|January-June 1845||July-December 1845||January-June 1846||July-December 1846|
|January-June 1847||July-December 1847||January-June 1848||July-December 1848|
MGv45i44p2c2, January 2, 1845: Message, To the Senate and House of Representatives
Mr. Shannon's argument against the annexation of Texas.
MGv45i44p2c1, January 2, 1845: The Annexation of Texas
Arguments that the annexation of Texas would violate the Constitution by displacing national faith and honor of the American people.
MGv45i45p1c3, January 9, 1845: House of Representatives
States the names of U.S. representatives that made motions that passed in the House. A joint resolution was given by Mr. Tibbaits for the annexation of Texas.
MGv45i45p1c3, January 9, 1845: Friday January 3, 1845, House of Representatives
Mr. Phoenix, a member of the Society of Friends, started a debate by presenting a speech to the House against the annexation of Texas.
MGv45i45p1c2, January 9, 1845: Twenty-Seventh Congress, Correspondence of the Baltimore Patriot, Washington
Features the motions from the House of Representatives and Senate from December 30, 1844 through January 2, 1845 against the annexation of Texas and motions for a new resolution to annex Texas.
MGv45i47p2c3, January 30, 1845: Letter to the Editor - Alex. Gaz.
To New York Evening Post accuses General Jackson of trying to push the United States into the annexation of Texas.
MGv45i47p3c2, January 30, 1845: Late and Important from Mexico - Santa Anna Defeated and Taken Prisoner
Santa Anna's army was defeated by General Bravo and Paredes on the Affan plains, after which he was captured.
MGv45i47p3c1, January 30, 1845: Annexation of Texas
The joint resolutions to annex Texas were presented by Milton Brown, of Tenn, passed in the House of Representatives.
MGv45i47p3c1, January 30, 1845: Legislative Correspondence, Richmond, January 27, 1845 To the Editor of the Gazette
The senate passed the joint resolutions to annex Texas on the 22nd, later on there was a motion to send the resolutions to the Select Committee on Texas.
March 6, 1845, THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES
Celebration commenced on Capitol Hill, Texas will not refuse annexation
March 6, 1845: JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXING TEXAS TO THE U. STATES
Resolution by Senate and House of Representatives
March 13, 1845: THE MEANING
Extract from editorial comments of Richmond Enquirer on Inaugural Address of Polk
March 20, 1845: FROM MEXICO
Santa Anna to be tried on 24th
March 27, 1845: A SKETCH OF SANTA ANA
Recent revolution in Mexico
March 27, 1845: WHIG ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA
V.W. Southall describing events at the Whig legislative meeting
March 27, 1845: THE TEXAS QUESTION
Past resolutions passed by congress concerning annexation
March 27, 1845: NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION
Texas party defeated in their efforts to get J.P. Hale defeated in elections
March 27, 1845: FROM TEXAS
New Orleans papers report some Texans not pleased with terms of annexation
MGv46i8p2c2, April 24, 1845: Important from Texas
Debate in Texas about on the powers of the President-can he or can't he make decisions? Should there be a convention of the people?; President of Texas opposed to annexation
MGv46i8p2c7, April 24, 1845: The Progress of Annexation
Comments that the annexation of Texas is intended to the be starting point to annexation of Mexico; suggestions of revolution to those in California; comments that the land of Oregon is barren; settlers going into Mexican land and buying it up-better form of conquest
MGv46i8p2c4, April 24, 1845: Santa Anna
Reports of letters sent by Santa Anna to certain Mexican officials; Congress has presented formal articles of accusation against him; refuse to let him leave the Republic; information on other military officials and governors who have been found guilty or trials are planned
MGv46i8p2c3, April 24, 1845: War with Mexico
Report on the rumors that Mexico has declared war on the US-article from New Orleans that came from the British Minister at Mexico that if the resolution to annex Texas passes in the US, then Mexico would accept the act as casus belli; details on Mexican plans for if the US passes the resolution
MGv46i8p2c3, April 24, 1845: The United States and Mexico
News of the action of the Senate on Texas has reached Vera Cruz; comments on the position that Mexico now finds herself; believed that the government must declare war; extract from a letter sent by a man in Baltimore
MGv46i8p2c3, April 24, 1845: From Mexico
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the US Minister in Mexico stating that information about the US decision to annex Texas as reached them and that diplomatic ties because of that decision will be cut; notes sent to the Ministers of Spain, France and England protesting US action
MGv46i8p2c5, April 24, 1845: Arrival of the
Great Western - three weeks later from Europe
Report that the resoluton decided by Congress has caused great sensation in England as did a paragraph of Polk's inaugural address dealing with England-extract of a part of Polk's address; Polk said Texas was once apart of the US; Polk said US entitlement to Oregon was clear; more comments on the Texas annexation and also on slavery; conversation in the House of Commons dealing with Oregon.
May 1, 1845: PROSPECTUS OF THE RICHMOND TIMES
Editors state their position on the annexation of Texas.
May 1, 1845: THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.
Editors opinion on possible war.
May 1, 1845: ARRIVAL OF THE CALEDONIA - SEVEN DAYS LATER FROM EUROPE.
Reports of England's view of both the Texas and Oregon situations. From Baltimore American, April 24.
May 8, 1845: WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN.
Editors defend last week's position that war is inevitable.
May 8, 1845: LATEST FROM TEXAS. News from New Orleans proclaims
popular support for Annexation among the people of Texas.
May 15, 1845: VERY IMPORTANT
Intelligence of Great Britain's desire for war from the New York Sun and Bennett's Herald!
MG45v46n14p2c1 Thursday, June 5, 1845: A Long Stride
MG45v46n14p2c7 Thursday, June 5, 1845: Mexico and Texas
MG45v46n15 Thursday, June 15, 1845: No relevant articles
MG45v46n16p1c5-6 Thursday, June 19, 1845: From the Albany Argue, The Oregon Territory. Its Extent - Its Soil - Its Productions
MG45v46n16p2c3 Thursday, June 19, 1845: The Mission to England
MG45v46n17p2c7 Thursday, June 26, 1845: Foreign News. The Caledonia Steamer has arrived at Boston; arrival of Hibernia, Oregon Question
MG45v46n17p2c7 Thursday, June 26, 1845: Items from French press
Thursday, January 2, 1845 MG45i44p2c2 1,727 words
Message, To the Senate and House of Representatives
I transmit herewith copies of dispatches received from our Minister at Mexico, since the commencement of your present session, which claim, from their importance, and I doubt not will receive, your calm and deliberate consideration. The extraordinary and highly offensive language which the Mexican Government has thought proper to employ in reply to the remonstrance of the executive, through Mr. Shannon, against the renewal of the war with Texas, while the question of annexation was pending before Congress and the People, and also, the purposed manner of conducting that war, will not fail to arrest your attention.
Such remonstrance, urged in no unfriendly spirit to Mexico, was called for by considerations of an imperative character, having relation as well to the peace of this country and honor of this Government as to the cause of humanity and civilization. Texas had entered into the treaty of Annexation upon the invitations of the Executive; and when for that act she was threatened with a renewal of the was on the part of Mexico, she naturally looked to this Government to interpose its efforts toward off the threatened blow. But one course was left the Executive, acting within the limits of its constitutional competency, and that was to protest in respectful, but at the same time strong and decided terms against it. The war thus threatened to be renewed, was promulgated by edicts and decrees, which ordered, on the part of the Mexican military, the desolation of whole tracts of country and the destruction, without discrimination, of all ages, sexes, and conditions of existence. Over the manner of conducting war, Mexico possesses no exclusive control. She has no right to violate at pleasure the principles which an enlightened civilization has laid down for the conduct of nations at war and thereby retrograde to a period of barbarism which, happily for the world, has long since passed away. All nations are interested in enforcing an observance of those principles, and the United States the oldest of the American Republics, and the nearest of the civilized powers to the theatre on which these enormities were proposed to be enacted, could not quietly content themselves to witness such a state of things. They had, though the Executive, on another occasion, and as was believed with the approbation of the whole country, remonstrated against outrages similar, but even less inhuman, than those which by her new edicts and decrees she has threatened to perpetrate, and of which the late inhuman massacre at Tobasco was but the precursor.
The bloody and inhuman murder of Fennin and his companions, equaled only in savage barbarity by the usages of the untutored Indian Tribes, proved how little confidence could be placed on the most solem stipulations of her Generals, while the fate others who became her captives in war, many of whom, no longer able to sustain the fatigues and privations of long journeys, were shot down by the way side, while their companions who survived were subjected to sufferings even more painful than death--had left an indelible stain on the page of civilization. The Executive, with the evidence of an intention on the part of Mexico to renew scenes so revolting to humanity, could do no less than renew remonstrances formerly urged. For fulfilling duties so imperative, Mexico has thought proper, through her accredited organs, because she has had represented to her the inhumanity of such proceedings, to indulge in language unknown to the courtesy of diplomatic intercourse, and offensive in the highest degree to this Government and People. Nor has she offended in this only. She has not only violated existing conventions between the two countries, by arbitrary and unjust decrees against our trade and intercourse, but withholds installments of debt, due to our citizens, which she solemnly pledged herself to pay, under circumstances which are fully explained by the accompanying letter from Mr. Green, our Secretary of Lexington. And when our Minister has invited the attention of her Government to wrong committed by her local authorities not only on the property but on the persons of our fellow-citizens, engaged in prosecuting fair and honest pursuits, she has added insult to injury, by not even designing, for months together, to return an answer to his representations. Still further to manifest her unfriendly feelings towards the United States, she has issued decrees expelling from some of her provinces American citizens engaged in the peaceful pursuits of life, and now denies to those of our citizens prosecuting the Whale fishery on the Northwest coast of the Pacific, the privilege which has through all time, heretofore been accorded to them of exchanging goods of a small amount in value at her ports to their health and comfort.
Nor will it escape the observation of Congress, that in conducing a correspondence with the Minister of the united States, who cannot, and does not, know any distinction between the geographical sections of the Union, charges wholly unfounded are made against particular States, and an appeal to others for aid and protection against supposed wrongs. In this same connection, sectional prejudices are attempted to be excited, and the hazardous and unpardonable effort is made to foment divisions among the States of the Union, thereby to embitter their peace. Mexico has still to learn, that however freely we may indulge in discussion among ourselves, the American People will tolerate no interference in their domestic affairs by any foreign Government; and in all that concerns the constitutional guarantees and the national honor the People of the United States have one mind and one heart.
The subject of Annexation addresses itself mort fortunately to every portion of the Union. The Executive would have been unmindful of its highest obligations, if it could have adopted a course of policy dictated by sectional, but made its appeal to the interests of the whole Union, and of every State in the Union, that the negotiations and finally the Treaty of Annexation was entered into; and it has afforded me no ordinary pleasure to perceive that so far as demonstrations have been made upon it by the People, they have proceeded from all portions of the Union. Mexico may seek to excite division amongst us, by uttering unjust denunciations against particular States, but when she comes to know that the invitations addressed to our fellow citizens by Spain, and afterwards by herself, to settle Texas, were accepted by emigrants from all the States; and when in addition to this, she refreshed her recollection with the fact, that the first effort which was made to acquire Texas was during the administration of a distinguished citizen from an Eastern State, which was afterwards renewed under the suspires of a President from the Southwest, she will awake to a knowledge of the futility of her present purpose of sewing dissensions among, or producing distraction in our Councils by attacks either on particular States or on persons who are now in the retirement of private life. Considering the appeal which she now makes to eminent citizens by name, can she hope to escape censure for having ascribed to them as well as to others, in design, as she pretends now, for the first time revealed, of having originated negotiations to despoil her, by duplicity and falsehood, of a portion of her territory?--The opinion then, as now, prevailed with Executive, that the Annexation of Texas to the Union was a matter of vast importance.
In order to acquire that territory before it had assumed a position among the independent powers of the earth, propositions were made to Mexico for a cession of it to the United States. Mexico saw in these proceedings, at the time, no cause of complaint. She is now, when simply reminded of them, awakened to a knowledge of the fact, which she, through her Secretary of State, promulgates to the whole world as true, that those negotiations were founded in deception and falsehood, and superinduced [sic] by unjust and iniquitous motives. While Texas was a dependency of Mexico, the United States opened negotiations with the latter power for the cession of her then acknowledged territory: and now that Texas is independent of Mexico, and has maintained a separate existence for nine years, - during which time she has been received into the family of nations, and is represented by accredited embassadors [sic] at many of the principal Courts of Europe--when it has become obvious to the whole world that she is forever lost to Mexico, the United States is charged with deception and falsehood in all relating to the past, and condemnatory accusations are made against States which have had no special agency in the matter, because the Executive of the whole Union has negotiated with free and independent Texas upon a matter vitally important to the interests of both countries. And after nine years of unavailing war, Mexico now announces her intention, through her Secretary of Foreign Affairs, never to consent to the Independence of Texas, or to abandon the effort to re-conquer that Republic. --She thus announces a perpetual claim; which at the end of a century will furnish her as plausible a ground for discontent against any nation, which at the end of that time may enter into a treaty with Texas, as she possesses at this moment against the United States. The lapse of time can add nothing to her title to independence.
