The Mexican-American War and the Media, 1845-1848

logo
London Times | Martinsburg Gazette | Niles' Register | Richmond Enquirer | Richmond Whig | Related Links
VT Image Montage | VT Digital Archives | Carl Nebel prints | Sam Chamberlain water colors | Maps | The Aztec Club of 1847
Descendants of Mexican War Veterans | U.S. Army Chronology | PBS Timeline | U.S. Army History
Chronological | Memoirs | U.S. Army Center | The Naval War | Intelligence Activities
Lt. Emory's Journal | Foreign Policy | Presidential speeches | Congressional Debates | DMWV Documents | Historical Text Archive
Transcription Teams | Project Specialists
Site Map
Search

RICHMOND ENQUIRER
January-June 1845
Missing Months: February and April


January-June 1845 July-December 1845 January-June 1846 July-December 1846
January-June 1847 July-December 1847 January-June 1848 July-December 1848

January 1845

RE45v41i77p1c1, January 3, 1845: Foreign Intelligence, Later From Mexico and China
Mexicans started a revolution against Santa Anna and he was removed from the government.

RE45v41i77p1c1, January 3, 1845: Arrival of Mr. Crushing
Hon C. Crushing was on his way through Mexico when he was robbed of almost all of his news letters. Mr. Fletcher Webster is to arrive from England. Santa Anna was proclaimed dictator only to be reputed later that day.

RE45v41i77p2c5, January 3, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
A letter from Mr. Bowden, a representative, states that he believes in the annexation of Texas, even though most of the Virginians (who are Whigs and Republicans) do not.

RE45v41i77p2c4, January 3, 1845: Letter to the Editor
Mr. Bowden's letter from Mexico seems to imply that Santa Anna has fallen from the political light.

RE45v41i77p2c2, January 3, 1845: Missouri Right Side Up, Action Reversed - Col. Benton Instructed by Legislature
[From the St. Louis Reporter, Dec. 23], House of Representatives passed the resolution to annex Texas. The people of Missouri expressed their hopes to annex Texas, despite their representative's, Colonel Benton, vote against the resolution.

RE45v41i77p2c6, January 3, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

RE45v41i78p1c3, January 7, 1845: The Dangers of Procrastination - Again!
The article states that the Whig Party is slowing down legislation because they will not sway their vote to annex Texas.

RE45v4178ip1c3, January 7, 1845: Texas
Questions whether the U.S. should wait until relations with Britain improve before the Congress decides to annex Texas.

RE45v41i78p1c1, January 7, 1845: House of Representatives
A record of the motions made by representatives in the House.

RE45v41i78p2c3, January 7, 1845: Resolutions of New Hampshire
The article argues that Texas has the right to join the United States because it is considered independent from Mexico.

RE45v41i78p2c6, January 7, 1845: From Washington
It is believed that the annexation of Texas will pass in the House by majority and the Senate with a small majority.

RE45v41i78p2c6, January 7, 1845: Extract from the New Orleans Bulletin (Whig) of the 28th December
The article implies that the annexation of Texas will be peaceful.

RE45v41i78p2c1, January 7, 1845: Richmond Grays
Information about the meeting held by the Richmond Grays to repair the Military Hall.

RE45v41i78p3c1, January 7, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

RE45v41i78p3c1, January 7, 1845: River & Kanawha Canal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.

RE45v41i79p1c3, January 10, 1845: Proceedings on the Texas Question
The House of Representatives and Senate are to vote today. It is believed that the House will pass the resolution to annex Texas. It is also thought that the Senate will pass the annexation if some of the representatives change their position on the matter.

RE45v41i79p1c5, January 10, 1845: New Orleans, Dec. 13, Later From Texas
The schooner William Bryan, and Captain Moss arrived from Galveston bringing news from Texas. General Houston writes of the "prosperous" lands in Texas and President Jones expresses his opinions of the annexation.

RE45v41i79p1c6, January 10, 1845: Revolution in Mexico
[From the N.O. Picayune, 29th Dec.] Intelligence reports state "that Santa Anna's career is drawing to a tragic close."

RE45v41i79p1c6, January 10, 1845: Important From Mexico
A resolution broke out on the 3rd in the city of Mexico and Santa Anna has been removed.

RE45v41i79p1c7, January 10, 1845: House of Delegates
A report of the motions of the House of Delegates.

RE45v41i79p2c5, January 10, 1845: Military Convention
Meeting called to improve Virginia's Militia System throughout the state.

RE45v41i79p2c4, January 10, 1845: Signs From Texas
The Valedictory Address of General Houston and the Annual Message of President Jones.

RE45v41i79p3c1, January 10, 1845: Senate
A report of the motions of the Senate.

RE45v41i79p3c3, January 10, 1845: Texas, Part of Louisiana
An article from the National Intelligencer argues that we voluntarily set the line of the Sabine to form the state of Louisiana when we purchased the land from France. The idea seems to imply that Texas already belonged to the U.S.

RE45v41i79p3c4, January 10, 1845: Governor Briggs of Massachusetts
The new Governor Briggs opens the legislature of Massachusetts with the statement that if we annex Texas we "will bring the barbarians to our gates," like the fall of the Romans.

RE45v41i79p3c3, January 10, 1845: Letter to the Editor, The Question of Annexation [written by Mr. Dromgoole]
The article discusses Mr. Nile's bill to adopt a line of the Missouri Compromise in order to annex Texas. Texas threatens to reject the offer of annexation on such regulations. But there is still hope that a compromise will be made.

RE45v41i79p3c5, January 10, 1845: Washington City, Jan. 8, 1845
Mr. Dromgoole, the representative from the Petersburg District, presented a simple plan for the admission of Texas to the Union.

RE45v41i79p4c1, January 10, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

RE45v41i79p4c1, January 10, 1845: James River & Kanawha Canal, Richmond, January 7, 1845
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.

RE45v41i80p1c3, January 14, 1845: Monday Morning, January 13, 1845
The article states that the Whig Party misrepresented General Wallace and unfairly attacked the proposed annexation of Texas under the Treaty of Louisiana.

RE45v41i80p1c4, January 14, 1845: Hermitage, January 1, 1845 [written by Andrew Jackson]
Jackson argues that there are too many joint resolutions to consider and the Congress is just wasting time.

RE45v41i80p1c4, January 14, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 10, 1845
The author warns that the annexation of Texas may spark a war with Britain and France.

RE45v41i80p1c2, January 14, 1845: House of Delegates, Saturday, Jan. 11
A report of the motions of the House of Delegates.

RE45v41i80p1c2, January 14, 1845: House of Representatives
A report of the motions of the House of Representatives.

RE45v41i80p1c6, January 14, 1845: A letter from a Correspondent
General Jackson warns Mr. Blair that Washington must act now or we may lose the chance to annex Texas.

RE45v41i80p2c3, January 14, 1845: "It Is My Thunder!"
Mr. J.P. Kennedy addressed the House of Representatives on Saturday and presented his opposition to the annexation of Texas.

RE45v41i80p3c1, January, 14, 1845: Debate on the Texas Question
An Account of the debate of Texas in the House of Representatives.

RE45v41i80p3c2, January 14, 1845: New York Views of Annexation
The article accuses the New York Herald of focusing on "Northern principles" and "Northern democracy".

RE45v41i80p4c3, January 14, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

RE45v41i80p4c3, January 14, 1845: James River & Kanawha Canal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.

RE45v41i81p1c1, January 17, 1845: Political, Debate on the Texas Question
In the House of Representatives, Tuesday, Jan. 7; Committee of Foreign Affairs presents a resolution to the annexation of Texas.

RE45v41i81p1c3, January 17, 1845: House of Delegates, Tuesday, January 14, 1845
A report of the resolutions adopted by the House of Delegates.

RE45v41i81p2c3, January 17, 1845: Senatorial Election! - Snap Judgement!
Congratulates the Senate of Virginia for passing the Texas resolutions.

RE45v41i81p3c1, January 17, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congress -2nd Ses. Wednesday, Jan. 15, 1845, In Senate
An account of the proceedings of Senate.

RE45v41i81p3c3, January 17, 1845: Plans For Annexation
The article promotes Mr. Dromgoole's bill to annex Texas.

RE45v41i81p3c4, January 17, 1845: House of Delegates, Thursday, January 16, 1845
The Senate changed the training camp for the officers of the 165th Regiment of Virginia Militia.

RE45v41i81p3c5, January 17, 1845: Another Voice from the Granite State!
Mr. Burke of New Hampshire presents another resolution to annex Texas to the House of Representatives.

RE45v41i81p4c1, January 17, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

RE45v41i81p3c1, January 17, 1845: Congressional, Debate on the Texas Question
Mr. Yancey expresses his regret that the political parties can not agree on a joint resolution to annex Texas.

RE45v41i81p3c7, January 17, 1845: House of Representatives, Statistics of Texas
Mr. Pratt motioned that the Secretary of State report the amount of debt Texas owed to the U.S.

RE45v41i83p1c3, January 24, 1845: Later From Mexico
General Paredes' 8,000 troops turned on Santa Anna's 13,000 men. Santa Anna being deserted by many of his forces, fled to Puebla where he was defeated by Paredes.

RE45v41i83p2c3, January 24, 1845: The Texas Question
The article states that the Whig Party will suffer in future elections if they do not change their perception of the annexation of Texas.

RE45v41i83p2c4, January 24, 1845: Editorial
The article discusses the line of the Missouri Compromise and Mr. Foster's bill to annex Texas.

RE45v41i83p2c4, January 24, 1845: Editorial "Annexation - Mr. Rives"
[From the Charlottesville Jeffersonian] The majority of Republicans now support the annexation of Texas.

RE45v41i83p3c2, January 24, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

RE45v41i83p4c1, January 24, 1845: Congressional, Debate on the Annexation of Texas
Some representatives state that England "forced slavery upon us." Britain wants Texas to become an abolitionist state if it is annexed. Southern representatives believe that Britain only wants Texas to be annexed as a free state so the U.S. can not profit from its annexation.

RE45v41i83p4c6, January 24, 1845: Plan to defend Texas, and to divide The Republican Party of New York
An election between two senators in New York will be held today. Both Republican candidates hold different views on the annexation of Texas. The outcome of the election may end up dividing the Republican Party.

RE45v41i83p4c4, January 24, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congressional, Thursday, Jan.16, 1845, In Senate
A report of the proceeding of Senate.

RE45v41i83p4c6, January 24, 1845: Texas
The article attacks the Whig newspaper, "The Tropic", for still encouraging the public to oppose the annexation of Texas.

RE45v41i83p2c1, January 24, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congressional -2nd Ses. Wednesday, Jan. 22. In Senate
An account of the proceeding of Senate. Mr. Allen, from the Ohio General Assembly, presented resolutions fro the U.S. to take over the Oregon territory.

RE45v41i83p2c3, January 24, 1845: Yesterday's Proceedings on Texas
The House of Delegates voted to annex Texas but they want time to look over the resolutions before a definite decision can be made.  

RE45v41i83p2c5, January 24, 1845: Letter to the Editor, Washington City, Jan. 20, 1845
The letter questions whether the government had the right to annex a foreign territory.

RE45v41i84p1c4, January 28, 1845: Letter to the Editor, Washington City, Jan. 18, 1845
The author begins his letter with the comment, "God bless the Whigs!" He argues whether or not the annexation is worth "consent of Mexico".

RE45v41i84p1c2, January 28, 1845: U.S. Senators [from the Albany Argus of Monday.]
An update of the Senate's proceedings and an outline of the opinions of a few representatives.

RE45v41i84p1c3, January 28, 1845: Editorial
A Washington Correspondent of the Baltimore American writes that he was disappointed with General Benton's address to the Senate. The editors stand up for Colonel Benton even though they do not favor his bill to annex Texas.

RE45v41i84p1c3, January 28, 1845: Texas as a State of the Union
Congress consents to the new Texas state. The column outlines the articles that Texas must follow in order to join the union.

