetts and Maine, and conceded by
this government, that no portion of Maine could
be ctded by treaty without the consent of Maine.
Did Texas assent to this treaty, or can we cede
part of a territory, but not of a State ? These are
grave questions ; they raise the point whether
Texas is not now a part of our territory, and
whether her people may not now rightfully claim
the protection of our government and laws. Re
collect this was not a question of settlement, under
the powers of this government, of a disputed
boundary. Thc trcaly declares, as respects Tex
as, that we " cede to his Catholic majesty.'1 Com
menting on this in his speech before referred to,
Mr. Clay says it was not a ques'ion of thc power
in case of dispute " of fixing a boundary previous-!
ly existing." " It was, on the contrary, the case
of an avowed cession of territory from the United
states to bpain. Although, then, the govern
ment may be competent to fix a disputed bound
ary, by ascertaining as near as practicable where
it is; although, also, a State, with the consent of
this government, as in the case of Maine, may
cede a portion of her territory, yet il by no means
follows that this government, by treat)', could cede
a Territory of the Union. Could we by treaty
cede Florida to Spain, especially without consult
ing the people of Florida ? and, if not, the treaty
by which Texas was surrendered was, as Mr.
Clay contended, inoperative.
By the treaty of 1803, by which, we have seen,
Texas was acquired by us from France, we
pledged our faith to France, and to the people of
... . . .
Texas, never to surrender that territory. The 3d j
article of that treaty declares : " the inhabitants of
the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the
Unioyi of the United Stales, and admitted as soon
possible, according to the principles of the ffderal
constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, ad
vantages, and immunities of citizens of the United
Slates; and in the mean time they shall be pro
tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, pro
perty, and the religion which they profess." Such
was our pledge to France and to the people of Tex
as, by the treaty of purchase; and if our subsequent
treaty of cession to Spain was not unconstitutional
and invalid, it was a gross infraction of a previous
treaty, and of one of the fundamental conditions
under which Texas was acquired.
Here, then, are many grave questions of consti
tutional power. Could the solemn guaranty to
France, and to the people of Texas, be rscinded
by a treaty with Spain? Can this government,
by its own mere power, surrender any portion of
its terfitory? Can it cut off a territory without
the consent of its people, and surrender them and
the territory to a foreign power ? Can it expa
triate and expel from the Union its own citizens,
who occupy that territory, and change an Ameri
can citizen into a citizen of Spain or Mexico?
These are momentous questions, which it is not
necessary now to determine, and in regard to
which I advance at this time no opinion. Cer
tain, however, it is, that, with the consent of the
people of Texas, Congress can carry out the so
lemn pledges of the treaty of 1803, and admit one
or more States from Texas into the Uuion.
The question as to Texas is, in any aspect, a
question of the re-establishment of our ancient
boundaries, and the repossession of a territory
most reluctantly surrendered. The surrender of
territory, even if constitutional, is almost univer
sally inexpedient and unwise, and, in any cvept
when circumstances may seem to demand such a
surrender, the territory thus abandoned should al
ways be reacquired whenever it may be done with
justice and propriety. Independent of thso views,
we have the recorded opinion ol John u,. Adams
as President, and Henry Clay as Secretary of
State, and also of Gen. Andrew Jackson as Prcsrlnnzed by Mexico, or that a treaty with Mexico (as
dent, and Martin Van Buren as Secretary of State,
that Texas ought to be reannexed to the Uuion.
On the 26th of March, 1825, Mr. Clay, in con
formity with his own views, and the express direc
tions of Mr. Adams as President, directed a letter
to Mr. Poinsett, our Minister at Mexico, instruct
ing him to enuVavor to procure from Mexico a
transfer to us of Texas to the Del Norte. In this
letter Mr. Clay says, " the President wishes you
to effect that object." Mr. Clay adds : " The line
of the Sabine approaches our great western mart
nearer than could be wished. Perhaps the Mexi
can government may not be unwilling to establish
th.it of the Rio Brassos de Dios, or the Rio Colo
rado, or the Snow Mountains, or the Rio del
Norte, in lieu of it." Mr. Clay urges, also, the
importance of having entirely within our limits
" the Red river and Arkansas, and their respective
tributary streams."