A course of conduct such as has been described on the part of Mexico, [ . . . ] violation of all friendly feeling; and of the courtesy, which should characterize the intercourse between the Nations of the Earth, might well justify the united States in a resort to any measure to vindicate their national honor; but, actuated by a sincere desire to preserve the general peace, and in view of the present condition of Mexico, the Executive, resting upon its integrity, and not fearing but that the judgment of the world will duly appreciate its motive, abstains from recommending to Congress a resort to measures of redress, and content itself with re-urging upon that body prompt and immediate action on the subject of Annexation. By adopting that measure, the United States will be in the exercise regarding that forbearance, shall aggravate the injustice of her conduct by a declaration of war against them, upon her head will rest all the responsibility.
Thursday, January 9, 1845 MG45i44p2c1 1,301 words
THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS
The attention of the House of Representatives seems to be almost wholly engrossed with the subject of the annexation of Texas to this Union. - The "harmonious Democracy" are in considerable fix about the ways and means of annexing Texas to this Union, and at the same time of so democratizing the measure to make it palatable to the "blue, gray, and white spirits" who banded together throughout the country in the late Presidential contest for the purpose of electing Mr. Polk to the Presidency. There are no less than three Democratic propositions before the House for accomplishing the end of Annexation, and the possibility is from the signs of the times, that some measure or other may be adopted before the end of the present session of Congress for that purpose. This may be done, [. . . ] accompany the present Administration into retirement amidst the scoffs and jeers of the Whigs at their folly and dishonesty, and with the deep and bitter curses of the Bentonian wing of the Democracy on their heads. Amidst this din of curses, the new President, Mr. Polk, will rise to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution - which sacred instrument will lie spread open before him with the ruthless and bloody foot-prints of the "Progressive Democracy" freshly imprinted upon it. He must take some stand or other upon this question for under his administration grave and important issues must arise in connection with the annexation of the Texan territory to ours, which must and will shake the discordant elements of the Democracy to its centre, and perhaps the happy union of these States to its dissolution. Party excitement has in measure cooled down - there is no inducement upon the part of the Whigs (even if they would resort to such means) to misrepresent any matter in relation to this Texas scheme. They are in a measure powerless for good or evil as far as the influence of Government goes, and therefore we think we are enabled to look upon the movements of the Annexationists as calm observers, and more readily see the dangers to which we are being hurried, than those whose minds are fevered and excited with the ambition of carrying forward a favorite scheme, and whose judgments are clouded by the prejudice of self-pride and self-interest.
We hesitate not to say, that if Texas be admitted into this Union by either or any of the schemes now before the House of Representatives, it will be done in direct, open, and palpable violation of the Constitution of the United States - in open disregard of National faith and honor, and in opposition to the will of a large majority of the States and People of the Union. The Democracy, in whose name, and under whose suspires this disreputable deed is to be done, have ever prided themselves upon being "strict constructionists of the Constitution" - it has been the chief feather in their cap - the polar star by which they have always professed to guide the ship of the State. But where is the loyal crew now? - have they lost their chart and compass - or have they matinied [sic] in the fog of noncommittalism, and determined to scuttle the good old vessel on the reefs of Progressiveness, or not? Certainly they cannot think it the same unpardonable sin now that they did in former times to depart from a strict construction of the Constitution, when they are clamoring for the "annexation of Texas" by a joint resolution of Congress. Our readers are all aware that at last session of Congress the present Administration attempted to have a Treaty formed between our Government and the Government of Texas for the annexation of the latter to this Government ratified by the other branch of the treaty-making power under our laws - the Senate of the United States - and that it was rejected. This rejection met the approbation of the People - sanctioned by every Whig State of this Union - and the Treaty was openly reprobated and disowned by several of the States which cast their votes for Mr. Polk; and b[. . . ] for such disavowal by such Polk leaders as Silas Wright, of New York, he would have been left in a very large minority of the States of the Union. The same Senate which guarded the purity of the Constitution and the honor of the Country at the last session of Congress, are still there to hold the arm of preservation over them, and consequently the disgraceful "Tyler Treaty" will not again be submitted to their dishonorable plot, they are now endeavoring to avoid and dodge them by a joint resolution. Now let us see how these strict constructionists are going to work, for the joint resolution seems to be the Democratic measure par excellence, and of their proceedings we choose to let the Hon. Albert Gallatin, one of the fathers of the Republic, speak - and who will dare question the democracy of this venerable friend and fellow-laborer of Jefferson and Madison. We commend the following extract from his letter to the serious consideration of every true friend of the Constitution and the honor of the Country. Here it is - read its sober truths, and ponder well the settings and doings of these open violators of the Constitution. Mr. Gallatin says:
That now at issue is simply this: In whom is the power of making treaties vested by the Constitution?
The United States have recognized the independence of Texas; and every compact between independent nations is a treaty.
The Constitution of the United States declares that "the President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senate concur. " This power is not given to Congress by any clause of the Constitution.
The intended joint resolution proposes that the treaty of annexation between the United States of America and the Republic of Texas, signed on the 12th day of April, 1844, (which treaty is recited verbatim in the resolution,) shall, by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, be declared the fundamental law of Union between the said United States and Texas, as soon as the supreme authority of the said Republic of Texas shall agree to the same.
The Senate had refused to give its consent to the said treaty, and the resolution declares, that it shall nevertheless be made by Congress a fundamental law binding the United States. It transfers to a majority of both House of Congress, with the approbation, the power of making treaties, which by the Constitution was expressly and exclusively vested in the President, with the consent of the two thirds of the Senate. It substitutes for a written Constitution, which distributes and defines powers, the supremacy, or, as it is called, the omnipotence of a British Parliament. The resolution is evidently a direct, and in its present shape an undisguised usurpation of power and violation of the Constitution.
It would not be difficult to show that it is not less at war with the spirt [sic] than with the letter of that sacred instrument; and that the provision which requires the consent of two thirds of the Senate was intended as a guaranty of the States' rights, and to protect the weaker against the abuse of the treaty-making power, if vested in a bare majority. But the case appears to me so clear, that I would fear to obscure that which is self evident, by adding any argument to the simple recital of the constitutional provision and of the proposed resolution.
I have the honor to be, with high consideration and personal regard, dear sir, your most obedient servant.
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD,
Thursday, January 9, 1845 MG45i45p1c3 121 words
House of Representatives
Mr. Tibbatts, of Kentucky, wished to introduce by general consent, a proposition for the annexation of Texas.
Mr. Barnard objected, and Mr. Tibbatts gave notice that he would introduce his proposition on a subsequent day. --The Reporter could not, in the confusion, learn whether it is a bill or a resolution.
Mr. Belser gave notice that at some subsequent period he would introduce a series of resolutions for annexing Texas to the United States.
Mr. Huston offered a resolution to terminate all debate in Committee of the Whole on the bill 10 graduate and reduce the price of Public Lands--Ayes 49, nays 74.
Mr. Pratt reported a joint resolution in favor of a national monument
to the memory of Washington.
Thursday, January 9, 1845 MG45i45p1c3 734 words
Friday January 3, 1845, House of Representatives
Mr. Phoenix, of New York, presented a memorial of the respectable society of Friends, in the State of New York, in opposition to the annexation of Texas, which, on his motion, the Clerk commenced reading. A part of the memorial was devoted to the subject of Slavery, and contained strong Abolition sentiments. --When the Clerk arrived at that part of it, Mr. Campbell, of South Carolina, rose and objected to the further reading of the paper.
He said that by the courtesy of the House, Mr. Phoenix had been permitted to offer the memorial when the rules would have forbid it. This was done under the supposition that there was nothing offensive in them, which now turned out to be a most violent Abolition petition.
Mr. McClernard then moved to lay the memorial on the table, and on that motion the ayes and nays were ordered.
The vote on laying on the table stood years 87, nays 87--a tie.
The speaker then voted in the affirmative, and the memorial was therefore laid on the table.
Mr. Bailey, of Virginia, moved to suspend the rule for the purpose of going into Committee of the Whole, on which motion ninety-seven gentlemen voted in the affirmative--the noes were not counted.
The House then went into Committee of the Whole and Mr. Hopkins of Virginia took the Chair.
The proposition to annex Texas was taken up, and Mr. Bailey being entitled to the floor, said he would yield it to any gentleman in the opposition who desire to address the Committee.
No one showing a disposition to speak, loud calls of “question, question, question,” were heard from the Whig side of the Hall.
The reading of the amendment to the main was then called for, and it was read.
Mr. Douglass then rose and stated that as no one appeared to be desirous of debating the question at the present time, he would move that the Committee rise.
Loud calls were again made for the question, when the reading of Mr. Douglass’ amendment to the amendment was called for, and it was read.
Mr. Rhett rose and requested Mr. Douglass to withdraw the preamble to his revolution and put his first resolution to the vote. That resolution embraced the simple preposition to annex Texas to the United States unconnected with any details. That course would bring the House to a test vote at once and would determine whether a majority were in favor of annexation in the abstract. He wished this point to be decided in the outset, and the details could easily be settled afterwards.
Mr. Douglass agreed to the suggestion of Mr. Rhettt and withdrew the preamble to his resolution. The vote was then about to be put on the adoption of the first resolution, when;
Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, rose and stated that he was unwilling that the House should come to a decision on this question without a word being said in opposition.
This movement of Mr. J. R. Ingersoll disappointed the Whig members very much, who were anxious that the question should be put. It was, on the other hand a relief to the dominant party, who were evidently much embarrassed by the position in which they were placed and would have come up to a vote unprepared and with the greatest reluctance.
Mr. J. R. Ingersoll then proceeded to address the Committee in opposition to the measure. He was at so remote a point from the reporter as to prevent his remarks as to prevent his remarks from being distinctly heard. It is impossible therefore to give a synopsis of his remarks.
Mr. Payne succeeded Mr. Ingersoll, and contended for the general policy of annexing Texas to the Union. The leading argument advanced by him was that Texas was necessary to us for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the Union, and for its safety of defense in time of war. He advanced other positions and strenuously urged the expediency by the opponents of this measure, that it was a slave question and was to be resisted on that account. He became boisterous on this point, and before he got through his hour expired.
Mr. Winthrop, of Mass. , then got the floor and as here seemed to be a disposition to adjourn he moved that the Committee rise.
The motion was carried, and at 3 o’clock the House adjourned. [AMB]
Thursday, January 9, 1845 MG45i45p1c2 222 words
Twenty-Seventh Congress, Correspondence of the Baltimore Patriot, Washington
Washington, Dec. 30, 1844
Among the memorials presented in the Senate this morning, were the following:
By Mr. Sturgeon, one from the western part of Pennsylvania, asking that the Pension laws may be extended so as to embrace the soldiers who fought under Harmer, St. Clair and Wayne.
By Mr. Buchanan, one from Pennsylvania, which embraces the subject of the Tariff, Texas, and the Naturalization Laws. The Tariff of ’42 is upheld, Texas to be annexed, and the Naturalization Laws to remain intact.
Thursday, Dec. 31, 1844
Mr. Choate presented a memorial from the inhabitants of Northborough, Massachusetts, remonstrating against the Annexation of Texas.
Mr. Tappen presented a memorial from citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio, asking a reduction of Postage and to abolish the Franking privilege.
Mr. Buchanan presented a memorial from the Society of Friends in Pensylvania [sic], protecting against the Annexation of Texas.
Mr. Haywood gave notice that on Monday next he would ask leave to move to take up the bill to provide for the annexation of Texas the United States.
House of Representatives
[See above: Thursday, January 9, 1845 MG45i45p1c3, House of Representatives]
Thursday, Jan’y. 2, 1845. SENATE.
Mr. Bates presented a remonstrance from Mendon, Massachusetts, against the Annexation of Texas.
Mr. Archer presented a petition from citizens of Vicksburg, Mississippi,
asking a reform in the Naturalization Laws.
Thursday, January 30, 1845 MG45i47p2c3 345 words
Letter to the Editor--Alex. Gaz.
The New York Evening Post, the organ of Van Burenism at the North, and the ablest Loco Foco paper in that quarter, is not at all disposed, to knuckle under, on the Texas question, or to suffer Gen. Jackson to force Annexation down the throats of the faithful. “Phey keep pestering Gen. Jackson,” says the Post, “still on the Texas question, and, with the flame of life yet flickering in its socket, the brave and honest old man writes letters in favor of the annexation scheme. ” And the Post goes on to say, “We yield to no man in admiration of the character of General Jackson, but we used to tell him in the palmist days of his popularity that he had his infirmities and committed his mistakes; and one of the saddest of his infirmities is the hurry he is in to add Texas to our Confederacy. We can easily imagine how Gen. Jackson is besieged--intrusion and importunity are too much the habit of our dear countrymen--besieged in the chamber to which ill health and the debility of old age have confined him; and we suggest to their sense of humanity that he has been worried enough about this affair, and should be allowed to pass his last moments in peace. ” And in this strain this “Democratic” organ goes on to deprecate Gen. Jackson’s interference, and to adduce reasons for refusing to comply with his commands, as well as to ridicule the urgent call of “now or never” which is used to hasten the much desired measure. The Post discreetly advises the Members of Congress to take time to pass the appropriation bills and go quickly home on the 4th of March, and allow the whole interval between March and December to pass over without the least apprehension that Texas will run away. If it be so important, as many pretend, for the welfare and prosperity of the two countries, that they should be under the same Federal Government, a little delay will not alter their interests or their inclinations. - Alx. Gaz.