RE45v41i84p1c6, January 28, 1845: Glorious Result! The Annexation Resolutions passed the House of Representatives!
Although most of the Whigs and all of the abolition members opposed the annexation, the House of Representatives passed the resolutions.

RE45v41i84p2c1, January 28, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 24, 1845 
The author argues that the qualifications to become a representative require a citizenship of 9 or at least 7 yrs. The letter states that there can be no representatives from Texas as these requirements stand.

RE45v41i84p2c5, January 28, 1845: All Aback!
The Whigs were overwhelmed to find that they do not have control of the House of Representatives any longer.

RE45v41i84p2c6, January 28, 1845: Another Example
The state of Louisiana has passed the resolutions to annex Texas in the House of Representatives.

RE45v41i84p2c6, January 28, 1845: A Feather in their Caps
The article warns that if the Whigs do not forget their loss in the vote to annex Texas, than they will lose more seats at election time.

RE45v41i84p3c3, January 28, 1845: Marine Journal
A report of the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

RE45v41i84p4c1, January 28, 1845: Editorial
The Madisonian quotes the "New Orleans Commercial Bulletin" stating that the Louisiana legislature should pass the resolution to annex Texas.

RE45v41i85p1c1, January 30, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congress-2d Ses. Monday, Jan. 20, 1845, In Senate
A report of the proceedings of Senate.

RE45v41i85p2c3, January 30, 1845: The Empire Club of New York
During a meeting of the Empire Club, Mr. Rynders read General Jackson's letter declaring that U.S. should annex Texas as soon as possible.

RE45v41i85p2c4, January 30, 1845: Letter to the Editor, A Warning to the Whig Party!
A correspondent (Agricola) sent a letter, from the North of Germany, warning the Whigs that they are threatening the principle of the United States.

RE45v41i85p2c3, January 30, 1845: (Correspondence) Huntington, Suffolk Co. 21st Jan. 1845
The author considers the annexation the most important decision that is being discussed. He also promotes the annexation of Texas.

RE45v41i85p2c4, January 30, 1845: Editorial
It is believed that the House of Delegates will pass the Texas resolutions.

RE45v41i85p2c4, January 30, 1845: Editorial
The article states that it is believed that Mr. Robinson submitted an anti-Southern resolution to the House of Representatives. It is also believed that he wrote to Albany telling them to send anti-Texas representatives to the Senate.

RE45v41i85p4c3, January 30, 1845: The Texas Resolutions in the House of Representatives
It is believed that the House of Representatives passed the resolution submitted by Mr. Milton Brown, a Tennessee Whig.

RE45v41i85p4c4, January 30, 1845: Editorial
The article states that the annexation of Texas can only be good for the United States.

RE45v41i85p4c5, January 30, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 27, 1845
There was some argument about the annexation of Texas in Virginia. Virginians fear that Texas will bring the Union into debt.

RE41i85p3c1 January 30, 1845  Marine Journal

RE41i85p2c6 January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c6 Santa Anna a Prisoner.

February 1845

RE41v45n86p1c2 February 1, 1845, The Texas Debate.

REv45n87p2c1 February 4, 1845, Question of the Day.  Issues concerning Texas.

REv45n87p4c4 February 4, 1845, Other States On Texas.  Including Maine.

REv45n87p4c5 February 4, 1845, Texas, Mr. Kearny’s Quibble.

REv45n88p1c3 February 6, 1845, Oregon

REv45n88p2c3 February 6, 1845, Texas

REv45n88p4c7 February 6, 1845, Texas and Oregon

REv45n89p1c7 February 8, 1845, Proclamation From The President Of Texas

REv45n89p4c3 February 8, 1845, Latest From Vera Cruz.  Information on Santa Anna

REv45n89p4c4 February 8, 1845, Another warning voice

REv41n91p2c6 February 13, 1845, Views From Texas

REv41n92p1c3 February 15, 1845, Interesting from Texas

REv41n92p4c3 February 15, 1845, Important From Mexico.  Concerning Santa Ana

REv41n93p1c4 February 18, 1845, Friends of the Cause

REv41n93p2c4 February 18, 1845, Exact From Texas

REv41n94p2c5 February 22, 1845, Truth in a Nut Shell.  Whig bashing.

REv41n94p4c3 February 22, 1845, Annexation of Texas

REv41n95p2c3 February 26, 1845, The Texas Question

REv41n95p4c7 February 26, 1845, Another Young Republic

REv41n96p2c3 February 28, 1845, Later From Mexico.  Intelligence

REv41n96p2c6 February 28, 1845, The Question, Texas

REv41n96p4c2 February 28, 1845, Public Sentiment In Texas

REv41n96p2c3 February 28, 1845, Great meetings for Texas

March

REv45i97p1c4, March 4, 1845: Joy! Joy! The Last Stroke Struck!
House of Representatives make Texas annexation official.

RE45i97p1c4, March 4, 1845: The Inauguration
Thousands flocking to Washington to watch ceremonies of the Presidential inauguration

RE45i97p1c4, March 4, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
Victorious feeling of the senate on having Texas Annexation passed despite the Whigs.

RE45i97p1c7, March 4, 1845: High Authority
Assessment of the Whig reaction to Texas Annexation

RE45i97p1c4, March 4, 1845: Twenty-seven Guns were fired on Friday.
Guns fired in honor of Texas entering the union.

RE45i97p2c2, March 4, 1845: Twenty-Eighth Congress-2d Ses.

RE45i97p2c3, March 4, 1845: The Annexation of Texas
Annexation of Texas what Henry Clay predicted in 1820.

RE45i97p2c4, March 4, 1845: The Past And The Present
In the Past the Whigs were sure of the Election of Henry Clay, the Democrats were divided amongst various candidates.  Henry Clay was in favor of Texas.  Now the opposite is true.

RE45i97p2c5, March 4, 1845: Will the Whigs keep their word to-day?
The Whigs of the Howard Grove ceremony will meet again after deluding themselves into the belief that Henry Clay would be chosen president at their last meeting.

RE45i97p2c4, March 4, 1845: Clinging to the Last Straw!
Before Texas Resolutions passed, the National Intelligencer indulged a visionary hope, that the Whigs of the House of Representatives might still defeat the measure.

RE45i97p1c4, March 4, 1845: Mr. Merrick meets with no mercy or charity.
Mocking the Whig treatment of Mr. Merrick

RE45i97p2c5, March 4, 1845: Extract of a letter from a young and ardent friend.
Describing excitement around Washington that Texas will join the Union. Dated Feb, 28.

RE45i97p2c6, March 4, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
Letter dated Feb, 28 describing events at the Senate surrounding the passing of the Texas Resolutions.

RE45i97p2c6, March 4, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
Letter dated March 1.  Author of the previous letter was rushed in describing the events at the Senate.  This letter elaborates on the passing of the Texas resolutions.

RE45i98p1c7, March 7, 1845: Commend the Poisoned Chalice to their own Lips!
Whig predictions of what would happen if Polk were elected appear incorrect.

RE45i98p2c4, March 7, 1845:  THE CABINET
The new cabinet members as reported from Wednesday's Globe.  James Buchanan must superintend the final settlement of Texas.

RE45i98p4c6, March 7, 1845:  ANTI-TEXAS WHIGS
The Whig presses of New York are taken all aback by the news of the annexation of Texas.  "it appears to egg on Great Britain to war with us, on account of Texas"

RE45i98p4c7, March 7, 1845:  For the Enquirer, signed Zen--
Commentary on two articles in the Richmond Whig, in reference to the correspondence between Dr. John R. Taylor and Col. Billups.

RE45i98p4c5, March 7, 1845:  The Oregon Negotiation
Copied from the New York Courier and Enquirer of Thursday last.  Reports of ongoing negotiations with Great Britain concerning Oregon.

RE45i98p4c5, March 7, 1845:  Dispatches to Texas
The joint Resolution for the admission of Texas inot the union will e delivered to Maj. Donelson at Nashville to be taken to Texas.

RE45i98p4c6, March 7, 1845:  Ho! For Texas!
One hundred guns fired in Baltimore in honor of admission of Texas into the Union

RE45i99p1c5, March 11, 1845:  Mr. Baptist's speech
Note from the Enquirer that because of all the resent events of Texas, Mr. Baptist's speech on the election of the senator will be printed at a later date.

RE45i99p2c5, March 11, 1845:  Mr. Merrick of Maryland
Defense of Mr. Merrick of Maryland who has been denounced by the Whig press as a traitor.

RE45i99p4c4, March 11, 1845:  The Mexican Minister
From Phil. Spirit of the Times. "Signor Almonte, it is said, will demand his passports the moment the Texas Bill is signed, and Mexico will declare war."

RE45i99p4c4, March 11, 1845:  Amusing
From Philadelphia Ledger.  Whigs who had previously been against the veto power now think it is too conservative.

RE45i100p1c4, March 14, 1845: For the Enquirer. To Robert J. Walker, Esq,
Letter suggesting the secretary of Treasury dedicate as much time towards disposing the Tariff as annexing Texas.

RE45i100p1c3, March 14, 1845:  Mr. Calhoun
Description of Mr. Calhoun's visit to Richmond.

RE45i100p2c3, March 14, 1845:  New Orleans, March 5.  From Mexico
Santa Anna still in Prison, and is planning on send his defence in writing.

RE45i100p2c5, March 14, 1845:  To the Senior Editor
Signed, A Friend.  Quotes a letter addressed June 13, 1836 describing a conversation with Santa Anna on the future of Texas.

RE45i100p4c5, March 14, 1845:  The Danger Averted!
Letters surfaced by the Texas National Register indicated that Great Britain had tried to persuade Texas against agreeing to annexation.

RE45i100p4c6, March 14, 1845:  Mr. Elliott, British Envoy, to Mr. Jones, Secretary of State.  Dated March 22d, 1844.
That Annexation would not be in the best interests of Texas, Mexico, France, or Great Britain.

RE45i101p1c3, March 18, 1845:  PRO AND CON!
The Enquirer allows the Whig Mr. Willoughby Newton to respond to recent accusations against him concerning his actions in the Senate concerning Texas.

RE45i101p1c5, March 18, 1845:  The Scene of the 4th at Washington
Commentary on the behavior of Henry Clay at the Inauguration James Polk.

RE45i101p2c1, March 18, 1845:  Political.  From the Globe.  THE RIVAL NATIONS.
England's attempts to confine the United States

RE45i101p2c1, March 18, 1845:  Important Disclosure
NY Journal of Commerce has published a letter declaring that at the time of Santa Anna's fall, a treaty was in progress, and nearly consummated, for the entire cession of California and New Mexico, to Great Britain.

RE45i101p2c1, March 18, 1845:  From the New Orleans Courier, March 8.  Mexico
Santa Anna still in Prision, and reports from Gazette of Tampico.

RE45i101p2c1, March 18, 1845:  Texas Money
Learned from Maj. Andrew Jackson Donelson that the amount of Texas bonds and notes currently in circulation are acceptable.

RE45i101p2c5, March 18, 1845:  MORE STRAWS!
The Baltimore American still clings to hope of defeating Texas Annexation by publishing the same letter of Mr. Elliot that the Enquirer published last week to show the danger the Whigs have incurred.

RE45i101p2c5, March 18, 1845:  Still Catching at the Straw!
Commentary on numerous Whig headlines that insinuate Texas Annexation is still in doubt.

RE45i101p2c5, March 18, 1845:  THE TONE OF THE WHIG PRESS!
Article on certain 'free state' newspapers that consider the free states betrayed by the south.

RE45i101p4c6, March 18, 1845:  THE TEXAS QUESTION IN INDIANA
Extract from a letter, dated Indianapolis, March 6.  What a Hoosier thinks of 'a southern man who would go against annexation.'

RE45i101p4c7, March 18, 1845:  FROM TEXAS
Proclamation by Anson Jones, president of Texas, declaring that no vessel will be allowed to wage hostilities against Mexico.