On the 15th of March, 1827, Mr. Clay again
renewed the effort to procure the cession of Texas.
In his letter of instruction, of that date, toour Min
ister at Mexict, he sajfe : " The President has
thought the present might be an auspicious period
for urging a negotiation at Mexico, to settle the
boundary of the two republics." " If we could
obtain such a boundary as we desire, the govern
ment of the United States might be disposed to pay
a reasonable pecuniary compensation. The bound
ary we prefer is that which, beginning at the
mouth of the Rio del Norte in the sea, shall as
cend that river to the mouth of the Rio Puereo.
thence ascending this river to its source, and from
its source by a line due north to strike the Arkan
sas; thence following the southern bank of theijhideous
Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42 deff. north ;
I.I 1 L. II I f I .-. 1 . .
mi..w iyjr iuui yuiHiii Ul JJIUUUC IU MIC OUUIIUW miK'S lO 3
sea. Ana ne aaas, the treaty may proviue "for
the incorporation of the inhabitants into the
Union."
Mr. Van Buren, in his letter, as Secretary of
State, to our minister at Mexico, dated August 25,
1829, says: " It is the wish of the President that
you should, without delay, open a negotiation with
the Mexican government for the purchase of so
much of the province of Texas as is hereinafter
described." " He is induced, by a deep convic
tion of the real necessity of the proposed acquisi
tion, not only as a guard for our western frontier,
and the protection of New Orleans, but also to se
cure forever to the inhabitants of the valley of the
Mississippi the undisputed and undisturbed posses
sion of the navigation of that river." " The terri
tory, of which a cession is desired by the United
States, is all that part of the province of Texas
which lies east of a line beginning at the Gulf of
Mexico, in the centre of the desert, or grand prairie,
which lios west of the Rio Nueces." And Mr.
Van Buren adds, the treaty may provide "for the
incorporation of the inhabitants into the Union."
And he then enters into a long and powerful ar
gument of his own, in favor of the reacquisition of
Texas.
On the 29th of March, 1833, General Jackson
w w . a vi i - i I , J. . (IVIUI s uvacuiij
through Mr. Livingston as Secretary of State, re-
news to our minister at mexico tne iormer "in
structions bn the subject of the proposed cession."
On the 2d of July, 1 835, General Jackson, through
Mr. Forsyth as Secretary of State, renews the in
structions to obtain the cession of Texas, and ex
presses "an anxious desire lo secure the very de
sirable alteration in our boundary with Mexico."
On the 6th of August, 1 835, Gen. Jackson, through
Mr. Forsyth as Secretary of State, directs our min
ister at Mexico to endeavor to procure for us, from
that government, the. following boundary, "begin-
ning at the Gulf of Mexico, proceeding along the
eastern bank of the river Rio Bravo del Norte, to
nit cjiii jj.iidiir-j ui l iuiuuf. ana meiice aiong mat (
parallel to the Pacific." This noble and glorious
proposition of Grnr:i Jackson would have se-
j cured to us, not only tb whole of Texas, but also
the largest and most valuable portion of upper i
California, together with the bay and harbor of
! ban r rancisco, the best on the western coast of j
I A - 1 . .., ii mm 1
America, and equal to any in the world. If, then, I
it was deemed, as it is clearly proved, most desir
able to obtain the reannexation of Texas, down to
a period as late as August, 1835, is it less impor
tant at this period ?
We find the administration of Messrs. Adams
and Clay in 1825 and 1827, and that of Jackson
and Van Buren, in 1829, and subsequently in
1833 and 1835, making strenuous efforts to pro
cure the reannexation of Texas, by a purchase
from Mexico, at the expense of millions of dollars.
Let us observe also the dates of these efforts.