Late and Important from Mexico--Santa Anna Defeated and Taken Prisoner
The Baltimore American of yesterday brings an extract from the New Orleans Tropic in relation to the intestine war in Mexico. The substance of the news is, that Santa Anna, after losing more than two thousand of his army by desertion, was met on the plains of Affan by Generals Bravo and Parades, with three thousand men under their command, and after a desperate battle the army of Santa Anna was totally routed, and himself captured while trying to make his escape. Five hundred men were reported to be killed in the battle.
Thursday, January 30, 1845 MG45i47p3c1 512 words
Annexation of Texas
The joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas, according to a population submitted by Milton Brown, of Tenn, have passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 120 to 98. Their fate in the Senate is doubtful, and if they should succeed there, it is yet doubtful whether Texas would accede to the proposed terms.
We subjoin a copy of the resolutions, that our readers may see their provisions:
[Note: the full text of House Resolution No. 46 is available online via the The Library of Congress, American Memory, Law Making Home, Bills and Resolutions at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhbsb.html. To view the resolution click on "Browse House Bills and Resolutions" then 29th Congress, Page Turner, and enter 46 in the search box. ]
Declaring the terms on which Congress will admit Texas into the Union as a State:
Resolved, &c. That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government to be adopted by the people of said republic by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.
Sec. 2. and be it further resolved, that the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees to wit:
First. Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of the said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, 1840.
Second. Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all mines, salt lakes and springs, and also all public edifiers, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbours, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense belonging to said republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.
Third. New States, of convenient size, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. --And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the union, with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire.
And in such State or States, as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited.
Thursday, January 30, 1845 MG45i47p3c1 847 words
Legislative Correspondence, Richmond, January 27, 1845, To the Editor of the Gazette:
The proceedings, in relation to the Senatorial Election you will find annexed. The brief narrative is this: On the 16th, a Resolution was adopted in the House designating Wednesday the 22nd for the Election. At that time there were absent or sick several members of the Whig Party, some of whom, it was expected, would be in their seats at the appointed time. Hence it was supposed that, on that day, the House would be as full as could reasonably be anticipated during the remainder of the Session. Some of the other Party were also absent, who, it was presumed, would return by the 22nd.
The Senate declined to act upon the Joint Resolution until the morning of Wednesday the 22nd, when, having met at the unusual hour of 10, it was adopted.
It is well understood, here, and the fact of the delay, on the part of the Senate, justifice the conclusion, that the Resolution was agreed to because the Loco-Foco Party found itself, on the 22nd, in an accidental majority, on joint ballot.
Two Whig Members were sick--Mr. Campbell of the Senate, who has since died, and Mr. Rob bins of the House--and another, Mr. Helm, was absent, in consequence of severe illness in his family. On the other hand, but one Member of the opposite Party, Mr. Street, was absent.
In this condition of things, the House refused to proceed to an election, which would not have resulted in the selection of a man, who was the choice of the majority of the Legislature.
An attempt will, doubtless, be made to turn the action of the House to some account in favor of our opponents, if the Senate shall, hereafter, refuse to proceed to the Election. Indeed, already, capital has been sought to be made of it.
The position of the Whigs of the Legislature is this--They desire as full a vote, as possible, of both Parties. When the Election shall take place, provided it be at this Session and the object of a fair vote be accomplished, is a subordinate question. If either Party, however, shall not be ready during the Session, whether Whig or Loco-Foco, and whether a Whig or a Loco-Foco Senator shall be elected, the Whig Party of the Legislature of Virginia will insist upon the discharge of the high Constitutional obligation, that binds them and their opponents to elect a Senator before the Body shall adjourn.
A Wilt of Election, I presume, will issue to supply the place of Senator Campbell, dec’d.
The terms of the arrangement for the purchase, by the B. & O.R.R. Company, of the Winchester Road, are as follows: the debts of the Company, assumed not to exceed &81,000, exclusive of that due to the State, to be provided for--an amount of 16,000 to be paid [ . . . ], Company secured ($11,140 of that amount) by mortgage upon the Road and the other property included in the mortgage at present held by the State--the amount of interest on the floating debt above of $81,000 (about $4,861) to be deducted from the said annuity leaving $11,140--a sum equal to an annual interest of 2½ per cent on the stock held by the State and individuals and on the principal and interest of the loan of the State to the Company--The Baltimore Company to have authority to change the location of the Road, o as to leave the present line at a point about half a mile west of Halltown and intersect the Baltimore Road, at or near Cabin Run, or in some other manner at their option, so as not to increase the distance between Harper’s Ferry and Winchester by the present line. The arrangement not to be binding, until sanctioned by Virginia and Maryland, and upon the State of Virginia granting the Baltimore Company the Right of Way to a point on the Ohio River not lower than the mouth of the Little Kanawha, according to the original charter in 1827.
The Committee of Finance recommend a reduction of Taxes--20 per cent on the lands, lots, slaves and horses--50 per cent on clocks--five dollars on the lowest grade of merchants, &c. The subject is undergoing discussion, now, in the House. They estimate the probable balance in the Treasury, on the first of October, 1846, if no reduction should be made in the taxes now, at $203,447 84. It is insisted by many, that the taxes should not be reduced, but that the taxes should be thrown into the sinking fund, under provisions of the Act of March 1835, for the purpose of gradually extinguishing the public debt. The following is a summary of the public debt--
Aggregate $7,360,932.24 Of which there is stock under the Control of the Legislature, (a nominal debt) $1,392,884.88 _____________ Actual outstanding debt, $5968,047.36 Liabilities, $1,400,000.00 _____________ Total debt and liabilities, $7,368,047.36 Funds and resources of every character, $11,288,953.65 Of which the funds, productive,
but not, at once, available to an
amount sufficient to pay the actual
outstanding debt, are not down at
A light breeze sprung up in the Senate yesterday upon the presentation, by one of the Senators from Michigan, of a petition for the annexation of the Canadas to the United States. The debate was of sufficient interest to be fully reported; and, not having room for it to-day, we shall aim at its publication in our next. – Nat. Int. February 4. [LA]
The bill, which occupied several days of the sittings of the House of Representatives last week, for the establishment of a Territorial Government in Oregon, yesterday pass the House of Representatives by a large majority; after being amended, however, so as to require due notice to be given to Great Britain of the termination of the joint occupation, and the bill should not take effect until the expiration of the year after that notice, in any way to conflict with our treaty engagements in reference to this subject. –Nat. Int. Feb. 4. [LA]
Texas Resolutions have been amended in the House. While they assert the expediency of immediate annexation, our Senators are expressly, left at liberty to vote against the joint Resolutions now before the Senate, if they shall think that mode of annexation unconstitutional. This was all we could accomplish – there being a decided leaning to Texas in the House. The Whigs voted for the amendment and the Loco Focos against it. [LA]
Mr, Bowden moved to take up the resolution from the Senate, for the speedy annexation of Texas. [LA]
A petition was yesterday presented in the House of Representatives by Mr. Severance, from a number of respectable citizens of the State of Maine, praying for the “re-annexation” of the province of New Brunswick to the United States. –Nat. Int. February 4. [LA]
It is stated that Dr. Anson Jones, the recently elected President of Texas, is a native of Berkshire, Mass. [LA]
A letter from a distinguished source in Washington says: “Texas, I think, is dead for this session. ” –Balt Pat. [LA]
The resolution from the Senate for the speedy annexation of Texas came up as the order to the day.
Mr. Broadus, of Caroline, proposed to amend the resolution as follows:
That the annexation of Texas to the U. States ought to be effected at the earliest period that may be practicable consistent with the obligations of the Constitution, the internal peace and tranquility of the country and the faith and honor of the nation.
Mr. Daniel, of R.C. moved the following substitute:
Resolved, By the General Assembly that it is expedient to re-acquire by treaty the country west of the Sabine ceded by the United States to Spain by the treaty of 22d Feb’y 1819, when it can be done upon just and reasonable terms, and consistently with the good faith and honor of the nation.
Mr. Toler offered the following amendment:
Resolved, by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the annexation of Texas to the U. States be effected at the earliest period that may be possible consistent with the permanent welfare Virginia, the obligations of the Constitution, the preservation of the internal peace of the union, and the faith and honor of the country; and that the General Assembly, reposing active confidence in the abilities and patriotism of the Senators of Virginia rely upon them faithfully to discharge all of their obligations to the State and to the Union upon this question.
Mr. Wallace would decline voting on these resolutions, not believing that this Assembly has any business whatever with the subject. We had Federal agents – whose duty is was to act upon this subject; and to them he would leave it.
Mr. Daniel, with the consent of the House, withdrew his proposition, and again offered it as an independent proposition.
Mr. Edmunds of H. spoke at large in favor of annexation and was replied to by Mr. Taylor if N.B.
At the request of Mr. Yerby, Mr. Daniel withdrew his proposition to let the vote be taken on Mr. Toler’s amendment.
Mr. Bowden moved to amend Mr. Toler’s amendment, by adding at the close, the words “all of which, in the opinion of this General Assembly, may be accomplished by the Senate of the U.States passing the resolution which has passed the House of Representatives. ”
Mr. Bowden wished to speak, but he was unwell, and as the hour was late, the House adjourned. [LA]
The resolution for the annexation of Texas came up as the unfinished business of Wednesday.
Mr. Witcher said that after consultation with various gentlemen, he moved that the resolutions and amendments be referred to a select committee. He believed that a compromise could be agreed upon – which would be satisfactory to all parties.
Mr. Edmunds of H. , hailed this motion with pleasure; and he hoped it would receive a unanimous vote.
Mr. Toler had intended to withdraw his amendment, as some gentlemen had objections to it. He acquiesced in the motion to refer to a Committee.
Further remaks (sic) were made by Messrs. Yerby, Hamilton of P. , Strother, Bowden, Lee, Anderson, Goodson and Witcher, when the motion to refer prevailed.
The Speaker appointed the following select committee: Messrs. Witcher, Edmunds of H. , Anderson, Strother, Harvie, Preston and Toler – and the Committee had leave to sit during the session of the House.
Mr. Goodson moved to add Mr. Bowden. Some farther remarks were made by Messrs. Davis of K. & Q. , and Goodson, when the motion to add Mr. Bowden’s name was agreed to.
The Texas debate is going on in the Senate with considerable spirit, and some of the first intellects in the Senate of both parties are engaged in it. – Gov. Morehead of Kentucky lead off in opposition to the “Joint Resolution,” passed by the House of Representatives, in a speech of distinguished ability which elicited the encomiums of friends and foes. He opposed the annexation of Texas on constitutional grounds, but declared that he could not consent to annexation upon any terms unless the consent of Mexico was given. He also opposed the annexing of foreign territory to the Union by a bare majority. He thought this step was taken to perpetuate Slavery, which he denied the power in Congress to do. He also urged another objection to the Resolution of the House – that it robbed Texas of all her resources, and left her to hopeless repudiation. The Hon. James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, followed Mr. Morehead in favor of the “Joint Resolution” of the House. He was in favor of annexing Texas first, and then settling all the difficulties connected with annexation. Texas, he said, had asked in 1837, and in 1844, and now in 1845, to come into the Union. The Bill before the Senate for her admission was, in his view, the very best that could be adopted. He thought the Bill would meet the objection urged against the Tyler Treaty, that it did not have the concurrence of Congress. Mr. B. relied solely upon the power to admit new States, and regarded that as entirely sufficient. He was opposed to Slavery, but supported it because the Constitution tolerated it. – He denounced the Abolitionists in unmeasured terms as the enemies of the Slave and mankind. Annexation was, in his view, beneficial to the Country, to its trade, to its commerce, to a proper watchfulness of England, &c. He complimented Mr. Morehead very highly for his able speech delivered the day before. Our distinguished Senator, the Hon. Wm. C. Rives, followed Mr. Buchanan – he regarded the “Joint Resolution” of the House as in substance a treaty. He could not therefore support the immediate Bill before the Senate – he denied the power in Congress to annex foreign territory to the United States. Mr. Rives was in favor of the annexation of Texas at the proper time, and in the proper way, but he could not consent to violate the Constitution, or to establish a new precedent of incalculable mischief to the country for the purpose of accomplishing the end. He corrected Mr. Walker’s statement, that the Supreme Court had expressed the opinion that Congress could acquire foreign territory. The opinion of the court was “that new States could be admitted into the Union” by Congress after the foreign territory had been acquired by treaty. He warmly protested against the power now assumed by the two Houses of Congress – as violative of the law and Constitution of the Union. We might get Texas (he said) but it would loosen some of the strongest cords of Union that now hold the States together. It was impious to ask Heaven to sanction and bless a Country that had been enlarged by a violation of the laws and Constitution of the land. Heaven might be invoked to bless what was right and just, but never what was wrong. If Congress could annex Texas to the Union, it could strike Texas from the Union, and already there were cries of a repeal of the Union if the act should be attempted. He warned the Slave-holding States to be careful how they admitted the right of Congress to legislate upon one of their institutions which the bill before the Senate did. The Hon. Mr. Woodbury followed Mr. Rives in an excited and able speech in favour of the bill, going over the grounds pretty much which had been traveled by Mr. Buchanan. So far, the debate has been very able on both sides, and promises to continue in interest. – Mr. Choate of Massachuset5ts has the floor next. [LA]
Mr. Witcher, on the part of the Select Committee to whom the resolutions in relation to the annexation of Texas were referred, reported that the Committee had been unable to come to any agreement, and asked that they be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, which was agreed to.