RE45i102p1c4, March 21, 1845:  WHIG TROUBLES
Mr. Newton, a whig, suffereing from attack by both the Whig papers and the Enquirer

RE45i102p1c5, March 21, 1845:  THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS
Its National-Sectional-and Party Aspects.

RE45i102p2c3, March 21, 1845:  THE WHIGS STILL AGAINST ANNEXATION
Actions by Whigs in congress against annexation

RE45i102p2c3, March 21, 1845:  ORGANIZATION-UNION-ACTION
Enquirer printing remarks from "Augusta Democrat" on upcoming elections

RE45i102p2c4, March 21, 1845:  To the Editors of the Enquirer:  Goochland, March 17
Debate between Mr. Botts and Mr. Seddon campaigning for election to congress.

RE45i102p1c4, March 21, 1845:  From Another Correspondent, For the Enquirer,
Debate between Mr. Botts and Mr. Seddon campaigning for election to congress.

RE45i102p1c5, March 21, 1845:  To the Editors of the Enquirer, THE 8th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Response to Mr.Newton's remarks against republicans

RE45i102p2c7, March 21, 1845:  For the Enquirer.   TO THE DEMOCRATS OF THE ALBEMARLE DISTRICT.
Encouraging Democrats to support Shelton F. Leake for congress.  Signed, Rapid Ann

RE45i102p4c3, March 21, 1845:  SPRING ELECTIONS
In the future the Enquirer will be printing the Democratic Central Committee's address.

RE45i102p4c3, March 21, 1845:  OUR RELATIONS WITH MEXICO
Commentary on a letter published in the New York Herald by Caleb Cushing about his views on the present position of the Unite States and Mexico.

RE45i103p1c4, March 25, 1845:  ANNEXATION
Response to Whig reports on annexation.

RE45i103p1c4, March 25, 1845:  TO THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS
From the N.O. Bulletin.  Advising Texans to vote in favor of Annexation

RE45i103p1c5, March 25, 1845:  IMPORTANT MOVEMENTS IN ENGLAND
United States Government should eliminate Tariff

RE45i103p1c7, March 25, 1845:  European Correspondence dated February 28.
Comments upon Sir Robert Peells predictions in 1842 on relations between the United States and England.  Signed Agricola

RE45i103p1c6, March 25, 1845:  America Rivalling France!
Comparing France to Whigs

RE45i103p2c3, March 25, 1845:  Which is the true version?
Commentary on Whig quotes about the effect of Annexation of Texas

RE45i103p2c3, March 25, 1845:   Address of the Democratic Central Committee, To the People of Virginia!
Address to Virginians on how to defeat the Whigs and Why.

RE45i103p4c4, March 25, 1845:   Anti-Annexationists-on both sides of the House
Contemplates if Whigs will continue to discuss Annexation

RE45i103p4c5, March 25, 1845:   TEXAS
From the New Orleans Jeffersonian. Some Texans not pleased with the terms of annexation

RE45i103p4c5, March 25, 1845:  From the Texas National Register
Should Texas reorganize their government at the bidding of the United States?

RE45i103p4c6, March 25, 1845:  From the Galveston Weekly News
If Texas decides against annexation the powers of Europe will recognize the Texas Gov and end the war with Mexico.

RE45i103p4c7, March 25, 1845:  For the Enquirer.  TEXAS-John M. Botts
John M. Botts, a Whig candidate, refuses to enter into discussion on the Annexation of Texas.

RE45i104p1c6, March 28, 1845:  A KEY TO THE ENIGMA
The Picayune has explained Mr. Archer's report which the Enquirer could not understand

RE45i104p1c6, March 28, 1845:  From the New Orleans Picayune
Explanation of the Report by Mr. Archer

RE45i104p1c4, March 28, 1845:  THE CITY CANVASS
Reply to the Whig Reply on the Enquirers response to word in the Richmond Whig

RE45i104p1c5, March 28, 1845:  THE IMPORTANCE OF UNION
Criticism of the Morgantown Mountaineer misrepresenting the Democratic Party

RE45i104p1c5, March 28, 1845:  The Serfs of Angus McDonald
Article from the Romney Gazette against McDonald who could deliver New Hampshire to the Whigs.

RE45i104p2c3, March 28, 1845:  British Intrigues
Concerns that Houston is on the British side against Annexation in Texas

RE45i104p2c4, March 28, 1845:  From TAMPICO
Extract from a letter published in the Mobile Advertiser, revolution in Mexico far from over.

RE45i104p4c4, March 28, 1845:  PARTY DICTATION
Analysis of Whig Public meeting

RE45i104p4c5, March 28, 1845:  ANNEXATION
Whig reports that Texas will refuse Annexation

April

REv41i107p1c3, April 8, 1845
Lyons consulted the Senior Editor of the R. Whig as to his ability of holding the post of Whig Elector or resigning it on account of his Texas leaning-information on Lyons stance on the Texas question

REv41i109p4c3, April 15, 1845: Augusta County
Approved the resolution of Congress to annex Texas and support Polk's stance on Oregon

REv41i109p4c5, April 15, 1845: "Texas and Disunion"
Judge Jay wrote a letter threatening disunion in case of the Annexation of Texas

REv41i109p4c5, April 15, 1845: Looking Ahead
Response to a Whig paper complaining the RE had given cause for the war to Mexico

REv41i109p4c6, April 15, 1845: Escape of Santa Anna
Santa Anna has escaped, reported that he is now in New Orleans with a large sum of money; rumor of his escape as also reached Corpus Christi

REv41i109p1c4, April 15, 1845: From the Baltimore Republican
Report on the upcoming Virginia Elections-Texas question will be a big issue-VA elections important because of the position the state holds in the Union

REv41i110p2c3, April 18, 1845: Annexation
Quote from Northern Whig press about Mr. Dudley Selden's speech in NY-comments on the question of annexation, which according to Seldon is not settled

REv41i105p2c6, April 1, 1845: Messers, Bolts and Seddon in Hanover
Report on a debate between Messers, Bolts, and Seddon-talk of various things including the tariff and annexation

REv41i105p2c6, April 1, 1845: For the Enquirer
Who should the Republicans vote for? The Whig, Mr. Lyons who is in favor of Texas

REv41i105p4c6, April 1, 1845: Washington, 15th March, 1845
Woodbury in favor of the annexation of Texas, comments on the tariff

REv41i108p4c5, April 1, 1845
Mexican Minister and his family from New York in the Anahuac for Mexico; different speculations are formed about the results of US late measures in regard to Texas

REv41i105p4c1, April 1, 1845: The "Little Clique" Meeting
Mr. Lyon's friends called a public meeting and all other candidates were invited to attend but declined because of the possibility of the Texas question coming up

REv41i105p2c3, April 1, 1845: Gen. Almonte and Mexico
Opinion of Gen. Almonte that since the decision to annex Texas was passed by so little a minority, Mexico will not think it necessary to start war

REv41i112p2c3, April 25, 1845: News from Texas
Gen. Houston has openly said he is against annexation; may expect some startling developments with regard to British policy and British intrigue

REv41i13p2c1, April 29, 1845: Mexico
Schooner Fanny arrived from Vera Cruz; Mr. Shannon, the US Charge d'Affairs has retired to Tacubaya; trial of Santa Anna has been concluded;  Minister of Foreign Relations in Mexico sees the annexation of Texas as call for war; warlike movements in regard to the government

REv41i113p2c1, April 29, 1845: Mr. Shannon to Senor Cuevas
Report that the US has annexed Texas; hope that the differences between the two countries can be peacefully settled; passes over in silence the accusation that the US has violated the treaty of friendship with Mexico; it is up to Mexico if things are going to be peaceful

REv41i113p2c1, April 29, 1845: Senor Cuevas to Mr. Shannon
Mexico breaking diplomatic ties with the US;  US is not acting friendly towards Mexico with the annexation of Texas;

REv41i113p2c1, April 29, 1845: From the N.O. Tropic
Government banished several military chiefs for trying to free General Canalizo and Paredes; Cuevas spoke in length to Congress about the annexation;  journals condemn the tone of Cuevas as not being harsh enough; warlike movement taken by the government;  American squadron headed to Vera Cruz with Com. Connor in charge

REv41i113p4c2, April 29, 1845: From the N.O. Republican, April 17 Mexico
Mexico will try war and invade Texas compelling the US if it annexes Texas to begin hostilities; resolution passed in the Mexican Congress making it high treason to acknowledge Texas as independent or part of the US

REv41i113p4c2, April 29, 1845: National Palace, Mexico
Protest against annexation of Texas by Cuevas

REv41i113p4c2, April 29, 1845: The general circular is as follows
More protest of US annexation of Texas

REv41i113p4c3, April 29, 1845: From the New Orleans Bulletin, April 17
Mr. Smith the Secretary of State in Texas has left his post; resolution having to do with the annexation of Texas-who said yes and no

REv41i112p1c4, April 25, 1845: Whig Justice and Moderation
Comments on the Whig's anti-annexation stance

REv41i112p1c5, April 25, 1845: The Tactics of the Richmond Whig
Comments on the Richmond Whig's coverage of the annexation of Texas

REv41i111p1c7, April 22, 1845: New Orleans, April 11
Schooner Water Witch arrived; Santa Anna still prisoner; British sloop or war sailed from Vera Cruz to Galveston with despatches for the British Minister in Texas; Mexican government will recognize Texas if the US doesn't annex; comments on the press coverage in Mexico

REv41i113p1c3, April 29, 1845: The Spirit of the Whig Press
Comments on the Whig press coverage of the Texas question

REv41i112p4c2, April 25, 1845: Texas and Mexico
US has annexed Texas; what will Texas and Mexico say to annexation?-details about that question from various papers; information on people coming to the US on annexation business; more comments on annexation; letters to President Jones of Texas about annexation

REv41i112p2c1, April 25, 1845: Seven Days Later from Europe
Comments on Oregon-British stance compared and in response to US stance-response to Polk's speech

REv41i105p4c2, April 1, 1845: For the Enquirer-Congressional Canvass in King Williams
Report on speeches made by Messers, Hunter and Newton-discuss the Texas question and annexation

REv41i104p1c4, April 1, 1845: The Proceeding of her Republican Party Suggestion to the Republicans of Albermarle
Report on nomination of Hugh A. Garland; comments on Texas-government, interests

REv41i104p1c5, April 1, 1845: Annexation of Texas
Comments on the Whig party's stance on not annexing Texas

REv41i104p1c7, April 1,1845: the Clam
What will Britian say about Texas and when?-speculations about

REv41i107p1c3, April 8, 1845: speech of Chesselden Ellis
Full speech by Chesselden Ellis on the annexation of Texas

REv41i108p4c3, April (cannot read date) 1845: Shall the Will of the People Prevail?
Comments on the Whig opposition to the annexation of Texas

REv41i108p4c6, April (cannot read the date) 1845: A Chapter in the Political Life of J. M. Botts
Opinion of Botts' stance on the Texas question

REv41i106p1c4, April 4, 1845: Almonte's Protest
Mexican Minister's late protest; comments on the annexation

REv41i107p4c1, April 8, 1845: Annexation of Texas
Passage in Texas of agreement of annexation; celebration of the annexation; predictions that Texas will be glad with the decision made

REv41i107p4c1, April 8, 1845: Annexation Meeting in the City of Galveston
Adoption of the resolution of annexation by the people of Galveston-details of the meeting

REv41i107p4c2, April 8, 1845
Comments about the National Register-trying to throw cold water on the annexation of Texas

REv41i107p4c3 April 8, 1845
Polk and cabinet to send Calhoun to Texas because of his difficulties with the annexation

REv41i107p4c3, April 8, 1845
Editor of the Lynchburg Virginians trying to get the people of Texas to refuse annexation; comments on state of Texas and what will happen if annexed

REv41i107p4c4, April 8, 1845: The Issues in the Sixth Congressional District
Comments on abolitionists and the gaining of Texas