That of the first, by Messrs. Adams and Clay, in
March, 1S25, was within three years only after
the recognition of the independence of Mexico by
this country, and prior to its full recognition by j
other powers; and it was within less than five,
years subsequent to the final ratification ol the a point within four hundred miles of the Pacific
treaty by which we surrendered Texas, not to ocean, and where the waters of the Dcf Norte al
Mexico, but to Spain. Now, as Spain had not most commingle with those that flow into the
then recognized the independence of Mexico, and j Western ocean. Up to this point on the Del
the war was still waging between those nations, j Norte it is navigable for steamboats; and from
the only title which Mexico had to Texas, was by j that point to the Pacific is a good route tor cara
a successful revolution, and is precisely the same ', vans, and where, it is believed, r Paeific may
title, and depending on the same principles, as that be united with the Del Norte and the Gulf by a
now possessed by Texas. The same remarks ap- railroad, not longer than that which now unites
ply to the subsequent efforts of Messrs. Adams and j Buffalo and Boston; and where, even now, with
Clay in 1827, and of Jackson and Van Buren in j out such a road, we could command the trade of
1829, to acquire Texas by purchase from Mexi
eo. And even at the latest period, no more time
had elapsed between the date of thc recognition of
the independence of Mexico, and the proposed pur
chase from her, than the time (now about seven
years) since our recognition of the independence
of Texas. Throughout the peiiod of all these
proposed treaties, the war was waging between
Mexico and Spain. The brave Porter, our own
gallant commodore, commanded the Mexican na
vy, aided by many American officers and crews.
In the earlier part, also, of the conflict on the
land, the gallant Peny, and the brave Magee, an
American officer, with a combined American and
Mexican army, bad defeated the royal forces of
Spain in many a glorious conflict. Throughout
this whole period, Mexico was soliciting and ob
taining the aid of our countrymen, on the ocean
and on the land ; and it is more than doubtful
whether, in the absence of that assistance, Mexico
would yet have achieved her independence. On
the 27th July 1829, Barradas, with a Spanish
army of four thousand men. captured the Mexican
city of Tampico, which he held until the 10th
September of the same year. Ytt, on the 25th
August, 1829, whilst the fate of this expedition
was vet undetermined, the administration of Jack-
fsW and Van Buren, as we bave seen, proposed
I .. . . i r rii r if-..: ir .1
tne ptircnase 01 iwas irum mrxicu. ii, men,
there be any force in the objections, that Texas
wasx aided in her conflict by Americsj citizens,
thai the war is still waging, (which k is not,) or
that the independence of lexas is still unrecog
we had with Spain) had been ratified, all these
reasons apply with far greater force against the
proposed purchase of Texas from Mexico in 1825,
1827. and 1829, when Mexico was yet unrecog
nized by Spain; when our treaty, surrendering
Texas to Spain, was unrescinded, except by the
revolution in Mexico; and when our citizens were
still aiding, as they alwv had done, the people
of Mexico in their struggle for independence. It
is true, that, in 1837, within a few weeks or months
succeeding bar recognition of the independence of
Texas, and before her recognition by arty wreign
powers, it might bave subjected us to unjust im
putations; and therefore might have been deemed
inexpedient, at 'such a time, and under such cir
cumstances, to reannex Texas by a treaty to this
Union. But now, when seven years have elapsed
since our recognition' of the independence of Tex
as ; and she has been recognized for many years
as an independent power by rbe great nations f
Etrrope ; and ber sovereignty ally established,
and fully acknowledged, there can be so objection
to sueh a treaty at this period.
The reasons assigned in 1825, 1827, 1829, 1833
and 1835, for the reannexation of. Texas, apply
now with full force. These rrasons were, fhat
the Sabi ne, as a boundary, was too near New Or
leans ; that the defence ol that city was rendered
insecure; and that the Arkansas and Red riwr,
and all their tributaries, ought to be in our own
exclusive possession-. The present boundary is
the worst which could be devised. It is a suc
cession of steps and curvet, carving out the great
valley of the West into a shape that is absolutely
hideous. It surrenders the Red river, aod Arkan
sas, and their numerous tributaries, for thousands1
..'fcl' .
foreign power. It brines that pow
er upon the Gulf, within a day's sail of the mouth
ef the Mississippi, and in the interior, by the rune
of the Sabine, within about one hundred miles of
the Mississippi. It places that power, for many
hundred miles, on the banks of the Red river, in
immediate contact with sixty thousand Indian
warriors of our own, and with very many thou
sand of the fiercest savage tiibes in Texas, there
to be armed and equipped for thc work of death?
and desolation. It enables a foreign power, with
such aids, to descend the Red river, lo the junc
tion of the Mississippi, there to cut-orTall commu
nication from above or below, to arrest at thai
point all boats which were descending with thoir
troops and munitions of war for the defence of
New Orleans, and fall down suddenly on that
city, thus isolated from the rest of the Union, and"
subjected to certain ruin.