Mr. Edmunds of H. , moved to take up and consider the resolutions in relation to the annexation of Texas.
The Senate’s resolution reads:
Resolved, by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the annexation of Texas to the United States should be effected with no further delay than may be necessary for the accomplishment of that object, by the constituted authorities of the two countries.
Mr. Bowers understood that Mr. Witcher intended to move an amendment, and he wished to await it, before he offered his.
Mr. Witcher said that his offering an amendment would depend on circumstances. At present he should not.
Mr. Preston hoped the Whigs would make no amendments to the Senate’s resolutions. They could consistently support that resolution. It referred them to the “constituted authorities of the two countries. ”
Mr. Goodson manifested some oppugnation to the Senate’s resolution, without declaring his opposition.
Mr. Witcher re-urged the recommendations of Mr. Preston: - that the Whigs should offer no amendments to the Senate’s resolution. Let the Whigs stand still – if the other side make any charge, we would be prepared to meet it.
Mr. Stovall thought it must be manifest that the Senate’s resolution ought to be modified. Since its passage, the joint resolution had passed the House of Representatives, and it was proper to express our opinions on that.
Mr. Edmunds of H. , believed that he could acquiesce in the Senate’s resolution; and leave our Senators to put the proper construction upon it. (“Agreed,” by Mr. Witcher. )
Mr. Lanier gave his views against the constitutionality of annexation by joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress.
Mr. Cootes called for the ayes and noes.
Mr. Jackson said as he could not vote (being tied off) he hoped the vote would now be taken, and he called the previous question. He would have voted with great pleasure in the negative. The 1st resolution was adopted as follows: - Ayes 89, Noes 32.
The 2d resolution of the Senate, requiring the 1st resolution to be communicated to our Senators, &c. then came up.
Mr. Gordon moved a substitute for the 2d resolution of the Senate, as follows:
That the admission of Texas on the conditions and guarantee set forth in the joint resolution passed by the House of Representatives on the 25th Jan’y ’45, and sent to the Senate for its concurrence, in the opinion of the General Assembly are [is] just and proper, and will be approved by the people.
Mr. Taylor of N. B. called for the reading of the joint resolution passed by the House of Representatives.
Mr. Witcher knew that the gentlemen on the other side were not content with their own proposition, and this further amendment did not surprise him. M. W. said that the proposition, endorsing the resolution of the House of Representatives, raised a novel question in this State. Its object is to act upon our Senators – to require them to perjure themselves or surrender their seats. Mr. W. wished to know of his political friends, if they were prepared for this – if those who sent them here expected them to take any such ground. He believed that a majority of the people of Virginia were in favor of annexation; but they wished it to be effected without any violation of the Constitution – such as would be accomplished by this mode of action. Mr. Witcher declared that for himself he was opposed to the acquisition of Texas, on account of the mode by which it was proposed, and the motives through which it had been urged. Some of his objections have been modified recently in some degree by the compromise of the slavery question, in the joint resolution of the House of Representatives. But still he was not prepared for it; he apprehended great danger and disquiet to the confederacy form it. Mr. W. again adverted to the motive of this movement: It was a hit at our Senators, and he appealed to the Whigs to know, whether they would aid their adversaries in such an object. But even if this amendment were carried by a small majority here, would it receive and ought it to receive any respect at Washington? He thought it ought not. The proposition involved in the joint resolution was novel to the people – it had never been discussed before them, and they had made up no opinion on it – and a small vote here undertaking to give the popular voice would be entitled to no weight. Mr. W. concluded by offering a substitute for Mr. Gordon’s which left out of view the constitutional question – leaving that to our Senators.
Resolved, by the General Assembly of Virginia, That it is their deliberate opinion that a large majority of the people of Virginia desire the Immediate Annexation of Texas to the U. States by any lawful and constitutional mode. And that the conditions and guarantees set forth in the joint resolution passed by the House of Representatives, and sent to the Senate of the U.S. for its concurrence, in the opinion of this General Assembly, are just and proper and will be approved by the people. This General Assembly however forbearing to express any opinion as to the constitutionality of Annexation by the mode of a joint resolution of the two houses of Congress.
Messrs. Gordon and Bowden opposed, and Messrs. Cocke, Broadus, of Car. , and Taylor, of N. B. , supported Mr. Witcher’s substitute.
Mr. Marshall, of F. , moved the indefinite postponement of the whole. He was impelled by a high sense of duty to make this motion. This was a great National question, the decision of which properly belonged to our National representatives. For this reason, he would dismiss the subject. For another reason he was in favor of it. The session was very far advanced, and it was high time that the business of the State was attended to. – Mr. Marshall called the ayes and noes.
Mr. Gordon spoke farther in support of his amendment.
Mr. Lanier replied – and when he concluded the vote was taken upon the adoption of Mr. Witcher’s subsititute; wich resulted, ayes 59, noes 58. [LA]
The schr. Water Witch, which sailed from Tampico on the 26th ult. , arrived last evening with papers up to the 22d ult. , from Vera Cruz. The Minister of Exterior Relations announced to Congress on the 17th January, the capture of Santa Anna.
(Official Note. )
Head Quarters of Constitutional Militia.
At Jico, half past 9 o’clock
His Excellency Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna has just been brought in by four of our men, and is now in our power. I am in too much haste to write the particulars before tomorrow.
To His Excellency the Minister of Exterior Relations.
Jalapa, 16th January
The Minister further informs the Government that Santa Anna would be conducted to the fortress of Perote to await the decision of the Government.
It appears that Santa Anna committed the most outrageous barbarities on the inhabitants of Puebla, killing, pillaging and burning until he was met by the Constitutional army, which had defeated him. His army, before he committed depredations amounting to 12,000 men, being disgusted at his conduct, abandoned their ranks and joined the Constitutional troops.
The conflict, however, was not without blookshed, and several hundred were reported as killed on both sides.
When Santa Anna was taken he had scarcely a friend to accompany him.
Gen. Ampudia, governor of Tobasco, was superseded by Martinez and ordered to Vera Cruz. He exhonerates himself of having done any thing illegal or of resisting the popular will, and throws all the blame on Santa Anna’s orders.
Government had ordered all the properties of Santa to be seized and confiscated.
The general belief was that Santa Anna would be condemned by the Government and executed.
Public tranquility was re-established throughout Mexico, and public festivals had been ordered throughout the Republic to celebrate the glorious event of the downfall of the tyrant Santa Anna.
Government has issued orders for the disbandonment of the army, and invites the absent to return and resume their occupations.
A passenger who came in the Water Witch reports that Santa Anna left Perote, under a strong escort for the City of Mexico, on the 20th ult. – Balt. Amer. [LA]
The Texas debate at our last dates was still progressing with great spirit. The most able Senators on both sides have participated in the debate and the Senate Chamber has been daily crowded to overflowing by attentive and excited listeners. We understand the vote was to have been taken yesterday (Wednesday) on the “Joint Resolution” of the House of Representatives, and the result considered exceedingly doubtful. The friends of Annexation seem to be sanguine of success as they are now certain of the vote of three Whig Senators – Henderson of Mississippi, Merrick of Maryland, and Johnson of Louisiana. The Richmond Enquirer, and other leading Texas Journals, are bespattering Mr. Merrick with as much praise for his “able and eloquent speech”(!) as they are belaboring Mr. Rives for his “weak and wishawashy argument” against annexation. It is a great crime in the eyes of the friends of annexation, for Mr. Rives to speak and vote against the measure, because Virginia has declared in favor of it – but a virtue in Mr. Merrick to speak and vote in favor of it, when Maryland has declared against it in equally as emphatic a manner. We yet hope the law and Constitution of our blessed Union will find safety in that august body of wisdom and statesmanship, and that the “Joint Resolution” of the House will be defeated. [LA]
In the Texas debate in the Assembly a few days ago, Gen. Fonda, of Montgomery county, avowed himself in favor of “immediate annexation,” and expressed an entire confidence that his constituents agreed with him in this opinion. On Monday last the town elections in Montgomery county were held, and for the first time, in we know not how many years, the Whigs have obtained a majority in the Board of Supervisors, carrying seven towns out of ten! The People will speak out on this question, even thought the Legislature should continue to be dumb. –Albany Evening Journal. [LA]March
THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES
The long agony is over, and the Texas Party in Congress have triumphed over the Law and Constitution of the Union. This triumph was announced and, welcomed by the firing of one hundred guns from Capitol Hill. The spirit of Progressive Democracy now aims at universal empire, and the Anglo Saxon is proclaimed by them Emperor of the world. Where is this lust after territory now to cease?--the “area of freedom” will soon begin to ask for more elbow-room, and then Canada, Mexico, Cuba and California must be ours. The same power which annexed Texas has the right to take possession of all the others. That cursed spirit of idleness which is so prevalent now-a-days, and which refuses to sustain its lazy body by honest industry, is constantly in hot pursuit of office, and the legions are annually increasing, and hence the patriotic desire (!) to “extend the area of freedom,” that a wider range may be made for the establishment of new offices, and more incumbents.
That mighty and fearful arm which threatens to destroy the liberties of the people of this republic is daily becoming more strong--the Executive power of the Government now adays with almost unlimited power--the independence of the Legislature is surrendered into its hands, and the powers of our National Judiciary prostrated at its feet. Where is that spirit of State’s Rights Republicanism which resisted the attempted encroachments of Jackson? Ah! what a shaking there ought to be among the “marrowless shin bones” of the chivalry of the South,--those peculiar baters of consolidation and advocates of a strict construction of the Constitution. The principles of ’98--we wonder who is to preach the funeral sermon over them--the Virginia Democracy certainly ought to be the chief mourners, and the land jobbers and Texas scrip holders the grave diggers and pall bearers.
We think Texas will not refuse to accept the proffered Annexation, and after the arrangements are all concluded the President of the United States will order and command Congress to confirm the negotiations by a “Joint Resolution. ” Will the people submit quietly to this open violation of their Constitution?--we doubt it. Will the Texans accept annexation upon such terms, when the same power which annexed her to the Union by a bare majority of two votes, may strike her again from the Union at their pleasure?--she ought not. But that our readers may see the “joint Resolution” of Congress and the addition of Mr. Benton’s Bill as an amendment, we annex them below. We shall take occasion to refer again to this subject. The vote in the Senate stood Ayes 27 Noes 25: in the House of Representatives, Ayes 132, Noes 76. [MLD]
JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXING TEXAS TO THE U. STATES
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.
Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit:
First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.
Second, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defense belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owning to said Republic of Texas; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.
Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And as such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted to the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking permission may desire. ”
In the Senate, on Thursday night, Mr. Walker moved to amend the joint resolution by adding thereto the following:
And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then,
“Be it Resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extant and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United States be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States.
“Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct. ” [MLD]
We clip the following extract from the editorial comments of the last Richmond Enquirer on the Inaugural Address of President Polk. The Richmond Junto,” that is the “Old Hunker” division of them, are surely graveled at the defeat of Mr. Ritchie’s pet, Mr. Andrew Stephenson, for the Premiership, and if possible they will pick a quarrel with Mr. Polk about it, is some shape or other. --Mr. Ritchie says:--
“There is one other subject of peculiar importance, which the president touches in his excellent Address. He is right in supposing, that one great difficulty in the practical Administration of the Government would arise in the adjustment of the Tariff. It will indeed constitute the great battle ground between the two parties of the country.
The Address lays down very clearly the general principles which may be expected to regulate his course on this important question. But there is one part of it, upon which we are altogether prepared to express at this moment a decided opinion. It is that in which he speaks of the discrimination which he may desire to be made within the range of the Revenue principle.