REv41i107p4c5, April 8, 1845: Further from Texas
Mr. Beton's plan for Texas annexation; comments on the Texas Tariff; rumor that despatches say that Mexico has recognized Texas as independent; Kauffinan appointed Charge to the US

REv41i107p2c1, April 8, 1845: Speech of Chesselden Elis
Full speech of Chesselden Elis on the annexation of Texas

REv41i107p2c4, April 8, 1845: An Editor Clashing with a Correspondent
Comments about information stated about Texas-Calhoun going to

REv41i107p2c4, April 8, 1845
Quote from the Savannah Republican which RE says is false

REv41i107p2c5, April 8, 1845: An Appeal to Virginia
Article copied from the Boston Morning Post-Comments on annexation; report that British are trying to defeat annexation; Polk working to secure it

REv41i106p4c1, April 4, 1845: The Tariff
Comment on the fact that even though Texas is settled the tariff will remain in place

REv41i106p4c1, April 4, 1845: Will Texas Accept?
Report that Texans will accept annexation;-majority in favor of it

REv41i106p4c2, April 4, 1845: Col. Chester Ashley
Speech by Col. Chester which gives new ideas about Texas-speech published in last paper but comments are made in this article about it

REv41i111p4c1, April 22, 1845: By the Great Western
English opinions of Mr. Polk's inaugural address

REv41i111p4c5, April 22, 1845: Powhatan County
Comments about Mr. Seddon-spoke at the courthouse made attacks on Mr. Botts who does not want annexation; report of Mr. Botts speaking against annexation, author of the article relies the conversations between the two men about annexation

REv41i111p4c6, April 22, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
Another person giving an account of the discussion between Mr. Seddon and Mr. Botts-again speaks of the annexation question

REv41i108p1c4, April (cannot read the date) 1845: The Claims of Mexico-Our treaties with her-Chance of war
Comments on how annexation of Texas does not violate our treaties with Mexico-mentions articles from other papers that support this; comments on Mexico rushing into war-belief that it is against her own interests

REv41i108p1c5, April (cannot read the date) 1845: Texas is no Province
Report on Senor Almonte publishing protests against the annexation of Texas

REv41i108p1c5, April (cannot read the date) 1845: Cheering sign from Texas!
Article from a Texas paper that states that it believes Texas will accept annexation

REv41i109p2c1, April 15, 1845: Cheering from Texas!
Reports of confident hopes coming in about the annexation of Texas; passage of the Galveston agreement on annexation has been received; comments on how the Whigs made everyone believe that Texas might not accept the annexation

REv41i109p2c2, April 15, 1845: A Due Compliment
Reprint of an article from New Orleans about Mr. Barton's view on the Texas question and how it is rumored that he is a speculator in Texas land

REv41i108p1c6, April (cannot read date): To the Republicans of Virginia
Comments about how the Texas question is not settled yet and a call to not relax on the issue; comments about how  and the Whigs think that the annexation of Texas is unconstitutional

REv41i108p1c7, April (cannot read date): Messers, Hunter and Newton
Debate between the three men-including conversation about the Texas question

REv41i109p1c6, April 15, 1845: The Issues in the Sixth Congressional District
More comments on the annexation of Texas and how it is a good thing, why it is legal

REv41i106p2c2, April 4, 1845: Views of Annexation
Letter speaking of the views of annexation and comments about it-presents strong reasons as to why the US should annex Texas

REv41i110p1c3, April 18, 1845: The Succession!
Comments on how it has been predicted that the next election will focus on how slavery will be extended into the Texas lands

REv41i110p1c3, April 18, 1845: Federal Strategy
Quote from the Tribune about the annexation of Texas and comments about how the annexation of Texas will be fought

REv41i110p1c6, April 18, 1845: Meeting in Chesterfield
Comments on the remarks made by Messers, Seddon and Botts about the Texas question-said to have been forcibly presented

REv41i110p1c5, April 18, 1845: Messrs, Seddon and Botts
Mr. Seddon's comments on the tariff and Texas question at a debate yesterday-said that Seddon excelled himself

REv41i111p1c5, April 22,1845: British Views and Sentiments
Quotes other British newspapers giving the British point of view on Texas

REv41i111p1c5, April 22, 1845: From the Galveston
French and English Ministers returned to the city today

REv41i111p1c5, April 22, 1845: From the same
British vessels of war arrived in Vera Cruz with despatches from the government-comments on what those despatches might say and what this means for Texas

REv41i108p2c3, April (cannot read the date): A Very Novel Proposition
Urging Virginians to throw their weight behind the annexation of Texas

REv41i108p2c4, April (cannot read the date): To the People of Virginia
Article from the Cincinnati Weekly Herald that Whigs and abolitionist are and appeal the annexation of Texas

REv41i108p2c6, April (cannot read the date): To Rappahannock
Comments on England trying to defeat the annexation of Texas; Whigs turning on Mr. Newton when he voted for Brown and came out supporting annexation; comments on Whigs against annexation

REv41i110p4c1, April 18, 1845: Important from Texas
Gov. Yell headed for Marmoro; Mr. Donelson has returned bring important despatches; comments on the drama surrounding Texas; resolutions passed at San Phillipe show a unity on annexation; annexation received in Houston; English and French Ministers left for Washington; Annexation meeting in Austin accepted the annexation of Texas

REv41i110p4c3, April18, 1845: Additional Accounts from Texas
More information-very detailed-about the situation in Texas-will they accept or won't they?; what will England say?-speculation on questions that do not have answers yet

REv41i111p2c3, April 22, 1845: Further from Texas
Diplomatic relations have been ceased between Mexico and US; papers full of articles relating to annexation-reprint of an article expressing the desire for annexation; General Houston in favor of annexation law; British sloop of war Eurydice is headed for Vera Cruz; rumors and suspicions attached to the sailing of the Eurydice

REv41i111p3c4, April 22, 1845: From the N.O. Jeffersionian Republic-Texas--Mexico
Comments on relations of Mexico to Texas; angry speeches made in the Mexican Congress; Santa Anna still has a party even though he is a prisoner; Herrera wants to have a peaceful settlement with the US

REv41i111p3c4, April 22, 1845: From the Same-Havana--Mexico
Mexico has learned of the passage of the annexation of Texas and other information on the situation in Mexico

REv41i111p3c4, April 22, 1845: Texas
Comments on the progress of annexation; French and English Ministers have arrived in New York and have prepared an offer to settle the Texas matter; results of a meeting held in san Augustin; Congress in Mexico has been insession trying to figure out what to do about the annexation

REv41i111p3c6, April 22, 1845: For the Enquirer
Comments on the stance of politicians on the annexation of Texas

REv41i11103c6, April 22, 1845: To the Editors of the Enquirer
More comments on politician stances on the annexation of Texas


May

RE41i115p1c4: May 6, 1845: PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS
Coverage of the democratic meetings in Philadelphia regarding Oregon.

RE41i115p1c6: May 6, 1845: OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS
As summarized by the Philadelphia Ledger.

RE41i115p1c7: May 6, 1845: HUGH A. GARLAND’S LETTER
From the Petersburg Republican. Signed Keith. Discusses the role Texas should play in party politics.

RE41i115p2c1: May 6, 1845: A CAUTION TO THE WHIG PARTY
From the Washington Union. Do not make Oregon a party issue.

RE41i115p2c1: May 6, 1845: IDLE SPECULATIONS
Oregon shows county is wild about rumors. from The Washington Union.

RE41i115p2c1: May 6, 1845: IN PEACE PREPARE FOR WAR
From the New Orleans Republican April 28. War with Mexico will be a war or privateering.

RE41i115p2c2: May 6, 1845: SCENES IN PHILADELPHIA
What effect do the events of Philadelphia have on national parties? From The Washington Union.

RE41i115p2c3: May 6, 1845: OUR RIGHTS TO OREGON
We don’t want war, but hope all will support it.

RE41i115p2c6: May 6, 1845: GOVERNOR OF OREGON
Halifax County Herald says “We have it upon good authority, that Sir George Simpson, a passenger in the Caledonia for Boston, goes on as Governor of the Oregon Territory. If so, the question of right and possession will be brought to speedy issue.”

RE41i115p4c1: May 6, 1845: MISCELLANEOUS
From New Orleans Bulletin April 26. Texas favors annexation.

RE41i115p4c1: May 6, 1845: PROCLAMATION
Anson Jones. Texas legislature to meet June 16th.

RE41i115p4c2: May 6, 1845: THE OREGON QUESTION
Mr. Clay does not carry more weight than Polk.

RE41i115p4c2: May 6, 1845: ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF ANTI-ANNEXATION
Praises Jones proclamation.

RE42i1p1c6: May 9, 1845: OREGON AND ENGLAND
We are not alarmed by Whig war predictions.

RE42i1p1c7: May 9, 1845: THE OREGON NEGOTIATION
Negotiations aren’t over. from The Washington Union.

RE42i1p2c1, May 9, 1845: ARRIVAL OF THE HIBERNIA
From New York Express Extra, May 7. Latest news from Continent.

RE42i1p4c1, May 9, 1845: GOVERNOR OF OREGON
Suspicions regarding Sir George Simpson.

RE42i1p4c2, May 9, 1845: LATER FROM MEXICO
From the New Orleans Tropic, April 29th. Latest Bulletin.

RE42i1p4c4, May 9, 1845: LATE FROM TEXAS
Annexation immediately favored.

RE42i1p4c4, May 9, 1845: COTTON FOR CHINA
Need for Oregon explained by the market in China.

RE42i1p4c5, May 9, 1845: THE RIGHT SPIRIT OREGON!
Don’t make possible war with England over Oregon a party issue.

RE42i2p1c4, May 13, 1845: THE ENGLISH MISSION - OREGON
Northern fear that a Southerner will be granted the mission.

RE42i2p1c4, May 13, 1845: OUTRAGE UPON PROPRIETY
Censure of Whigs who turn Oregon into a party issue to undermine the administration.

RE42i2p1c7, May 13, 1845: LATER FROM TEXAS
Latest from the New Orleans Tropic, April 30.

RE42i2p2c1, May 13, 1845: THE WAR QUESTION
New York Herald reports the latest on British attitudes.

RE42i2p2c1, May 13, 1845: UNTITLED
From the Washington Union. We want peace, but it must be honorable.

RE42i2p2c1, May 13, 1845: BRITISH MOVEMENTS
Washington Union reports hints of troop movements from the London Times.

RE42i2p4c5, May 13, 1845: UNTITLED
There will be no war with England, for she has domestic concerns.

RE42i3p1c4, May 16, 1845: WHIG OPINION IN VIRGINIA
The role that Texas plays.

RE42i3p1c4, May 16, 1845: THE ENGLISH MISSION - MR. PICKENS
Discussion of who will be conferred with Mr. Pickens refusal. Van Buren would be Southern favorite

RE42i3p1c4, May 16, 1845: MEXICAN AFFAIRS
Refutes claims that Mexico has declared war.

RE42i3p1c5, May 16, 1845: THE STATES - CONNECTICUT
What Connecticut says about annexation.

RE42i3p2c2, May 16, 1845: LAST NEWS FROM MEXICO
No change in relations despite recent events in Vera Cruz.

RE42i3p4c3, May 16, 1845: THE JUSTICE OF OUR CLAIM TO ENGLAND ACKNOWLEDGED ABROAD
The Dublin Nation says England “cannot occupy Oregon without the consent of the United States.”

RE42i3p4c3, May 16, 1845: WAR FEVER IN BRITISH COLONIES
Toronto Globe advocates liberal policies over iron hand.

RE42i4p1c6, May 20, 1845: INTERESTING FROM TEXAS
Annexation process continues uninterrupted.

RE42i4p2c1, May 20, 1845: MISREPRESENTATION
Sorts out the confusion of rumors regarding the mission to England.

RE42i4p2c6, May 20, 1845: UNTITLED
Another Revolution in Mexico is said to be in contemplation. From New Orleans Republican.

RE42i4p2c6, May 20, 1845: OREGON
Could Arbitration work? From the Washington Union.