From the mouth of the Mississippi to the Sa
bine there is not a single harbor where an Amer
ican vessel of war could find shelter ;" but west
ward of the mouth of the Sabine, in Texas, are
several deep bays and harbors ; and Gavelston,
one of these, has a depth of water equal to that at
the mouth of the Mississippi. Looking into the
interior, along this extraordinary boundary, we
find a foreign power stretching for many hundn (f
miles along the Sabine to the Red river; thence
west several hundred miles along that river to the
western boundary of our Indian territories; thence
north to the Arkansas, and up that stream to the
southern boundary of the territory of Oregon, and.
at a point which, according to the recent most
able survey of Lieutenant Fremont, is within 20
miles of the pass of the Rocky mountains, which
secures the entrance to Oregon We thus place
a foreign power there, to move eastward or west
ward, upon the valley of the Columbia or Missis.
sippi. W c place this power north ot tot. Louisr
north of a portion of Iowa, and south of New Or
leans, and along this line for several thousand
miles in our rear
Such is the boundary ot present given to the
valley of the WesL: such the imminent dangers
to which it is subjected of massacre ; such the dis-
memberment of the ercat vallev. and of many of
the nobfest streams and tributaries of the Missis-
sippi r such the surrender of so many hundfcd
miles of our coast, with so many baysand har
' ' . . . "
bors: such the hazard to which New Orleans is
subjected, and the outlet of all our commerce to
the gulf. Such is our present boundary; and it
can be exchanged for one that will give us perfect
security, that will place our own people and oar
own settlements in rear of the Indian tribes, end
that will cut them off from foreign influence; thai
will restore to us the uninterrupted navigation of
the Red river and Arkansas, and of all their tri
butaries; that will place us at the north, upon a
point to command the pass of Oregon, and, on the
south, to secure New Orleans, and render certain
the command of the Gulf of Mexico. In pursu
ing our ancient and rightful boundary, befbro we
surrendered Texas, along the Del Norte, we are
brought, by a western curve of that great river, to
all the northern States of Mexico, and of a very
large, portion of the. western coast of America.
TO BE CONTlXrED
Information and Knowledge. There is a wiuV
and obvious distinction between knowledge and
information. A man may be well informed who
possesses but an indifferent stock of knowledge.
Information may consist in such a general1 idea of
things, as to enable a man to talk about them, bnt
knowledge comprehends the minutiae of every
thing within its scop. A well informed man
may be able to take a shre in almost every- con
versation arising in the company in which he is
present. Talk of politics he knows public char
acters, understands daily changes, is not at fault
with a new ministry, or at fault with a foreign am
bassador. Talk of astronomy he is aware that
the sun is our centre, that the earth has a twofold
revolution, that there are a number of other plan
ets revolving in like manner around the sun, and
that the fixed stars are in all probability, suns, tho
centres of other systems. Talk upon any topic
he has information on all, and can talk respectably
upon all. But the man of knowledge can lay
down the boundaries of kingdoms, track the course
of armies, lay his finger on the constellations, and
has a well defined meaning attached to his ideas.
You may by plausible ingenuity, deceive and be
wilder an informed man, but the man of knowl
edge is secured in his footing, and cannot be easily
overcome.
Happy old Farmer The following, drawn
by an old farmer 80 years of ago, is one of the best
sketches of human happiness we have ever read.
We bespeak fur it an attentive perusal, as it shows
how easy it is for man to find contentment if he
would but seek it in the only way whore it is to
be found:
" I have lived on this farm more than halfa cen
tury. I have no desire to change my residence as
long as I live on earth. I have no wish to be
richer than I am now. I have worshipped the
God of my fathers for more than forty years. Du
ring that period I-have scarcely ever been absent
from the sanctuary on the Sabbath, and never have
lost more than one communion season. I have
never been confined to my bed by sickness a single
day. Tho blessings of God have been richly
spread around me, and I made up my mind long
ago, that if I wished to be htppicr, must have
more religion."
ILL