If the president means that, to the whole amount of the revenue to be raised, a discrimination may be made with an eye to the protection of home industry, then we might be compelled to dissent from the proposition. If on the contrary, he only means that the interests of the country and its industry indiscriminately are to derive all the incidental protection, which the required amount of duties would afford upon the principles of the Compromise Act, discriminating with an eye to revenue, then we concur with the Inaugural Address, and think that it will be backed by the great body of the President’s warm Southern friends. Our opinions on this subject have been too often and too strongly disclosed, to render it necessary to repeat them here. ” [MLD]
Mexican papers to the 12th February state that SANTA ANNA was to be tried on the 24th of that month by the Congress, sitting as a jury; and if he did not prefer to be present before the jury, but sent a written defense, the trial was to take place sooner. He was still in prison at Perote, and appeared to have full liberty to communicate by letter with whomsoever he pleased. [MLD]
A SKETCH OF SANTA ANA
HIS FORTUNES WITHIN A FEW YEARS
The recent revolution in Mexico, together with the overwhelming changes in the fortunes of Santa Ana, have imparted fresh interest to the life of a man, whose career has been so extraordinary; and who but the other day--“the observed of all observers”--with the destinies of a nation in his hands, is now, it may be presumed, little better than a fugitive and an outlaw. The more immediate events in his history, have been full of stirring excitement. His capture by the Texians, his release, his return to Mexico in an American National vessel, his overthrow by Gen. Almonte, his re-election as President, his loss of a leg, in defense of Vera Cruz, his new movements for the re-conquest of Texas, the death of his wife, his speedy marriage to another, the late popular outbreak, his tyrannical conduct towards the Mexican Congress, the fidelity to him of a large body of followers, the pertinacity, of his resistance, his repeated attacks on Puebla, and finally, if the last accounts be true, his negotiation for surrender.
The conduct of his countrymen in relation to his amputated leg, must be pronounced brutal and disgraceful, and will long be remembered as a cowardly manifestation of popular fury. Brantz Mayer, in his interesting work on Mexico, gives an account of the burial of this leg. He arrived at the city gates just after sunrise, as they commenced firing in honor of the day, which was to be celebrated by an entombment of the remains of the shattered limb. The principal streets were covered with an awning; the military were out in their finery; the officers of government mingled in the procession; and the limb of the President, cut off in 1838, afterwards burned at Very Cruz, was disinterred and bought to the capital in 1842, laid in a crystal vase, borne to the cemetery of Santa Paula, where it was deposited in the monument erected to receive it, by the command of the General of the Mexican Army. A solemn eulogium on the President was then pronounced by a distinguished Mexican, and the ceremonies in honor of the precious relic were concluded.
What a contrast have recent events presented! The leg has been torn from its place of repose, and kicked about the streets! A statue of Santa Ana, which had been placed on a beautiful column, has been thrown down and trampled upon.
A writer in the New Orleans Tropic, who was a witness to the Revolution in the city of Mexico, speaks of the Assembly of people in front of the Piazza. --“Shouts of vivas” (he says) from twice ten thousand voices rent the air, clenched and uplifted hands and gesticulations of the most determined character indicated the deep seated enthusiasm of the vast multitude. It was indeed a tremendous spectacle. I witnessed many men so impressed and affected at the sight that the tears were streaming down their faces. --It was a motley scene. The Mexican gentleman, the merchant, the lepero, in his many colored clothing, the officer in his gorgeous regimentals, soldiers, crowds of young men, women, and boys all combined to furnish a spectacle which those who witnessed it and the intense enthusiasm which appeared to burn in every one, I will never forget.
But a few months before, Santa Ana visited the theatre in his splendid state carriage, encompassed by other carriages, and followed by about seventy lancers. --Two rows of grenadiers were stationed the whole length of the entrance to the theatre, making a lane for the General-in-chief to pass. There were hardly any under six feet--fine looking men.
The theatre outside was brilliantly illuminated; splendid transparencies with the inscriptions “patron of this edifice,” “Hero of Tampico,” “Hero of Vera Cruz,” “Siempre Vencedor”--always a Conqueror--these and similar brilliancies formed a dazzling spectacle. But the transparency that towered above the rest, was a full length portrait of Santa Ana crowned with laurel by the genius of Victory, who was seen hovering over his head.
This was recently torn down by the mob, and converted into a kind of broom with which the streets are swept.
Mr. Mayer, in his work already quoted from, describes Santa Ana as about six feet high, well made and of graceful bearing, and stumping along on an old fashioned wooden peg, having rejected as uncomfortable, all the mock legs with patent springs, that had been presented to him. His dress on all public occasions was that of a high officer of the army, and his breast was covered with richly gemmed decorations. “His brow,” (we here quote form Mr. Mayer’s description, written in 1842) “shaded with black hair somewhat sprinkled with gray, is by no means lofty, but narrow and smooth. His head, although rather small, and too long for its breadth has a marked and boldly defined outline, indicating talent and resolution. His nose is straight and well shaped, and brows knit in a line over close and brilliant eyes, which are said to lash with life, when reused to passion. His complexion is dark and sallow and his temperament evidently bilious. His mouth is the most remarkable feature. Its prominent expression, when at rest, is that of mingled pain and anxiety. In perfect repose, you would think him looking on a dying friend, with whose sufferings he was deeply but helplessly sympathizing. There is no vindictiveness, ferocity or ill temper in his expression. ”
In another part of his work Mr. Mayer says:--“As we passed the front of the National Palace, from out of its main portal dashed fifty gaily caparisoned hussars, followed by a coach richly decked with crimsoned velvet and gold, drawn by four white horses, and driven by a Yankee coachman. Behind these dashed fifty more hussars; while at the side of the coach, six aids reined in their spirited charges. There is but one person in the vehicle. His dress is that of a General of Division, with red facings and gold embroideries. He wears a number of decorations around his neck, while a medal blazing with diamonds, voted to him by the nation, rests on his bosom. His sword handle is studded with diamonds, and his hand rests on a diamond headed cane. --He is uncovered, and as he passes bows gracefully to your salutation, you recognize the President of the Republic. ”--Such was Santa Ana only a year or two ago. --Phil. Inq. [MLD]
WHIG ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA
WHIG LEGISLATIVE MEETING
At a meeting of the Whig members of the General Assembly, held on Monday evening, Feb. 17th, 1845, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:
“Resolved, That the resolution adopted by the Democratic Legislative convention, a few days since, in which it is asserted without qualification, that the conduct of the Whig party in the House of Delegates of Virginia, in reference to the annexation of Texas to the Union, was dictated by a COVERT DESTEN TO DEFEAT THE MEASURE,’ considering the relation of its authors to those whom they have thus assailed, is highly indelicate, and the imputation is indignantly repelled as a wanton Calumny. ”
A committee, consisting of Messrs. Robert C. Standard, Wm. Ballard Preston, Richard H. Toler, Allen T. Caperton, E. P. Bitts, and John S. Gallaher, was appointed to prepare a brief statement setting forth the position and action of the Whig party, during the session, on the Texas question, on the Senatorial election, on the election of Councillor, and in relation to the reception of the Land Money--to report to an adjourned meeting to be held on Wednesday evening the 19th instant.
V.W. SOUTHALL, Chm.
R.H.Toler, J.S. Gallaher, Sec.
At an adjourned meeting of the Whig members, held on Wednesday evening, the 19th instant, the Committee appointed to report statement in reference to the action of the Whig party, on the several matters referred to it, made a report, which, being adopted, was ordered to be published, in connection with the foregoing resolution.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Connected with the action of the General Assembly, during its late Session, on several Questions, addressed to the People of Virginia.
The Whig members of the Legislature of Virginia, on the eve of separating, and of returning to their constituents, deem it due alike to themselves and to those whom they have had the honor to represent to lay before them a brief but circumstantial statement of facts, connected with the action of that body, during its recent session, upon the several topics hereafter adverted to. [MLD]
THE TEXAS QUESTION
About the middle of January, the following resolution, adopted by a majority of the Senate, was communicated to the House of Delegates.
“Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the annexation of Texas to the United States should be affected with no further delay than may be necessary for the accomplishment of that object by the constituted authorities of the two countries. ”
This resolution was made the order of the day in the House of Delegates on the 29th of January, when Mr. Toler offered the following as a substituted therefore:
“Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia, That the annexation of Texas to the United States ought to be affected at the earliest period that may be practicable consistently with the permanent welfare of Virginia, the obligations of the constitution, the preservation of the internal peace of the Union and the faith and honour of the country; and that this General Assembly, reposing entire confidence in the ability and patriotism of the Senators of Virginia, rely upon them faithfully to discharge all their obligations to the State and to the Union upon this question. ”
And M. Bowden submitted the following amendment:
“All of which in the opinion of this General Assembly can be properly accomplished by the Senate of the United States passing the joint resolution which has passed the House of Representatives. ”
The Senate’s resolutions with the pending amendments, were again taken up on the 31st of January, in the House of Delegates; whereupon, a motion was made by Mr. Witcher to refer them to a Select Committee, which was agreed to; and committee was accordingly constituted, consisting of an equal number of both political parties.
In asking for this committee, the avowed object of the moyer and of those who supported the proposition was a compromise, if possible, between the conflicting views of the two parties, and the suggestion, of a resolution which might receive a vote approaching as nearly as possible to unanimity, and which, it was argued, would for that reason carry with it greater moral weight, and exert a more powerful influence upon public sentiment, as well as upon our Senators, upon whom it was designed more directly to operate, than could possibly attach to a resolution adopted, if adopted at all, by a strictly party vote, and by a bare majority--Does a proposition of thin conciliatory character, proceeding from such a motive, wear the semblance of a design, either open or ‘covert,’ to defeat the annexation of Texas to the Union, by a mode deemed to be constitutional, and upon terms regarded as just and proper? But our purpose is to narrate facts rather than to comment upon them, satisfied as we are, that that narration will carry a lucid and irresistible commentary on its face.
The committee assembled forthwith, and discussed the proposition submitted to its consideration, in several successive committee proposed as the basis of action, a resolution, in substance the same as that which was ultimately adopted by the House. To that proposition the only objection urged was that, while approving of the terms and conditions of the joint resolution providing for the admission of Texas into the Union, which had received the sanction of the House of Representatives, pretermitted, us it was intended to do, the constitutionality of that resolution--it being obvious that unless the constitutional question should be thus pretermitted, this avowed purpose for which the committee had been appointed to wit: the procurement of something like unanimity in the action of the Legislature, would be frustrated. But out opponents would be content with nothing less than the adoption of a resolution which would cover this debatable ground, either in express terms or by inevitable inference. The committee, therefore, dissolved, without concurring in say proposition, and reported that act to the House.
The consideration of the Senate’s resolution with the amendments thereto proposed by Messrs. Toler and Bowden, was thereupon resumed; but, before any vote was taken, these gentlemen asked and obtained slave each to withdraw his amendment; and the question then recurred upon the Senate’s resolution as above quoted, which was adopted by the decisive vote of 89 to 31. Of the 89 affirmative votes 34 were Whigs who thus indicated their willingness to place the subject on the precise footing which their political opponents in the Senate had originally desired. In the interval however, between the adoption of the resolution by the Senate and action upon it by the House of Delegates, information had been received from Washington city, which induced the authors of the resolution to take a n advances step. The Joint resolution of Milton Brown, which had been some time pending in the House of Representatives, and which it is well known was NOT the favorite scheme of the “Democratic” party, had passed that House. Hence, Mr. Gordon offered the following resolution, to be appended to that which had received the sanction of both branches of the Legislature.
“Resolved, That the admission of Texas on the condition and guarantees set forth in the joint resolution passed by the House of Representatives on the 25th day of January 1845, and sent to the senate for its concurrence, in the opinion of General Assembly, is just and proper and will be approved by the people. ”
And Mr. Witcher proposed the following:
“Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia. That it is their deliberate opinion that a large majority of the people of Virginia desire the immediate annexation of Texas to the United States by any lawful and constitutional mode. And that the conditions and guarantees set forth in the joint resolution passed by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate of the United States for its concurrence, in the opinion of this General Assembly are just and proper, and will be approved by the people. This General Assembly, however, forbearing to express any opinion as to the constitutionality of annexation by the mode of a joint resolution of the two houses of Congress.
The substitute was adopted by the House, by a vote of 66 to 61--the Whigs with two exceptions, voting for it--their opponents voting unanimously against it. Why was this resolution unpalatable to our opponents? It is manifest that their hostility to it grew exclusively out of the fact that the question of constitutional power was expressly waived by it. This was the point of difference, as will be seen, from the first to the last; and an unyielding adherence by our opponents to their own peculiar views on this point, closed effectually the door to compromise and unanimity of action.
At this stage of the proceeding, Mr. Edmunds, of Halifax, proposed the following additional resolution:
“Resolved, That our senators be instructed to vote for the joint resolution which passed the House of Representatives on the 25th day of January, 1845, and was sent to the Senate for its concurrence, providing for the admission of Texas as a State into this Union. ”
The resolution involving the same principle with that just rejected, though more objectionable in its terms, was rejected by nearly a party vote--ayes 60, noes 66. --And the resolutions, as amended by the House, were then returned to the Senate for the section of that body.