RE42i4p4c2, May 20, 1845: TITLE TO OREGON
A history of the claims both England and the U.S. make on the territory.

RE42i5p1c5, May 23, 1845: ACCUMULATED EVIDENCE
Absolute confidence that Texas will be admitted.

RE42i5p1c7, May 23, 1845: FIFTEEN DAYS LATER FROM EUROPE
Neither side will start a war.

RE42i5p2c2, May 23, 1845: IMPORTANT, IF TRUE
Texas Independence is too late.

RE42i5p2c3, May 23, 1845: A WORD IN EAR OF MR. POLK
- From the Punch.

RE42i5p2c4, May 23, 1845: FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE NO. XLII. “OUR OWN COUNTRY” - “ARM, BROTHERS, ARM!”
A letter to the editor stating the reasons that Great Britain will not attack. Signed Agricola.

RE42i5p4c3, May 23, 1845: AGREEABLE INTELLIGENCE
All information from Texas border reports support for annexation in Texas.

RE42i6p1c4, May 27, 1845: SHALL WE HAVE WAR?
Too many domestic troubles for Britain means probably not.

RE42i6p2c3, May 27, 1845: FRUITS OF TEXAS ANNEXATION
We are not in favor of annexation just because we are Southern.

RE42i6p2c4, May 27, 1845: A GOOD JOKE KNOCKED IN THE HEAD!
A detailed account of what Judge Bragg of Mobile really said concerning Texas.

RE42i6p4c6, May 27, 1845: THE WEST - THE OREGON
A Non-Virginian perspective.

RE42i6p4c6, May 27, 1845: MINISTER TO ENGLAND
Discussion of possible appointments.

RE42i7p1c5, May 30, 1845: EXCITING NEWS FROM THE SOUTH
Texas President Jones has been waiting to hear from Mexico before voting on annexation. From the New Orleans Republican, May 20 and 21.

RE42i7p1c6, May 30, 1845: PROPOSITIONS
Details from Washington Union on what each side has proposed regarding Oregon.

RE42i7p2c1, May 30, 1845: UNTITLED
News from New Orleans reports Texas debt at sixteen million. However, figures are questionable.

RE42i7p2c2, May 30, 1845: THE OREGON QUESTION
Details of Mr. Calhoun’s involvement in possible Oregon settlements.

RE42i7p2c3, May 30, 1845: MEXICO AND TEXAS
Discussion of Mexicans duplicity, i.e. their willingness to let Texas go. From the Mobile Herald & Tribune.

RE42i7p4c5, May 30, 1845: EXCITEMENT IN ENGLAND
War is unlikely.


June 1845

June 3, 1845 RE45v42i8p1c6 The Crisis in Texas

June 3, 1845 RE45v42i8p4c3 Mexico and Texas

June 6, 1845 RE45v42i9p2c5 The Mexican Installments

June 6, 1845 RE45v42i9p4c4 Mexican Commissions

June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p1c5 Texas

June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p1c5 The Mexican Installments

June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p2c2 News from the South

June 10, 1845 RE45v42i10p2c2 Texas

June 13, 1845 RE45v42i11p2c5 The Navy Court Martial

June 13, 1845 RE45v42i11p4c1 Political
Annexation of Texas

June 17, 1845 RE45v42i12p1c5 Another Act in the Drama

June 17, 1845 RE45v42i12p1c6  Six Days Later From Texas

June 20, 1845, REv42i13p1c6  A Diary about General Jackson

June 20, 1845, REv42i13p1c7 Texas

June 27, 1845, REv42i15p1c  From Mexico, Santa Anna

June 27, 1845, REv42i15p4c6 Very Late From Mexico


January

Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p1c1 207 words

Foreign Intelligence, Later From Mexico and China

     Arrival of Mr. Cushing-Progress of the revolution-Santa Anna deposed as President-Gen. Herrera temporary President-A new Government organized, and Santa Anna at the head of the Army.

We learn, (say the New York Journal of Commerce) from Captain Briscoe of the marquee Hogenia, from Vera Cruz, whence she sailed on the 12th instant, that the principal towns, and almost the whole country, have pronounced against Santa Anna, who with a small force was a Queretaro.

            The revolution passed of very quietly, no blood having been shed-the former revolution having been carried on by one party of military against another, resulting in much loss of life, but this movement, coming from the people as well as from the soldiery, makes the thing general and hence the little commotion of disagreeable nature.  Santa Anna has but little chance of overcoming this movement, and it was a matter of conjecture, whether he would attempt to escape or deliver himself up.  He will very probably endeavor to gain over the opposite General by bribery or similar means; but in this it is thought he will not succeed.  In case that he is taken prisoner, the people will probably demand his execution, as they deem his liberty dangerous to the public safety.

[AMB]


Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p1c1

Arrival of Mr. Crushing

             Hon C. Cushing, late Minister […] of the United States to China, who arrived in town this morning, in the […] Eugenia, has communicated to us the following information-In passing through Mexico, Mr. Cushing was robbed of nearly all his private papers, but fortunately, the public papers were left […] .

            Mr. Fletcher Webster is expected to arrive by way of England in about a fortnight.

            Santa Anna was proclaimed Dictator, and all seemed to go on well, but about midstream the troops barracked in the […] St. Francis and the citadel pronounced against Santa Anna and Canalizo.  At the head of the movement was General Done Jose J. Herrera, President of the Council, who addressed the proclamation to the city, and the whole Congress immediately threw itself into his arms, who immediately took possession of the National palace without […] shed.

            The Congress constituted its session’s permanent.  The Ex-Minister fled.  Canalizo is in […] rest at his own house.

            The new authorities maintained perfect quiet.

            The Chambers are occupied in […] means to remedy the injury the country has […].

            On the 1st of November, 1811, the Departmental Assembly of Jalisco adopted and published what is called an Initiative, being an act published what is called an Initiative, being an act […] for by the constitution, in virtue of which the Assembly submitted the proposition following.

            “The National Congress will make […] the responsibility of the Provisional Government to which it was subjected by the 6th of the […] of Tacubaya, which it swore to and caused to be sworn to by the nation.”  The four departments of Zacatecas, Aguasclientes, Sinaloa and Sonora […] at once in the pronunciamento of Jalisco, and thus the […] Northwestern departments were in arms at […] against Santa Anna. Between these and Mexico, there intervene the two departments of […] and Queretaro.

            Paredes advanced to Lagos, on the Frontier of Jalisco, and the established his head-quarters, with an army of 1400 men, to await the progress of events.  In the contiguous department of Guanajuato was General Cortazar, with 2000 men, on whom Paredes depended for support; but the rapid movements of Santa Anna himself prevented Cortazar from joining Paredes, if he had the intention, and compelled him, for the present, at least to declare for Santa Anna.

            The Mexican Constitution provides expressly that the President cannot command in person the military force either by land or sea, without the previous permission of Congress.  Santa Anna would have taken the command without even pretending to ask the counsel of Congress […] in so doing, had himself performed a revolution an act quite as positive and serious as that of Paredes.

            Nevertheless, on the 22nd he proceeded on his march to Queretaro, and on the same day, the Chamber of Deputies voted the impeachment of the Minister of War, Gen. Reyes. For signing the order under which Santa Anna held the command of the troops.  Congress also voted to receive and print the procurements of the revolutionized department; in all this indicating a disposition, not to be mistaken, of hostility of Santa Anna.

            On arriving at Queretaro, Santa Anna found that, although the military authorities were […] in power, yet the junta department had pronounced for the institution of Jalisco.  There fore he made known to the members, that if they did not re-pronounce in his favor, he would send them prisoners to Perote.

            His position is now extremely critical, therefore.  Everything he depends on whether his troops adhere to him against the Congress and the constitutional government.  If they do, he becomes military Dictator of the country.

            They refused, and three of them were immediately arrested by his order, and sent off under a strong guard in the direction of Mexico and Perote.  When the report of these proceedings reached Mexico, the Congress summoned before it the Minister of War and of Government to […] whether they had authorized General Santa Anna to imprison the members of the junta department of Secretary.

            This subject occupied the Chambers on the 29th and 30th of November, and their attitude had now become so menacing that the […] interino, Canalize, (after consultation with Santa Anna) took the high-handed step of deciding to close the session of Congress by force, and declaring Santa Anna Dictator of the Republic.

            Accordingly, on repairing to the palace on the 1st of December the members found the doors shut against them and granted by soldiers and on the 2nd appeared the proclamation of Canalizo, the Presidente[…] declaring the Chambers dissolved indefinitely, and conferring all the powers of Government, legislative as well as executive, on Santa Anna, as […] the same to be exercised by Canalize Presidente interino, until otherwise ordered for Santa Anna.

            For some days this forcible demolition of the constitutional Government by the creatures of Santa Anna, […] without producing any apparent effect in Mexico.  But on the very day when the news reached Puebla, Gen. […] commandant-general of that department, in concert with the civil authority, pronounced against the Government, imprisoned Canalizo and his ministers-Congress re-assembled-the President, according to the Constitution, and new ministers were appointed the next day, whose authority was immediately acknowledged in Vera Cruz.

            At the latest dates there from Vera Cruz […] a departments of Sonora, Sinaloa, Jalisco, revolution and Aguasclientes were in a state of Paredes.  […] in the military possession of Gen Santa Anna.  Santa Anna’s President […] Congress had re-assembled, and a temporary [ . . . ] Government was installed there, composed as follows viz:

            General Jose Joaquin de Herrera, President of the Council of Government, charged temporarily with the supreme executive authority.
            D. Luis G. Cuevas, Minister of Foreign Relations, State and Police.
            D. Mariano Riva Palacios, Minister of Justice Public Instructions and Industry.
            D. Pedro J. Echeverria, Minister of Finance.
            D. Pedro Garcia Conde, Minister of War.

            And it was already known that the Departments of Puebla and Vera Cruz had declared their adhesion to the provisional Government, and there is no doubt that most of the other Departments will also support the Congress.

            Meanwhile, Santa Anna, constitutional President of the Republic, but unconstitutionally in the command of the troops, is employed against Paredes.  The new Minister of War has ordered him to give up his command.

            Reports were current at Vera Cruz, that a part of his troops had already proclaimed him Dictator; that another part had declared against him: but, upon this point, no information in authentic form had reached the public ear.

            If any [ . . . ] portion of troops adheres to him, to enable him to continue the war, still he is surrounded with difficulties, being in the very heart of the republic, with Jalisco and its concurrent departments to the Pacific against him […] and Mexico, with its […] Gulf against him on the […].

[AMB]


Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p2c5

To the Editors of the Enquirer 

Gentlemen: The enclosed letter from Mr. Bowden to me, has been approved by such of our friends as have seen it, and they think it best to have it published. If you can find space in your columns, be good enough to give it an early insertion.        Yours, respectfully,

ED. S. RUSSELL.

     30th December, 1844.

                          Williamsburg, 28th Dec., 1844

     My dear Sir: I observe in the country Whig, which came to hand this morning, that a writer, signing himself  "Poqusin," has advanced the idea, that "neither any good Whig, nor any Republican who values the Right of Instruction, can consistently vote for Mr. Bowden."  I have not the advantage of knowing who "Poqusin" is, nor would I venture to say whether his residence is in York, James City, or Williamsburg; but one thing I desire you to do for me, and that is to assure any of my constituents, with whom you may meet, that I fully acknowledge the right of the constituent body to instruct their delegate, and the duty of the delegate to obey or to resign; and I wish you to make this known as early and as widely as possible, and especially to the Whigs-- that they may [ . . . ] to be instructed, if the people desire to here and [ . . . ].  I shall have it fully understood.

     The Senatorias City.

The writer in the [ . . . ] is the subject on which [ . . . ] of instructions. [ . . . ] I design a [ . . . ] is not yet fixed: it will not [ . . . ] of that election sooner than the 20th of January; [ . . . ] take place remediate time, full opportunity will be the [ . . . ] my opponents to remove all doubts as to the [ . . . ] that my district entertains relative to the election of Senator, by obtaining from the people a direct and unequivocal declaration on the subject.

     That the people whom I represent desire me to vote for an anti-Texas Senator-placed in Congress to thwart the measures of the Administration which the nation's will has so recently advanced to power, and to nullify the voice of Virginia, pronounced by a majority of about 6,000 in opposition to the principles and policy which a Whig Senator would maintain-is what I shall never believe, until by some clear and manifest declaration from them all shadow of doubt shall be removed.  Virginia, you must admit; is entitled to a Republican Senator-no matter in what aspect the subject may be viewed.-If you look to numbers alone, she is Republican by about six thousand majority.  If you regard representation alone, and look to the compound basis, so as to give Eastern Virginia her constitutional weight in the election of Senator, how then stands the case taking the Presidential Election as a test?  (and you will bear in mind, it is from that election my instruction to vote for a Whig is deduced.)  Taking the Presidential Election as a test, the Whigs sustain a clear loss of eight or ten votes in the Legislature, which ensures the election of a Republican Senator.  With this statement of facts staring them in the face, and ringing in their ears, if any people wish me to vote for a Senator to misrepresent Virginia, and to make this old Commonwealth support in the Federal Legislature the very measure which, in fact, she abhors and detests; if any people wish me to act in this manner, let them say so at once.  I know full well what I shall do the instant such a request is authoritatively made.  But, that my constituents-who were rocked in the cradle of Republicanism-who dwell on a soil consecrated by the earliest and most glorious achievements of Freedom's votaries-who have ever regarded as a fundamental principle of out institutions, the right of the majority, when fairly expressed, to control the action of the Government, and to declare, within the limits of the Constitutions, what shall be the law of the land-that these constituents desire me to stifle the voice of the state, and to saddle her with a Senator

who would oppose the wishes and misrepresent the interests of a legislative majority, backed by a popular majority of 6,000, would be to suppose then actuated by feelings and opinions which I believe have no place but with a lean and scanty minority-a minority which may fancy itself to speak as with the voice of the people, and which has caused its clamor so to resound through the press as to make the distant public believe that the whole district was in an uproar!

    If the Whig party deem the Presidential vote a test-'tis all well enough.  If the members of that party, in the House, whose counties voted for Polk, regarding the Presidential Election as instructions, will vote for a Republican, I will follow their lead and vote for a Whig-not that I deem myself instructed.  Many, who voted for Clay, want Texas; and some have told me to act as I please.  But if the Whigs situated as above, will vote for a Republican, the Republicans will be perfectly willing that I should, by adopting such a principle, gain eight or ten legislative votes to the party-and the Whigs could not complain of my voting for their man.

     You will find out, however, that whilst the Presidential Election is viewed as instructions to Democrats, the idea of its being considered instructions to the Whigs will be treated as perfectly absurd and ridiculous; though, on every fair principle, a rule the direct reverse of this should prevail-for every Republican must wish the administration supported-but every Whig does not wish it opposed.  Many desire it to have a fair trial, and are unwilling to throw embarrassments and difficulties in its way-preferring rather to see the country prosper, by wise measures, successfully pursued, than to witness the triumph of their party, secured by the distress and ruin which a factious opposition might visit on the land, under the wisest and best administrations.

     Do not fail to let my position be clearly understood-for, whilst the Senatorial, and all the other elections, belong to the  people, it belongs to me, and to my friends, to see to it, that no charge of violated instructions should be urged against me, without arming myself with testimony wherewith to stop the mouths of my adversaries.

     Remember me most respectfully and kindly to the family, and tender my respects and good wishes to such as consider me worthy of inquiry.

     Yours, L. J. BOWDEN.

To Ed. S. Russell, Esq.,
Half-way House, York County.

[AMB]


Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p2c4

Letter to the Editor

We invite attention to the powerful letter of Mr. Bowden and to the highly important news from Mexico, which seem to portend the downfall of Santa Anna.  Will the Whigs of the Senate still persist, that we should ask the "consent" of Mexico to the annexation of Texas-when it is clear, that the former doomed country, a prey to intestine dissensions, cannot command her own ambitious and discordant spirits?  At the present moment, Texas occupies a vastly higher moral position in the scale of nations, than her would-be mistress.  In every sense, Texas is more independent than Mexico.

[AMB]


Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i47p2c2

Missouri Right Side Up, Action Reversed - Col. Benton Instructed by Legislature [from the St. Louis Reporter, Dec. 23]

     We announce with great pleasure the final passage of the Resolutions of Instruction, through the House of Representatives, on the 18th […] by a vote of 55 to 25.  They had previously passed the Senate by a vote of 3 to 1, except the 6th, which was opposed by five Democrats, under the apprehension that it would be seized on, as justifying efforts to embarrass the friends of […], and might lend to the defeat of the […], at the present session.  The opposition to immediate annexation was confined to the Whigs-The five first resolutions received the unanimous vote of the Democrats in the Senate and on the question as to the passage of the entire series, every Democrat, present in the House, voted in the affirmative.

            [The resolutions were published in the Enquirer a few days since.]

     These resolutions clearly express the will of the people of Missouri.  They instruct our Senators to vote for annexation at the earliest practicable period-by which the debate shows that the Democrats mean now, immediately, or at the present recession of Congress.  They declare the Missouri regards Texas, as free and independent-capable of maintaining that independence-and possessing the indisputable right to transfer herself to this country; and that the right of the U. States to accept Texas, without that consent of Mexico or any other power, is equally unquestionable-They also declare that Missouri approves the arrangement as to the boundary agreed on in the treaty, and is opposed to the division of Texas into slave-holding and non-slaveholding States for territory.  Thus, every objection urged by Col. Benton against the treaty, has been pronounced unfounded by the Legislature, representing the sovereign people of Missouri.

     The Colonel, if he means to act as a Democrat, and with the Democratic Party, will cheerfully obey the foregoing instruction-drop his bill, and vote for the annexation of Texas, by joint resolution, in accordance with the views of the party and the State of Missouri.

     We sincerely congratulate the Democratic Members of the Legislature on the result of their deliberations on the great issue of annexation.  Though the 6th resolution shows that many of them naturally continued to repose confluence in the opinions and assertions of Colonel Benton, and, therefore, supposed Texas would offer more favorable conditions, and Mexico yield her consent to annexation-still, the five preceding resolutions are very explicit, and clearly instruct our Senators to vote for annexation on the terms and embraced in the treaty.  The friends of Colonel Benton declare that he will most cheerfully obey the instructions given, and we hope their confidence may not be misplaced.  For the sake of the country, to say nothing of the harmony of the party, we trust Colonel Benton will renounce his heresies at once, and faithfully co-operate with Judge Atchison in favor of immediate annexation.

      Again we congratulate the Democrats in the Legislature.  […] have they proclaimed the sovereign will of the State, and thus shown that they understand our national interests, and […] defend them.  They are now with the party in other quarters of the Union-and if they cannot carry Col. Benton with them, it will be his fault, not theirs.  They have shown that they will only follow when they believe they are correctly led, and that they adhere to the Democratic doctrine, that they representatives should obey the will of his constituents.

     There is now an opportunity for the party to harmonize.  On State issues there seems to be but little difference of opinion, as all now agree that we were right in advocating equal representation and the district system, and opposing bills of pains and penalties.  On national questions, we are now united, and may remain united, in spite of the efforts of any one man.

     The members of the Legislature have acted as Democrats should always act.  The will of the people-of the party, has been boldly proclaimed, and should be obeyed.  We can continue to agree on all great questions and, by resolving that we will not quarrel about non-essential, harmony may be restored and preserved!

[AMB]


Friday, January 3, 1845 RE41i77p2c6 24 words

Marine Journal

From the Port of Richmond, 10:00 a.m.

Arrived
[…] Curtis Peck, Davis Norfolk

Sailed
[…] Manchester, Worth, New York,
[…], Couster, Rogart, Jersey City.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1846 RE41i78p1c3

The Dangers of Procrastination - Again!

If we were to believe most of the thousand and one rumors which reach us from Washington, we should not entertain a very sanguine hope of the results of the present session of Congress.  Most of the Whig scribblers even ridicule the prospect of Annexation, or the reduction of the Tariff.  But the strongest considerations are opposed to this miserable policy of delay.  The country demands relief from the present oppressive Tariff.  The manufacturers themselves demand stability in the imposition of duties.  The present Tariff cannot continue.  The South will never acquiesce in it.  Is it not wiser, then, to regulate it at once, and thus avoid those agitations which we are otherwise destined to witness?  Let some liberal system be adopted at once, which shall certainly but gradually relieve us from the oppressions of the Tariff, and we are willing to meet our Republican brethren in other quarters in the most conciliatory spirit.-We equally deprecate all procrastination in the acquisition of Texas.  We are only satisfied by longer time and greater reflection that Immediate Annexation is our true policy.  (Our last accounts from Washington are of the most cheering character.  We understand, upon good authority, that the Republican Caucus have agreed upon the question of Annexation by a majority of 30 odd-and that, in case it passes the House by a respectable majority, there is a favorable prospect of its passing the Senate.  It is said, Col. Benton will obey the instructions of the Legislature of Missouri.)- But why is not all the Republican press doing its duty on these great questions?  Why are they not all making their boldest appeals to Congress?  We earnestly request them all to speak out, and urge an immediate settlement of these two important subjects.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p1c3

Texas

     The best policy of the government, too, forbids any procrastination upon this subject.  Everything shows that Great Britain is attempting to tamper both with Texas and Mexico to defeat any annexation with the U. States.  Why incur the danger of losing this country?  The people of the U. States have just decided in favor of the measure.  Why run the risk and danger of any delay?  Some of the Republican presses are not speaking out as boldly and as energetically as the country has a right to demand.  They cant about delay.-They affect to say, that Congress will do nothing at the present session: and we must submit. - Shame upon this hesitating and equivocating language!  Why do they not speak out-and call upon the members to act at once?  If these presses and politicians were to speak out without any reserve, and instead of encouraging the lagging members to violate their duties, were to shame them into the fulfillment of them, then might the will of the people be respected, Texas be acquired, without war and without disturbance.  It must be confessed, too, that some of our politicians are shivering in the wind.  They are either slumbering at their posts, or sacrificing the interests of their country to the gratification of their own passions.  But there are many other politicians and presses, who deserve the people's thanks for the energy with which they throw themselves into the cause of immediate annexation.  We shall quote a few specimens of this class, as well to do honor to themselves, as that we may avail ourselves of the arguments which they are urging. - The first of these is Mr. Foster, one of the United States Senators of New York.  The following is an extract of a letter which he addressed on the 25th December, to the Editor of the N.Y. Plebeian, in reply to certain questions of its Editor:

     "I am in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas, and placing over the territory of Oregon the shield of our government.  I believe that the resolution adopted at the recent Democratic National Convention, held at Baltimore:-'That out title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestioned; that no portion thereof ought to be ceded to England or to any other power, and that the re-occupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas, at the earliest practicable period, are great American measures,’ should be accomplished as soon as is compatible with national honor.  That the re-annexation of Texas will not increase the evils of slavery, but will hasten its extinction in the slaveholding States; will in an especial manner, promote the agriculture, manufacturing and commercial interests of the Northern and Eastern States; will add to the security of the whole Union; and extend and perpetuate the benefits of our form of Government over one of the richest portions of the earth.  I cannot present you with the details of a plan of annexation; but I hold that it can rightfully be annexed without the consent of Mexico.  She has no right to interfere.  Texas is really, as well as nominally, independent.  She has maintained her independence for several years, and not a hostile force has entered her territory, without being compelled to retreat with more rapidity than it had advanced.

     "The leading powers of Europe, as well as our own Government, have acknowledged the independence of Texas, and some of them have treated with her as an independent nation; and even the Congress of Mexico has recently refused to vote the supplies necessary to a further prosecution of her war with Texas.  The only question, therefore, in regard to which Mexico is interested, is one of boundary; and that can as well be settled by negotiation with our Government after the annexation shall take place as with Texas, if she remains separate from us.