On the 3rd of February, the Senate amended the second resolution of the House in two important features--first by striking there from the latter clause, in the following words, to wit. “The General Assembly, however, forbearing to express any opinion as to the constitutionality of annexation by the mode of a joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress”--and secondly by striking out the words, “And that the ‘conditions’ and ‘guarantees’ set forth in the joint resolution passed by the House of Representatives, and sent to the Senate of the United States for its concurrence, in the opinion of the General Assembly, are just and proper, and will be approved by the people,”--and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following:
“And hat the joint Resolution passed by the House of Representatives, on the 25th day of January, 1845, and seat to the Senate of the United States for its concurrence, providing for the admission of Texas as one of the States of this Union, is a lawful and constitutional mode of annexation;--and that the conditions and guarantees set forth therein, in the opinion of this General Assembly are just and proper, and will be approved by the people. ”
Thus amended the resolutions were returned to the House of Delegates. --That body, however, refused to concur in the Senate’s amendments. The Senate “insisted,” and then the House “adhered. ” In this stage of proceedings, a Committee of free conference was asked by the Senate, and the request was promptly responded to by the House, with a sincere desire on the part of the majority of the latter body, but with only a faint hope, in view of what had already transpired, that it might resolute in the harmonies cooperation of the two bodies in a proposition, which might command nearly. If not quite an unanimous vote in both. --The Committee met in conference; but it was very soon apparent that no agreement could be effected. The Senate Committee met in conference; but it was very soon apparent that no agreement could be effected. The Senate Committee mad the following proposition as the ground of compromise:
“The committee of conference on the part of the Senate propose to the committee of conference on the part of the House of Delegates, that the Senate will recede from the amendment to the amendment of the House, which is the following words and figures, namely:--Strike out form the word ‘mode’ in the sixth lieu, to the word ‘people’ inclusive, in the 13th line of the amendment of the House of Delegates; and insert--and that the Joint Resolution passed by the House of Representatives on the 25th day of January, 1845, and sent to the Senate of the United States for its concurrence, providing for the admission of Texas as one of the States of this Union, is a lawful and constitutional mode of annexation, and that the conditions and guarantees set forth therein, in the opinion of this General Assembly, are just and proper and will be approved by the people. ’--and that the House of Delegates shall recede from its adherence to its disagreement to the second amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House of Delegates, the following words--‘This General Assembly, however, forbearing to express any opinion as to the constitutionality of annexation by the mode of a Joint Resolution of the two Houses of Congress. ”--And that the amendment of the House of Delegates, by striking out the last member of said amendment as last above recited, shall then be adopted by the senate and House of Delegates.
Had this proposition been assented to, the second resolution would have been left in the shape in which it originally passed the House of Delegates, except that the latter clause of that resolution would have been omitted. And, as that clause was inserted in the resolution, only “out of abundant caution,” and for the express purpose of “excluding the conclusion,” which the Whig members of the Legislature would not even by remote inference that so expression of opinion as to the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the Joint Resolution was thereby intended, the House committee had no objection to he proposition of the Senate committee, provided that that essential fact should be expressly stated in the report of the proceedings of the committees to their respective Houses. They therefore responded to the Senate’s committee as follows:
“The Committee of conference on the part of the House of Delegates, agree to the proposition of the committee on the part of the Senate, with this distinct understanding; that although the words ‘This General Assembly, however, forbearing to express any opinion as to the constitutionality of annexation by the mode of a Joint Resolution of the two Houses of Congress,’ be stricken out, the General Assembly do, nevertheless, forbear either to affirm or to disaffirm the constitutionality of the admission of Texas into the Union in the mode proposed in the Joint Resolution which passed the House of Representatives on the 25th of January last, and that the amendment of the House of Delegates to the Senate’s Resolution, which, by the proposition of the Senate’s committee of conference, is proposed to be adopted, does not in terms, and is not intended to affirm or disaffirm the constitutionality of annexation by the mode of Joint Resolution which assed the House of Representatives on the 25th day of January last. And that this paper shall be communicated to the Senate and House of Delegates as the basis of the report and recommendation which they propose for the adoption of the two Houses. ”
The committee of the senate declined acceding to the terms of this explanatory report; and each House adhering to its own resolutions, they fell by that disagreement.
Upon this plain and unvarnished statement of facts, showing the origin, progress, and termination of this subject before the two Houses, the Whig members of the Legislature are satisfied to go before the People of Virginia. It demonstrates, in the first place, their willingness to express the opinion that a majority of the People of Virginia are in favor of the annexation of Texas in a legal and constitutional manner, and their probation of the “conditions” and “guarantees” of the Joint Resolution which passed the House of Representatives; while, on the other hand, they insisted that the question of constitutionality, involved in that resolution, should, be pretermitted--because in that shape alone could any resolution command the vote of a large majority of both branches of the Legislature. This concession our opponents refused to make, even to secure that unanimity, which they professed so much to desire--preferring, rather, the defeat of all the resolutions, INCLUDING EVEN THAT WHICH THEY AHD THEMSELVE ADOPTED< AND WITH WHICH THEY OUGHT, OF COURSE, TO HAVE BEEN WELL SATIFIED, and which by the co-operation of more than half of the Whigs of the House of Delegate, had received the sanction of a large majority in both branches of the Legislature. It is for the People to decide, upon this statement of facts, whether the annexation of Texas, or the desire to make PARTY CAPITAL out of that measure was the leading motive by which our opponents were influenced.
The point of difference between the majorities in the two Houses, we repeat was this: SHALL THE QUESITON OF CONSITUTIONALITY BE PRETERMITTED IN THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED? IF the Senate’s committee, by proposing to receive form a portion of their proposed amendment to the resolution of the House, intended so to waive an expression of opinion upon the constitutional question,--neither affirming nor denying the power of Congress to annex a foreign territory to the Union by a joint resolution, which as understood by the Whigs, did pretermit the constitutional question, while, according to their constitution, that resolution affirmed, by fair and legitimate construction, the constitutionality of the joint resolution of the House of Representatives, it would have been, in our estimation, a piece of solemn trifling--nay, worse, of deliberate deception--to accept, under THE PRETEXT OF A COMPROMISE, a proposition which according to their own showing, was of equivocal import, and which, upon their understanding of this meaning, CONCEDED NOTHING. The Whig members of the Legislature would have well merited the rebuke of their constituents, had they yielded their assent to a resolution which was confessedly of doubtful construction, and which would have subjected them to the reproach of consenting to do by indirection, what they refused to do openly and in the light of day. They insisted that the action of the Legislature, on this important question, whatever that action might be, should be clear and explicit, and not left open to different and opposite interpretations. The public judgment, they do not doubt, will sustain them in this course; for they cannot so far discredit the intelligence of the people of Virginia, or question their love of frank and fair dealing, as to suppose, that they would approve, or even tolerate, a deliberate attempt to “palter with them in a double sense,” by assenting to a resolution, with entire unanimity as to its words, while all parties thus assenting to it knew that it was susceptible, and was really intended to admit, of conflicting constructions. [MLD]
NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTION
It turns out after all, that the Texas party is defeated in New Hampshire in their efforts to proscribe J.P. Hale for his vote in Congress against Texas. According to return in the Boston Post, of Monday, Woodbury, who the Locofocos set up for Congress in opposition to Hale, is defeated of an election. He falls some two thousand votes behind the other Locofoco candidates, and wants nearly a thousand votes of an election.
Steele (L.F. ) is re-elected Governor by a meager majority. --Balt. Pal. [MLD]
The New Orleans papers have received papers from Galveston to the 8th inst. , and from Washington (the capital) to the 1st inst. by the steamship New York. It appears that some of the Texans are not at all pleased with the terms of annexation contained in the resolutions just passed. We notice, says the Picayune, that some of the leading journals hold language opposed to annexation, or at least unfriendly to the measure.
The Galveston Weekly News of the 1st inst. , says: “We have already furnished incontestable evidence that British policy has so far prevailed in Texas, that Her Brittannic Majesty’s Charge has obtained a pledge form ex-President Houston to use his utmost endeavors against annexation. ” The same paper hints at the opposition of the present administration in Texas to the measure. [MLD]
PROSPECTUS OF THE RICHMOND TIMES.
The undersigned have united themselves for the purpose of erecting the TIMES AND COMPILER into a journal of a more active political character, with the hope of enlarging its circulation, and extending the influence, and thereby contributing to propagate more widely and settle more firmly the great principles of the Whig party. In the month of August, 1844, the Editors of the Times and Compiler abandoned the neutrality which they had preserved, and avowed themselves the open and zealous advocates of the measures of the WHIG PARTY, and the election of HENRY CLAY. Since that time, they have steadily adhered to the great WHIG CAUSE, which they believed to be the cause of the Country, and have opposed the measures and principles of the Democratic Party. They have been encouraged to go on in their undertaking: they have received the support and cordial good wishes of many influential friends; and now, with additional editorial strength, the appeal before the public under a different name, with more extended views, and with a more determined resolution to deserve the confidence of the Whig party.
The limits of a prospectus will allow only a short statement of the principles by which we shall be guided. We propose to conduct the RICHMOND TIMES in a firm and manly, yet courteous and conciliatory spirit. Whilst it will be a paper thoroughly Whig in its course, it will not use the liberty of the press to drive from the party those who many differ with in on individual or unimportant questions. Where such differences unhappily exist, it will seek to compose rather than to widen them.
We love the UNION OF THESE STATES, and feel that they are all our common country. Our object, therefore, will be, to discourage all sectional differences, which may be designed or may tend, to diminish the veneration in which that Union ought every where to be held. Still, we shall, as citizens of a Southern State, watch, with jealous solitude, the course of public events, in reference to the protection of our peculiar domestic institutions, and resist every attempt to subvert or weaken them.
With regard to the prominent questions of the day, we are thoroughly Whig.
We shall warmly advocated such a Tariff as Mr. Clay is in favor of, a Tariff for revenue, with incidental protection to domestic manufactures. Such a Tariff we believe the Tariff of 1842 to be. If it be found, after a fair trial, to produce more revenue than is needed, we shall wish to see it reduced but still retaining the principle for protection.
When the establishment of a NATIONAL BANK may be before the people for discussion, we shall be found its steady supporters.
We shall earnestly urge the policy of DISTRIBUTION.
With regard to the subject of TEXAS, since a majority of the people have decided, through Congress, upon the expediency of annexation, and the legality of annexing by joint resolution, we shall patiently wait to hear the decision of Texas. If it accede to the proposition of Congress, we shall consider the faith of the country pledged, the question settled: and shall deprecate all further agitation of the subject, and oppose any effort to repeal the joint resolution passed by the Congress. If the question be kept open by the refusal of Texas to accede to the terms of the joint resolution, and by a new proposal to treat with our Government, we shall approve of such a treaty as we may believe will be beneficial to the country, and just to the South.
It will be one of our chief objects to encourage the improvement and steady support of all the Institutions of Learning in the State, from the Common Schools to the Colleges and Universities.
We shall advocate such schemes of Improvement in the State, as may be safely and judiciously undertaken, and, particularly, the extension and completions of the James River and Kanawha Canal.
The interests of the City of Richmond will receive, from us, the attention which has always distinguished the paper.
In the Commercial and News departments of the Times, every effort will be made, not only to maintain the reputation of the Complier, but to improve upon it. The most assiduous attention will be paid to all those occurrences in the commercial world, which will be of interest or importance to the commercial class of the community, which had extended such a liberal support to the paper heretofore.
We shall devote a portion of our paper to subjects of General Literature, and endeavor thus to make it acceptable to the reader of taste.
We shall take no part in religious discussions, but we shall not exclude the religious news of the day; and we wish our paper to preserve a character [crease]
In conclusion, we are utterly opposed to the doctrines, but still more the practices, of the Democratic party. We shall, constantly, endeavor to show that the chief danger to our Government is to be found in the tendency of the leaders of that party to prostrate every principle of order to the madness of popular excitements; whilst it has been the glory of the Whigs, that they have ever been the supporters of the laws, and have acknowledged the validity of the obligations of the States.
With these views, we present ourselves to the public. With what ability we shall sustain them, it is not our party to say; but we can affirm, that we shall do it with firmness and honesty.
WM. C. CARRINGTON,
J. A. COWARDIN,
WM. H. DAVIS.
Richmond, April 3, 1845.
THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.
We present to our readers, in another column, the highly important news brought out from Great Britain by the steamer Caledonia. This intelligence is of a character well calculated to arouse an excited feeling throughout this Country – but prudence and wisdom out at once to suggest the propriety of calm and considerate reason, instead of impulse and feeling. There is something a little more authoritative and official in the proposition of John Bull this time, than we are accustomed to see in his bullyism towards the United States – and hence the necessity of our people giving to that position its due weight and consideration. We feel apprehensive that a rupture must sooner of later take place between these two great Nations, and indeed we do not see how matters as they now stand are likely to keep the apart, as the issue is joined, and the only effectual means of trying it is by a resort in the end to arms, though the day may be prolonged by the forms of negotiation and diplomacy.