     "I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

       "HENRY A. FOSTER."

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p1c1

House of Representatives 

On the motion of Mr. PRATT, it was  Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate to this House such [ . . . ] as he may possess, or may be able to [ . . . ], of the whole amount of the debt of Texas the amount for which bond or scrip has been issued; and the present market value of [ . . . ] scrip or bond in Texas, in the United States, and in Europe; the amount in value of the exports from, and the imports into, Texas for the years 1843 and 1844, with the amount of revenue [ . . . ] and collected for the same years, with [ . . . ] expenditures for the same time; also, the present population of Texas, distinguishing in numbers between free and slaves; also, the quantity of acres of land, which it is supposed is covered in valid grants from the present and former Governments of that country; and the estimated quantity in acres of good and [ . . . ] land [ . . . ] for cultivation which remains [ . . . ]  [ . . . ] the disputed and acknowledged limits of [ . . . ] as same existed prior to the year [ . . . ].

                  RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS

     Mr. HAMMETT moved that the rules be suspended, that the House might resolve [ . . . ] into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

     The motion was agreed to and the House went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair,) assumed the consideration of the resolutions to annex Texas to this Union.

     Mr. Holmes, who had the floor from yesterday, commenced with some remarks [ . . . ] importance of the question which now [ . . . ]  the attention of the committee.  He contended that this was not a sectional, but a great [ . . . ] question; and to this complexion it has [ . . . ] at last; annexation or rejection now and [ . . . ].  And on this he based the proposition, and [ . . . ] to it the attention, not of a section, nor of a [ . . . ] but of every man who had in his [ . . . ] the [ . . . ] union and confederation,[ . . . ] Annexation[ . . . ] [ . . . ] was salvation or destruction to the [ . . . ] Atlantic States, to New England and to the manufacturing community, and be admitted, [ . . . ] the inevitable destruction of the South, and sustained his position by showing the [ . . . ]  effect which would be produced on the producers and manufactures of the various sections of [ . . . ] country by Texas remaining independent and [ . . . ] commercial league with England, and in [ . . . ] of the guarantees promised to her [ . . . ] [ . . . ].  A [ . . . ] on condition of her [ . . . ] government separate from ours.  Her [ . . . ] [ . . . ] Great Britain would preclude exportation [ . . . ] our country to that republic, and under the restrictive policy our entire Union would be injured to [ . . . ] degree now not to be determined.

     Mr. WM. J. BROWN was wedded to no particular plan.  He was like the young man in his own native West with stout arms and [ . . . ] principles, who, when first sets out from his maternal home, gets himself a wife.  When [ . . . ] to one whose smile serves the purpose [ . . . ] rainbow of hope and promise, he begins to [ . . . ] his cabin, and lay out his fields, until his horn of plenty is filled to overflowing.  Just so with [ . . . ] he was first for his country, and next for Texas and, having obtained her, all things else [ . . . ] be added thereto.  Let us then have Texas [ . . . ] and hereafter all the details could be settled. [ . . . ] as this question was decided in the late election, he called upon gentlemen to obey the will of the people.

     Mr. GARRET DAVIS would not be displeased; on the contrary, he would be glad if Texas could be annexed without a violation of the Constitution, and our neutral rights, and with the general assent of the people.  It was with a [ . . . ] to the distant future that he should desire the [ . . . ] of this measure.  The natural [ . . . ] cities of Texas for the production of cotton and sugar rendered it of immense importance [ . . . ] inhabitants of the United States.  But his [ . . . ] to see Texas annexed was subordinate to other considerations.  His attachment to the Union [ . . . ] existed, rather than endanger its [ . . . ] led him, nevertheless, to oppose annexation [ . . . ] every possible form.  He spoke of the question as one of power-contending the legislature was not, by the Constitution, empowered to require foreign territory, &c.

     Mr. BOWLIN next obtained the floor but The Committee rose, and reported progress, [ . . . ] The House then adjourned. Extract of a letter from Madison County,

     "Mr. Goggin has declined becoming a candidate for re-election, as you have seen.  The Whigs are awfully troubled about it here. [ . . . ] do not think there is the least doubt about the election of a Democratic member of Congress [ . . . ] this district, unless there be some discord in [ . . . ] Convention proposed to be held in Charlottesville to nominate a candidate."

     [We will listen to no such apprehension. [ . . . ] take it for granted, that the Convention will be well attended, as it ought to be- fairly organized as it ought also to be- and that its [ . . . ] will meet the immediate and cordial [ . . . ] every Republican in the District.] [ . . . ] 

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c3

Resolutions of New Hampshire

     Missouri has adopted Resolutions instructing her Senators to vote for the annexation of Texas as early as practicable.  The Granite State is also coming up to the rescue.  The following Resolutions have just been passed by the House of Representatives of New Hampshire, by a vote of 136 to 61.  Upon which, the N. York Plebeian says, “The Democracy of New England are unanimous on this great American question.  There is no backing out, or denying the issue in that quarter.”

            “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened, That the result of the Presidential election demonstrates that the people of this State and the U. States are in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas to the Union.

            “Resolved, That the usurpation of Santa Anna and his subversion by the sword of the compact under which Texas became one of the States of the Mexican Confederacy; the triumph of Texian arms a the decisive battle of San Jacinto; the subsequent acknowledgement of her independence by the usurper, and by the great powers of both continents the maintenance of that independence for a long succession of years against every toe-all combine to absolve Texas from all further allegiance to Mexico, and to establish her independence in law and act and her prefect freedom to negotiate treaties and contract alliances with other sovereignties of the globe.

            “Resolved, That we regard it as an insult to the people of Texas, who have gallantly achieved their liberties by the sword of revolution, to make the consent of Mexico a pre-requisite to their annexation to the United States, and that an attempt to procure the assent of Mexico now convulsed with insurrection and torn with contending factions, each claiming to wield the rightful powers of Government, would be as fruitless as unnecessary, and uncalled for by the justice and law of the case.

            “Resolved, That the annexation of Texas is as constitutional and expedient as was the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, of which purchased territory, we believe the present territory of Texas constitutes a part.

            “Resolved, That the re-annexation of Texas, aside from its restoring to the Southwest its mutilated territory bargained a way by the treachery or folly of our diplomatists, is found in the interest of every section of our country-the agriculture of the South and West, and the commerce and manufactures of the North.

            “Resolved, That we do not recognize the right of foreign nations to interfere in the negotiations upon this subject, and that the two countries consenting, and as against foreign nations, Texas should be re-annexed to the U.S., if need be, by armed occupation.

            “Resolved, That national honor and national policy alike forbid all further aggression upon American soil.

            “Resolved, That we believe with Mr. Clay, ‘that the re-annexation of Texas will add more free than slave States to the Union, and that it would be unwise to refuse a permanent acquisition, which will exist as long as the globe remains on account of a temporary institution.’       

            “Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives be requested, to use their exertions to procure the adoption of such measures by the General Government, as in their opinion shall be best calculated to effect the re-annexation of Texas to the United States, and to assert and maintain our rights to the territory of Oregon.

            “Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to furnish a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to the Governors of the several States and Territories of the Union.”

     [The above resolutions were unanimously adopted, by the Senate of New Hampshire.]

     We understand, that Representatives of New Hampshire in Congress are unanimous for annexation-and that the cause is, in fact, gaining ground in both Houses.  It is hoped, that the measure will not fall through the multiplicity of projects-but that some scheme may be adopted in a wise and conciliatory spirit, during the present session.  Let us seize upon the present golden opportunity, while it is in our power.  We are much more indifferent to the details than to the great object itself.  Strike whilst the iron is hot, and all will be well.

     And shall Virginia slumber at her post?  Shall Missouri and New Hampshire instruct their Senators, and shall she refuse to mingle her voice with theirs?  Shall the largest State in the South shrink from her duty?  No man, as far as we are advised, knows whether her two Senators will vote for the annexation.  Their course at the late session of Congress is calculated to produce only suspicions and doubts.  Called upon, therefore, as Virginia now I, by the importance of this question and its present position before Congress-called upon particularly by the resolutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut, which the Governor has officially communicated to the General Assembly, we do not hesitate to say, they are called upon to act decisively upon the question, as soon as possible.  We had once hoped that it would never become such a question under the malign auspices of Mr. Clay’s letter.  We still dare to hope that some of the Whigs in the Legislature will rise above all party feelings, and go for the country.  At all events, the Republicans are bound to speak out, in the most unequivocal language, and instruct the Senators of Virginia to vote for immediate Annexation.  We are no dodging of this question.  Let the Whigs of the House vote against it if they please, or let them under any flimsy pretext whatever dodge the issue; they must answer for their votes at the bar of their country.  But no idle scruples should arrest the action of the State.  We have no doubt that the question will come up in a very few days, and that then every gentleman will have the opportunity of showing his hands.

     In connection with this subject, with subjoin some very important information, which was give by Mr. C. Ingersoll to the House of Representatives, and to the world, on Friday last, and no doubt upon the highest authority.

     ‘But now to speak a word with respect to these foreign superintendents of our affairs.  On this point he should be very grief.  And, first, in regard to Mexico: her right to interfere in this question had been too much urged in various quarters to require him to touch that question; but he was authorized by those who, he felt very sure, had not deceived him, (and he would assure the House and the country that in this declaration he was not deceiving them.)to declare here, in his place, and on his responsibility, that, whatever angry feelings might now prevail between us and Mexico, there was no reason to believe that any rupture with that Power would be consequence of annexation.  On this point he had asked for information where he believed he was not deceived.  There was a sinew of war, and the best and strongest sinew of it-he meant money-which would heal all our breaches in that quarter.

[some laughter]

     “And, in the next place, with regard to Great Britain.  Some gentlemen might be surprised perhaps to hear him say, that in regard to her-

     [“At this point Mr. I. was interrupted by a query from a member near him, which the Reporter did not distinctly hear, but which he understood to have reference to Mr. I.’s authority for making these declarations.  Mr. I., speaking in reply, said he was not, he believed, authorized by the committee to go further in the way of exploration; but it must, he though, be pretty obvious where his authority came from.]

     “He was saying that with respect to Great Britain (and there might, perhaps, be those present who thought he regretted to make such a statement,) there was […] as little reason to apprehend any rupture in that quarter.

     “A voice.  ‘And respecting Oregon too?’

     “As to Oregon that question was under negotiation, and he did not know what the exact state of it was; but in regard to Texas, he was authorized to state, that however, Great Britain might desire a more intimate connection with that power-however she would be pleased at seeing all the slaves in that territory emancipated-and how little, so ever she might wish that Texas should be annexed  to the U. States, yet, there was every reason to believe that annexation, if effected, would be productive of no rupture.

     “And, then, in regard to France-though there had been a suspicion, at one time, that she might take umbrage at it, the contrary had since officially been made known to both branches of Congress.  The re-annexation, therefore, none proposed would be a peaceable re-annexation.  Meantime, all we had to do was, to preserve peace at home, there was no danger of any quarrel or any coolness with any foreign power.

     “As the South, he believed, was upon this subject nearly unanimous, he would now address himself to the Northern Democracy, or rather to the Northern States altogether.

            [“A voice.  ‘No, no; stick to the Democracy.’ A laugh.]