We perceive the Press of the United States has got fairly to work upon this subject, and as might have been expected, a great variety of opinion is expressed. But upon one point we think there is great unanimity of opinion – and that is, that “our right to Oregon is clear and indisputable” – and such seems to be equally the settled opinion of the British Ministry and people as to their right. The only contrariety of opinion among our people, is as to time – and the bungling manner of negotiation in which the matter has been conducted. This matter is yet a subject of negotiations, between the constituted authorities of the two Countries, and while in this condition it was perhaps improper and indelicate in Mr. Polk to announce in his Inaugural Address to the “clear and indisputable right” of the United States to this territory. It was out of place, and perhaps M. Polk might have thought so himself, but as “Polk, Dallas, Texas and Oregon” were the Democratic Principles par excellence in the late Presidential contest, e thought himself bound to say something about it, and if anything, what else could he have said that would have been satisfactory to his party? But be that as it may, the American Executive has so declared our title, and we would not if we could wish him to retract one word of syllable of what he has said.
Mr. Polk is not the Government in this Country yet, thank God, notwithstanding the efforts of the strict constructionists of our Constitution and the infallible Democracy to place the power of the Government in the hands and at the direction of the President of the United States. The intelligent statesmen of Great Britain out to have understood our position better, and to have saved some of their extra heat and bullyism until the action of the co-ordinate branches of our Government. Perhaps they have read something definite enough in the action of the late Congress, where the bill to occupy Oregon almost became a law – and was rejected more upon points of etiquette, than nay doubt about the “clear and indisputable right and title” of our Country to the Oregon. The sentiments of this Country are well known, and doubtless upon the meeting of the next Congress, the subject will be again introduced and a bill passed – provided no adjustment on the controversy takes place in the recess, which is not likely to be done. Negotiation and arbitration are talked of, but for the life of us we cannot see what good negotiation will do, or how it is possible to arrange the difficulty but arbitration. Both Countries declare their title clear and indisputable, and there seems to be such unequivocal and fixed determination in the declarations that we cannot see how the arbitration is to be arranged. How is the agreement to abide the decision or award of the arbitration to be settled on before hand, and who is to do it? Who would act as umpire, and what King, Prince or Potentate is capable of deciding a controversy of the description with satisfaction and fairness to the contending parties? It is in this view, then, that we consider the disputants after the late declarations in the British Parliament. Negotiations and arbitration, in our poor judgment, are out of the question, and a war in all probability must be sooner or later the inevitable result. We trust in God such may not be the case, as of all evils war is the greatest, save and except National disgrace and dishonor. We have our National honor preserved at any cost of treasure or blood.
It will be noted the concern about Texas Annexation has almost died away in England, and neither the Government of the people seem to care a pinch of snuff one way or the other about it – notwithstanding she has been held up in this Country by the Annexationists constantly as the great “raw-head and bloody bones,” which was seeking to wrest Texas from our grasp. The Oregon is a different matter for Bull’s contemplation; and it is not so much the “broad acres” the he cares about, even there as it is the monopoly of the manufacturing trade which he is seeking to secure in India. Great Britain fears the position which the occupation of Oregon would give to our trade, commerce and maufactures, opening up as it would a direct passage to us through the Pacific to that great and growing market. That is what the sagacious statesman, the Earl of Aberdeen, meant when he said that “war is a great evil, but the overthrow of our [“Great Britain’s”] monopoly of the manufacturing system would be infinitely more dreadful – and towards this consummation the growth of American industry is rapidly tending. ” The well known and proverbial selfishness of England, and her far-reaching avarice which encompasses the globe, and mourns over its pent up boundaries, may well awaken our consideration, and afford to use a Key wherewith we may open the sealed recessed of Great Britain’s determinations and calculate with some certainty the chances of war. We have already spun out these remarks to a much greater length than we calculated upon doing when we commenced, but still we cannot conclude this article without inviting the especial attention of our readers to the annexed remarks of the Baltimore American, which are forcible and worthy of consideration.
We might speak of the matter in which the matter has been precipitated to its present position. There is cause for regret that it was not managed differently. But since the past cannot be helped it will be more to the purpose to look outwards possible results, and see how we are prepared for them.
Let us suppose that Congress meets and passes a bill for the occupation of the Oregon – such a bill as that which almost passed at the last session. The year’s notice specified in the bill would not postpone a collision with England for twelve months. Not at all. For, that notice was merely to signify that after a given time the Government of the United States would occupy the Oregon; it was a notice to quit – of which the British subjects in Oregon might have the benefit. Such a bill, if passed, would bring on hostilities at once – unless England should conclude. [MLD]
ARRIVAL OF THE CALEDONIA – SEVEN DAYS LATER FROM EUROPE.
From the Baltimore American, April 24.
The British Mail Steamer Caledonia, Capt. Lott, arrived at Boston on Monday evening, bringing Liverpool papers to the 5th instant and London files to the evening of the previous day.
From the New York papers of yesterday morning, and Willmer & Smith’s European Times, furnished us by Mesars, Adams & Co. , we make up the following summary:
The Caledonia left Liverpool on the 5th having been detained one day beyond her stated time of departure for the purpose of bringing out the result of the debate in the House of Commons on the Oregon question. That subject had become the theme of exciting interest, and was promptly brought before the House by Lord John Russell, immediately upon the reassembling of Parliament after Easter recess.
This business seems to have assumed a decided, not to say a startling – earnestness on both sides of the British House of commons. The premier confirms the statement put forth by Mr. Tyler in his annual message as to the admirable mode in which the Oregon question had been discussed between our Secretary of State and the British Minister at Washington, Mr. Packenham, but almost directly contradicts the assertion of the American Executive, of a favorable prospect of the result of the negotiation. So far from anticipating so desirable a result, Sir Robert Peel seems to see but little chance for an amicable termination of the controversy, while the United States Government continue to maintain the ground assumed by Mr. Polk in his inaugural address – It is not to be concealed, therefore, that the remarks of Sir Robert Peel afford grounds for grave apprehensions of serious difficulty. He as sternly and uncompromisingly maintains the British right to the disputed territory, as our Government and we may add a great majority of our people assert out own undoubted claim to that territory.
The subject of the Annexation of Texas as had ceased to be the cause of much excitement, and appeared to be looked upon with indifference in England, the matter being absorbed in the more serious question of Oregon. Mr. O’Connell had uttered his malediction in the Repeal Association in Ireland, but on the whole “Annexation” occupied but little of the public attention.
In the House of Lords, Lord Ashburton had made an elaborate defence oh his late boundary treaty with this country, against an attack made upon it in the House of Commons by Lord Palmeraton, and Lord John Russell.
The Cotton market remained without much change from the pervious advices by the Great Western, though the news at Liverpool that the Caledonia was to be detained a day, to bring out the result of the Oregon debate, worse so startling a face that the market immediately became firmer, and 8000 bales were disposed of at the highest quotations. the price had exhibited a tendency to recede during the early part of the week.
There had been no arrival of American packet ships in England, after the sailing of the Great Western.
The Queen’s visit to Ireland was definitely fixed to take place in July, and it was said that Parliament would be prorogued at an early day, to enable Her Majesty’s Ministers to accompany her.
The domestic news of England exhibited no noticeable feature since our last advices.
In France, nothing very new or interesting had occurred. The Chambers were engaged in the wise project of endeavoring to regulate the concerns and management of the railroad companies, a project about as feasible as […] that sometimes show themselves in this country. Legislation will hardly reach the gambling transactions in shares, to prevent which the attempt is made.
There was no additional intelligence of importance from Switzerland. The country still remained in a state of feverish agitation.
Gen Thomas Thumb was in Paris, and making a tremendous swell daily through the Champs Elyse(?)cs, in his manikin carriage, and on one occasion was escorted by a detachment of the Municipal Horse Quarls.
The Overland Mail from China had arrived, but brings no news of interest to the American reader.
THE OREGON QUESTION.
Correspondence of the New York Courier. London, April 5.
House of Commons, April 5.
On the order of the day being called, for going into Committee of Supply, Lord John Russell, being called upon, rose pursuant to notice, and stated his desire to call the attention of the house and of the Government, to certain observations in the inaugural address of the new President of the United States. Whatever might be his opinions on the general territorial question at issue, he had felt it his duty, and considered it to be the duty of every public man to abstain from publicly advancing those opinions, while their subject formed the basis of negotiations between the Governments of the two countries. But this Oregon question had been, in a manner, taken out of the sphere of the diplomatic negotiation, by a method at once new and objectionable and which threatened to overbear, by an appeal to popular feeling, the ordinary, methods of preceding between nations.
The speech also alluded, he said, (though he introduced this matter parenthetically,) to an increase of the territory of the Union – a very large increase – an increase whose limits and extent were by no means defined for Texas was annexed without any specified boundaries, and the territory thus acquires might be found to extend even to the Pacific. Mr. Webster had expressed an opinion that the duty as well as the policy of the Union was against an increase of territory, and that her proper aim was the improvement and development of her vast existing resources. But this policy had been openly departed from, and the accession of territory almost declared to form part of the policy of the United States.
His Lordship then returned to the avowed subject of his remarks, and read a passage from Mr. Polk’s address, in which that gentleman asserts that “our title to the Oregon is clear and indisputable,” and recommends the American people to carry out that right by “populating it with their wives and children,” etc.
He felt himself compelled to call attention to that state of the question, and to inquire how far Mr. Polk was justified, under existing circumstances, and while negotiations were in progress, in asserting the right of the United States to be “clear and indisputable,” and in declaring his intentions respecting the assertion of that right without reference to treaties. He then enumerated the usual methods of acquiring a claim to territory: first, by ancient discovery and actual occupation; and inquired by which of these methods the United States had acquired a title to the territory now in dispute.
His Lordship then proceeded to review and compare the English and American claims, which he did in a very fait tone and spirit, though, of course, with an undisguised persuation of the justice of the English claim and the comparative groucdiessness of the American, and summed up thus: On the first ground of Right – Ancient Discovery – the English title was the best of the two: on the second basis of the title, Treaty the United States had no ground to rest upon, except for the right of joint occupancy: and thirdly, as the Modern Discovery and Settlement, the English title, acquired by the discovery of Vancouver, and perfected by the extensive settlements of the Hudson’s Bay Company, was far superior to any similar title which the United States could allege.
He then referred to the negotiations between Mesars, Rusts and Huskisson, and to the fact that they never were brought to any satisfactory result. The two countries had never gone farther than to agree upon joint occupancy without any rights of exclusive sovereignty.
But now a new circumstance had occurred; a new and most important event had been brought to bear upon the question. President Polk had made a peremptory claim to the whole territory, and in an unusual and unwarrantable manner called upon the American people to establish their claim by occupying it with their families. After this event it was impossible that the British Government should fail to ask a speedy solution of the whole question; impossible that this unsettled state of things should be allowed to continue. the carrying out of Mr. Polk’s suggestions must produce hostile collision between English and Americans in the territory itself; and the consequences of such collision needed no prophetic comment.
He was not prepared to say how much the English Government should concede for the sake of peace. He was not prepared to say that they ought to yield anything. (He was here interrupted by vehement cheering. ) He thinks no proposal more favorable than the one made by Mr. Canning can possibly be made. – Some persons think it does not much matter which way a question is decided, affecting only a certain extent of barren territory – but it does matter – it was not to be thought of, that a territory to which England conscientiously asserted a claim should be yielded to what he must term a mere blustering assertion of the right (Loud cheers) – not to be permitted that the tone and character of English diplomacy should be lowered by unworthy concessions.
He repeated that he should have abstained from allusion to this question had it been allowed to remain one of diplomacy; but after the removal of it from that sphere in the manner described, he felt it to be his duty to bring it under consideration. He (Lord John Russell) could do in the matter, as an unofficial person, what ministers could not, unless they departed from the course prescribed by custom and courtesy, while the subject was still under negotiation. He could state exactly what the rights of England are, and upon what those rights are based. – But having done so, he should leave maters in the hands of Her Majesty’s advisers, with the most entire confidence that they would protect fully the honor and interests of the country.
Lord J. Russell sat down amid much cheering from all parts of the house, and Sir Robert Peel rose to reply.
Sir Robert had experience neither surprise or regret at the speech of the noble lord. He concurred in the noble lord’s views and statements. His lordship had justly defined the limits of introducing matters of negotiation into a popular assembly. While negotiations were pending, it was certainly a duty to abstain from such a course. Popular feeling was so easily excited, and the matter of negotiation so easily pre-judged that in all such cases the negotiations should be allowed to discharge their duties without interference. The position of the noble lord was widely different from his own. As an unofficial person, Lord John Russell was not responsible for the consequences of his speech, but Ministers of the Crown must be guarded in their speeches on such a subject. He agreed with is lordship as to the virtual removal of this subject, by Mr. President Polk, from the sphere of negotiation, and its reference to other authorities. He could not discuss the merits of the question, but he could state the condition of the negotiations.
Sir Robert accordingly gave a summary of the past negotiations in reference to the Oregon, and expressed the hope that they might be brought to a speedy and amicable termination. He referred to Mr. Tyler’s message of Dec. 3, 1844, in which a similar hope was expressed and to his refusal, on the 19th of Feb. in the present year, to lay the correspondence on the subject before Congress, lest it should interfere with pending negotiations – in which “considerable progress” had been already made. All this was in the most friendly tone and spirit. Sir Robert gladly recognized this friendly spirit, but could not admit the fact of “progress” – He was sorry to say, very little progress had been made. He then proceeded to contrast Mr. Tyler’s tone, with that adopted, only a fortnight afterward, by his successor; - since which he had received no communication from Mr. Packenham – Probably the negotiations previously in progress, were continued with the new administration. He expected daily to receive information on that point, and did not despair of a favorable issue; but in case of a contrary result, he would not object to lay the whole correspondence. [MLD]
WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN
We offered some remarks last week upon the present relations of the United States and Great Britain, and expressed the opinions that a war must sooner or later be the inevitable result between those two great and powerful Nations. We can find nothing, in our more mature reflections, to alter the conclusions to which we then came – but on the contrary, we feel more and more satisfied that our Government and people ought not to shut their eyes to the true conditions of things surrounding our relations with Great Britain. England has not assumed her present belligerent tone towards us without carefully considering her own position and ours, though in this instance, as upon two other remarkable occasions, she may be “reckoning without her host. ” She will not find us, as in the Revolution, a mere handful of men scattered from Marine to Georgia – she will not find us as she did in 1812, when we were almost solely dependant upon Europe for every thing, and particularly for the very comforts of life, which we now, under the benign influence of a protective Tariff, manufacture within our own borders. During the last war, our struggling Country suffered more privations from the above circumstances than any other, and yet the result covered our arms with a triumph of most signal victory and enduring glory.
We have expressed ourselves on several occasions opposed to war under any circumstances save a sacrifice of our National honor – this we know our people will preserve to the last , if the Country should run rivers of blood. But as much as war is to be deprecated, as sorely as the affliction might fall upon the Country, and as blighting as its effects might be upon that prosperity which is just now emerging from gloom and prostration, yet it cannot always be avoided. It is therefore the part of prudence and wisdom in the Government and people of the United States to open their ears and minds and hearts to the sage advice of him, whose judgment scaleely if ever erred upon matters pertaining to the welfare and safety of his Country – the illustrious Washington. Washington said the “surreal means of preserving peace, is to be prepared for war. ” While then, we preach peace, and do everything within the reach of human exertion and National honor to avoid a resort to arms, let us at the same time adopt the “surest means of preserving peace, to be prepared for war. ” Let our Government set about this work, and the people, without distinction of party or sect, will rally to its support. Upon a subject of this character, we are all “Federalists – all Democrats” – aye, we are all Americans, bound together by the same common destiny. Ever shrewd, calculating, and far-sighted England may think she sees in our condition the want of power to resist or defy her menaces – our State debts – the size of our Navy – the condition of our fortifications, forts and harbors, may create in her mind the idea of an easy victory and a field of renown. But we fear not the result – we doubt not the spirit of our Country – her resources are great – her coffers would be emptied in necessary to the last dollar, and her people, upon the first gleam of the sword, rallied into a firm nationality. The voice of our common country is for peace – her wisdom sanctions and values its happiness – but that voice and wisdom both proclaim to our Government that the “surest means of preserving peace, is to prepare for war. ” The following remarks, which we find in the Philadelphia Sun, express our ideas more aptly than we can do ourselves, and we therefore insert them with our approval:
Even at this hour, a vigorous application of our national energies, in the work of defence, by adding strength to our Navy, material to our army, garrisons and forts along our frontier, efficient armaments upon our Lakes, and powerful defences to our ports and harbors, may tend to alter the belligerent tone of England, and reduce it to the milder key of peace, reason, and justice. It is far better and wiser, therefore, to believe in the probability of a war, than to give indirect aid to the enemy , by chanting the song peace, either from party prejudice, or a supposed party interest. In relations that now subsist between Great Britain and this Country, not a particle of party poison ought to be infused, that would tend to encourage her in the hope, that our people were so distracted by factious hate, that she could gain more in a war, by our own feuds, than by her own arms and prowess. This suicidal deportment, in any portion of the American people, who may boast themselves as the Peace Party, is more likely to produce War, than all other causes combined. In our present relations aggression cannot proceed from us. It is for England to make demonstrations of hostility. Our position is one of quietude, peace, and self-defence. – Nor will those relations change, but by an aggressive act our opponent. It is incumbent on us, as a people, then, to be united, to act in harmony, remain firm, and present an unbroken front of National feeling to all who threaten us with war, whether from the Briton clad in steel, to the Mexican, clothed in the tatters of a beggar. Even England will recede from her warlike attitude when she beholds us united – but if we are to have a Peace Party at this early state of the dispute, we shall undoubtedly have a War, and that War will be the offspring of the Peace Party. [MLD]
LATEST FROM TEXAS
We present below the latest intelligence received at New Orleans from Texas. It is brought up to the 24th ult. , by the Steamer John S. McKim, which left Galveston on the 21st. We presume that intelligence may be considered convulsive of the opinion of the people of Texas and else of the question of Annexation. The Government officers of Texas, we should think, are opposed to annexation, but they no doubt are forced to yield to public opinion, and will doff their robes with as good a grace as possible. Alas! how have the mighty fallen. – President Houston of the Republic of Texas, may perhaps become Governor of the State of Texas – grace Senators and Congressmen descend to Delegates in the Legislature – Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Panipotentiary – Charges d’Affairs mere private citizens of an out-skirts territory of State of the United States. But to the news:
LATEST FROM TEXAS. – Convocation of Congress. – The steamer John S. McKim arrived at New Orleans on the 24th ult. from Galveston, whence she sailed on the 21st ult.
The President had issued his proclamation convening Congress on Monday, the 16th day of June next. We learn from the proclamation that the Government of the United States has selected the first and second sections of the resolutions (Mr. Milton Brown’s) as the basis for consummating the proposed union.
At a meeting held in Washington county strong resolutions were passed in favor of immediate annexation, “without reference to the wishes or concurrence of any foreign or European power;” and calling on the President to convene Congress immediately. The meeting also recommended to the citizens of the Republic, in case the President did not convene Congress, to meet as soon as possible in Convention to ratify the Joint Resolutions and form a Sate Constitution. Mr. E. Allen, Attorney General, who was present, objected to the tone of the resolutions.
Mr. Scurry, in reply, intimated that the citizens of the Republic might yet become still more impatient of the delay of the President in convening Congress, and adopt measures much more violent than those recommended in the resolutions. – The resolutions were unanimously adopted. Gen. M. Hunt, Dr. J. C. Chalmers, Judge Ewing, R. W. Williamson, J. B. Wilkins, and other prominent gentlemen participated in the proceedings. The President issued his proclamation on the following day.
It was rumored at the seat of government that communications had been received from Gen. Arista, by way of Corpus Christa and Bexar, conveying assurances that the new government of Mexico is disposed to treat with Texas upon the basis of Independence. Similar despatches were received from Vera Cruz by the Eurydice. It is rumored also that the Texan government has answered these communications, and the despatches for this purpose were sent back to Vera Cruz by a British vessel. So says the Houston Star of 19th ult.
The Hon. ASHBEL SMITH, whose departure for England has been before mentioned, has been re-appointed Charge d’Affairs of the Republic of Texas in France and England, and has proceeded to assume the duties of his office. The office of Secretary of State, made vacant by this appointment, will be taken by the Hon. EBENEZER ALLEN, now Attorney General. [MLD]
The New York Sun and Bennett’s Herald contain the following very important intelligence, which is one day later than the published accounts brought by the Hibernia. The Baltimore Patriot at first doubted the authenticity of the intelligence, but now says there is no doubt of its correctness. Our readers will judge for themselves, and we therefore submit the annexed intelligence without further comment:
ONE DAY LATER FROM EUROPE – Very Important – Another War Speech from the British Premier – Passage of the Maynooth Grant Bill.
By the attention of our newspaper agents in Liverpool, Messrs, Wilmer & Smith, we have London papers on the 19th ult. , expressed through on our account in time for the steamer, and which came to hand last night from Boston.
The great debate in the Maynooth Grant terminated in the British Parliament on the morning of the 19th, with an exciting speech from Sir Robert Peel, the mere abstract of which, occupies three columns and a half in the Morning Chronicle.
It would seem that Ministers had some doubts as to the passage of the bill, when the Premier, summoning all his energies commenced a powerful appeal to the House in favor of the measure, in which he defended the policy of Ministers, showed the necessity of conciliating Ireland, and alluded to a probable war with the Unites States as one of the reasons why Great Britain should “concentrate all her energies to maintain unimpaired the power and dignity of the United Kingdom. ”
If war should come, he desired that “Ireland should stand ranked with England, and the energies of a united people would insure a glorious triumph in a just cause. ”
He denied that ministers had consulted with any of the political leaders or clergy of Ireland, nor had ministers ever entered into any negotiations with the Pope, relative to this grant, neither was the grant any part of a general system for the endowment of the Catholic Church, although he [Sir Robert] would not fetter ministers by a pledge not to propose the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy – he would make no such declaration, but he wished Hon. gentlemen to draw no unfair inference from his refusal to commit himself by such pledge. He considered the permanent endowment of Maynooth College, just to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. It would produce a kindly feeling in Ireland, among the people – it would produce great good. I know not what the consequences may be in respect to the kindly intentions between Ireland and this country. I do not rest the measure on any question of mere compact. I say, without hesitation, you must break up that formidable confederacy which exists in that country against the British connection. And I believe it is essential you should break it up, in order that you may carry on the work of good government in Ireland [cheers] and that you may strengthen the connection between the two countries, and maintain unimpaired, the power and dignity of the United Kingdom, [renewed cheers. ] On the horizon of the west there is a cloud [here, hear] – a cloud small, but threatening future darkness, [hear, hear. ] While we were most anxious for an adjustment of the impending differences – while we would leave nothing undone to effect the amicable settlement [of the Oregon question] – yet I did feel it to be part of my duty – of the duty of the first minister of the crown- to state that, if our rights were invaded, we were determined and prepared to maintain them, [loud cheers. ] I aver that when I was called upon to make that declaration, I did recollect with satisfaction and consolation, that the day before I had sent a message of peace to Ireland. [Loud cheers. ] The Hon. gentleman, member from Canterbury, thought it not impossible that the time would come when this country would be compelled to summon all her energies for action. I heard that speech with great satisfaction. [Cheers] Now may God avert so great an evil as war. – [Loud cheers. ] May God forbid that this time of general peace should be so awfully disturbed. [Hear, hear!!] But if it is to be so, if war is to come, I doubt much, considering what is now before me [alluding to the opposition to ministers on this question,] whether the vindication of our honor and our interests will not be confined to other hands. [Hear, hear. ] – But to whomsoever they may be committed, I shall take my place besides them, encouraging them by any support I can give an honorable cause, (loud cheers. ) And if that calamity should befall us, it is my earnest hope that when it shall occur, it shall find the people of this empire united in loyalty to the throne, and in determination to support the common interest (tremendous cheering)… That Ireland shall stand ranked with us… And the energies of an united people will ensure a glorious triumph in a just cause.
[The premier resume his seat about three o’clock in the morning, amid thunders of applause which lasted several minutes. ]
After this exciting speech, the House divided, and there appeared for the Maynooth Grant Bill, 323, against it 176 – majority for it 147. The ministers, were of course overjoyed at the result. It is probably the first time on record, that a religious grant had been carried by appealing to the belligerent propensities of the English Commons. The Premier has evidently accepted O’Connell’s offer at Ireland’s services to fight America for Oregon and Texas. It remains to be see how the bargain will be carried out. The New York Herald give the following as the closing remarks of Sir Robert Peel:
As a minister responsible for the public peace, he said that is was necessary to break up that formidable combination which at present existed in Ireland against the British government. He did not think that that combination could be broken up by force, but he did think that it might be subdued by kindness, forbearance, and generosity; and it was essential that it should be subdued if we wished to cement the union between the two countries, and to increase the strength of this united empire. When he first thought of proposing this measure to Parliament, he had no anticipation of any interruption of the relations of amity between this country and any other. Bu on a recent occasion, Lord John Russell had considered it to be a duty to raise the veil which concealed the distant future. It then become his duty to state publicly that though he was anxious for an amicable arrangement of our difference with the United States, we were resolved and prepared to defend our unquestionable rights if were invaded.
He owned that, when he was called upon to make that declaration, he recollected with pleasure that he had sent the every day before a message of peace to Ireland. Mr. Smythe had said in his very eloquent speech on a former evening, that the time might come, when all the energies of the country might be wanted in its defence. God forbid that peace should be broken; but if it were broke, through he might not be a member of the Government called upon to vindicated the honor of the country, he would be found by the side of the Minister, whoever he might be, supporting him in the prosecution of a just and honorable war. Whenever that war should occur, he trusted that it would find Parliament and the country united in loyalty to the throne, and in determination to support the common interest of the empire. Then, confiding in our good cause, and in the valor, perseverance, and fortitude of every component part of these united kingdoms, he should view the result with composure, being convinced that the engery of an united people must insure the safety of the empire.
The House then divided, when there appeared –
For the motion: 323
Against it: 176