     “Well, be was willing to repeat the term, and he would now, then, address himself to the Northern Democracy, and would here recall one or two things to their recollection.  Mr. I. understood that, in the commencement of our National Revolution, two of the distinguished leaders among the friends of freedom at that day-he meant John and Samuel Adams-were one day conversing together on the question who should be appointed Commander-in-Chief of the American forces, and, on comparison of views, they agreed in sentiment that it was most expedient he should not be an Eastern, but a Southern man; and they fixed upon Col. Washington, then comparatively young, and who had not yet displayed those magnificent attributes of character which afterwards rendered him so illustrious, as the suitable man, mainly because he was a Southern man.  Again, the war of 1812 had begun with the complaints of the Eastern States, and it was entered into expressly with a view of vindicating Eastern rights and interests; and all must recollect with what a ready and devoted zeal the South and the West rushed forward to that vindication.  Mr. I. insisted that all ought to now to imitate that patriotic example.  To which he might add yet another; when, on a more recent occasion, an army of fifty thousand men, and the sum of ten millions of dollars, were by a vote of that House, put at the disposal of the Executive for the maintenance of our rights, then supposed to be a threatened by another Power.  All we wanted was a display of the same national spirit now.  Why were gentlemen sitting in the Hall?  To make laws?  No; he denied it; and always had denied it, They were there to prevent war, they were there to preserve peace, they were there, that all parts of the country might become acquainted with each other, that we might see, and feel, and realize that we were one people and one nation; and that, though we were spread over a region two thousand mile square, we still composed but one great American Republic.  Whenever we felt this, and acted accordingly, we never had failed to accomplish our object, be it what it might.

     “We were in no danger of hostilities from any quarter.  Gentlemen might rest assured, that annexation was not the path to war, but, on the contrary, was the pledge of peace.  They might differ here as to the best mode of effecting the object, but unless he was not egregiously mistaken, there was a large majority of the members of that House who did not differ as to the wisdom of the measure itself.  In regard to the treaty which had been rejected by the Senate last year, none had been rejected by the Senate last year, none had open more opposed to it then Mr. I.: he had even gone so far as to dissuade the Executive from its completion, because he thought that to defer the treaty and make an appeal to the good sense and the god will of the whole American people would be a far better course.  Yet he was willing to take the treaty rather than nothing; and he now believed, and he did not did no think that nay man could reasonably doubt, that if it had been ratified last year, in the course of ten days all excitement would have been over, and not a word more would have been said about it.  The whole country, on the contrary, would not only have become reconciled to it, but highly gratified.

     “[Here Mr. I. was interrupted by some gentleman behind him, who expressed a dissent from this opinion, and put to him some query not heard by the reporter.]

     “Mr. I. uttered a very emphatic negative=There might be, he admitted, some persons in N. York, who might possibly think otherwise, but his remark applied to a vast majority of the country; and in this opinion he believed himself to be right.  He did think that all would have been gratified when the result was seen.  A Governor would have been sent to take possession of Texas, just as Gov.  Claiborne had taken possession of Louisiana, and Gen. Jackson of Florida.  Nay more, we should now have had on this floor a delegate from Texas, and before this time the whole marvel would have been over.”

     Yes-Mr. Ingersoll is right.  And we are somewhat surprised, as well as sorry to see, that the best decidedly of our political periodicals-to whose ability, and energy, and efficiency, we cannot pay too high a tribute of commendation-has, without intending it, thrown something like a wet blanket upon the subject.  No one has contributed more to our late glorious victory than the “Southern Review;” but whilst it continues the devoted friend of Annexation, yet the way in which it speaks of the public sentiment upon it, is calculated to encourage the Whigs more than ourselves.  The Whigs have accordingly quoted its remarks against the cause, for they seize upon everything, and they exaggerate everything upon which they seize, to abate the tone of public sentiment for the Annexation.-Decision may secure the measure.  Doubt may produce delay, and delay may defeat it.  We are for no delay.  We are for settling Texas and the […] if possible, at the present session.  Some politicians will try to excuse their apathy by saying “If we cannot succeed now, we will call an Extra Session of Congress to carry it through.”  We are doing it now-now is the accepted time, rather than run the risk of an Extra Session, always a very ticklish, sometimes a very dangerous policy.

     Mr. Adams is said to have declared it as his opinion, that the United States would acquire Texas without any objection on the part of Great Britain, who would then attempt to obtain possession of Cuba.  The report about his declaration is daily gaining ground.  As for any such design on the part of England, we must say, that the United States can never submit to it.  It is the key to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the mouth of the Mississippi.  We must resist such a policy on her part that the point of the sword, and at very extremity.

     The New Orleans Picayune of the 28th […] publishes an interesting letter from its Havana correspondent, who “combats the idea, attributed to ex-President Adams, that England will take possession of Cuba whenever the United States annexes Texas.  The Cubans appear to have correct notions of the blessings that British legislation would confer upon their beautiful island.-It is not to be supposed that the […] of abolition in Jamaica will assist British intriguers in compassing the subjugation of the reaming islands in the Gulf of Mexico; much less can we believe that the United States  would calmly witness the further acquisition of American territory by the British crown in this direction, especially of so important an outpost as Cuba is.”

     The Havana letter(of the date of Dec. 24)says, that not withstanding the present derangement of the finances of the Island, “every son of Cuba deeply feels how much better he is situated, than if he were under the merciless claws of England’s colonial policy.  This latter event we imagine far more distant than John Q. Adams would seem to think, if certain newspaper paragraphs that have lately been going the rounds in the United States are true.  That England should force Spain to sell Cuba-for it would be nothing better than forcing-because two Republics choose to unite under one Federal Government, and those Republics by thus uniting, would lose the power of preventing this mighty rival from assuming this armed surveillance over one-half of their sea coast, seems to us rather preposterous; and if Mr. Adams think that in the supposed event of England would justly acquire, and the United States justly lose, the rights now supposed to be held by either, it strikes us that his idea of ‘justice’ is a very strange one.  For our part we set this down as only another of vagaries of ‘the old man eloquent.’  Spain never will loose the hole she has upon Cuba, so long as she can by any possible means retain it; and when such no longer is the case, the following significant language held by the first citizens and a portion of the authorities here to the home Government a few short years since; when the question of melding with slavery here at the urgent request of England was mooted, clearly indicates the course that Cuba would hold-‘It is not to be presumed  that any white man will submit to so hard  a fate; they will prefer to emigrate to foreign countries, to earn their livelihood and save the lives of their children, if they do not previously adopt the course which a state of desperation would prescribe.’  That Cuba will ever peaceably be England’s knowing the people as we think we do, we can never believe.”

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c6

From Washington

     Our last letter (4th January) says-"The opinion to-day seems to be, that the Annexation question will pass the House by a large majority, and the Senate by a small one.  All the Democrats are now relied on, in voting in the affirmative in obedience to their own convictions, or the expressed wishes of their constituents.  Several of the Whigs are spoken of as intending to vote for the annexation.

     "On the other hand, it is said that the question of acquiring by law a foreign territory, could not pass the Senate; and it is even added, that the heads of the Report of the Committee of Foreign Relations are already written- and that the ground taken is, that it was unconstitutional. - Mr. Tibbatts’, (of Ky.) plan in the House of Representatives is, to provide for the admission of Texas as a state.  It may yet become the favorite scheme, in order to meet the Whigs in their professions of constitutional scruples."

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c6

Extract from the New Orleans Bulletin (Whig) of the 28th December

The New Orleans Bulletin (Whig) of the 28th December says:  "There is good reason to believe that an opportunity for peaceful Annexation is now presented for the last time-that an opportunity to restore the fair domain of Texas to this Confederation of States, with the good will and thankfulness of the Texian people accompanying the surrender of their sovereignty; and without giving even the color of excuse for the interference of European powers, is now for the last time offered to the acceptance of this country.  Shall a mere factious spirit serve to thwart this master stroke of national-of American-policy?"

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p2c1

Richmond Grays

At a meeting of the Richmond Grays, held at Military Hall on Friday evening, January 3d, 1815, Lieut. Scott in the Chair, the following Preamble and Resolutions were adopted.

            The Company of Richmond Grays having seen with gratification, that the Common Council, on the 30th day of last month, by Resolution of that body, appropriated the sum of 300 dollars for the repair of Military Hall, and hailing this evidence of liberality on the part of the representatives of the people of  this city, as going far to remove the vulgar prejudice entertained by many, that there is nothing good in Volunteer Companies, and believing now that they take some interest in the prosperity and success of the Volunteer Corps of this city, we think it due to them and to ourselves to manifest our sense of the obligation and gratitude for the kindness they have shown.  Therefore,

            1st Resolved unanimously, That we tender our sincere and grateful thanks to the Common Council of the city of Richmond for the liberal donation which they have presented to the volunteer Companies of this city for the repair of Military Hall.

            2nd Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing Preamble and Resolution, signed by the Chairman and Secretary, be delivered to the President of the Council.

            3rd Resolved, That the city papers be requested to publish the foregoing Preamble and Resolutions.  ROBT. G. SCOTT, Jr., Chairman.

            S.T. Barclay, Secretary.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 7, 1845 RE41i78p3c1 27 words

Marine Journal

The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

                  High Water 21/2 P.M.

Arrived
Schr. Grand Island, Lecompt, Boston, sundries.

[AMB]


January 7, 1845 RE41i78p3c1 141 words

James River & Kanawha Canal

The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.

                       Richmond, January 4, 1845.

Arrived
Canal Boat Farmer, E. Goodwin, master, with 441/2 tons
merchandise from Lynchburg to Brown, Taylor & Tucker.
    Experiment, S. Cox, master, with 35 tons merchandise
from Lynchburg to Brown, Taylor & Tucker. Nancy

Perkins, George Cabell, master, with 30 ¾ tons merchandise
from Midway Mills and Hardwicksville, to Brown & Deane,
B. Peyton, A.T. Harris.

Cleared  
Flying Lucy, Jas Spiller, master, with 223/4 tons
merchandise from Lynchburg.

Lynchburg, Wm. Miller, master, with 351/2 tons
merchandise for Beaver Dam, Cartersville and Lynchburg.

Champion S. Guerrant, master, with 171 tons merchandise
for Scottsville.

Wm. L. Lancaster, D. Couch, master, with 541/4 tons
merchandise for New Canton, Scottsville, Howardsville and Lynchburg.
 Highlander, Jas Byers, master, with 2 tons merchandise
for New Market.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i78p1c3

Proceedings on the Texas Question

      The House of Representatives is in full blast on the great question of the day.  No one can predict the length of the debate, nor the variety of [ . . . ] which may be submitted, nor the results to which they are ultimately arrive.  We presume the annexation may pass the House in some form or other-and, if the Whig Senators from the South and West discharge their solemn duty to their country, strict of all insurable party ties, the measure will prevail, at the present session, in some form or other.  If it cannot succeed in one form, it should be carried in another.  In such a case, private preferences ought to yield to the high considerations of public good.  No dogged adherence to a particular mode ought to defeat the great object which we ought all to have in view.  Conciliation ought to be consulted.  The friends of the measure, in both Houses should compare notes with each other, and fall upon some fair and honorable course, which can command the majority of both Houses.  If Messrs. Ingersoll and McDullie cannot carry their resolutions, following out the form of the late rejected treaty, some other more available formula should be pursued.  If Messrs. Weller and Douglass cannot carry their resolutions, for acquiring Texas in the territorial form, we see no reason at all why we should not fall back upon the propositions of Messrs. Tibbatts and Niles- bring her in as a State, subject to fair conditions, which will prevent Texas from being larger than the present largest State in the Union, and will permit the extra territory to be carved up into as many other States as the wisdom of Congress in the course of time may consider best for the whole Union.  With this conciliatory spirit among the friends of Annexation, we can see no insurmountable difficulty in the way.  As for those, who love Henry Clay more than their country-and would sacrifice her great interests to their party idol; nothing can be expected from them.  They will pursue Mr. Winthrop's course, and do nothing.  They will trample upon the precedents of Louisiana and Florida, and the negotiations of Adams and Jackson for the annexation of Texas.  They are opposed to the measure in every form in which it may be presented.  No argument can convince them-no appeals can overrule their idolatry to Mr. Clay, or their idle and dangerous antipathy to the South.  No conciliation can reconcile them to any measure.  We must act without them, or not act at all.  It remains to be seen, whether the two Senators from Virginia are so infatuated as to sacrifice themselves and their country to their prejudices- or, whether (as we have some reasons to hope) they can rise superior to the [ . . . ] of party, and strike boldly for their glorious country.

     It is impossible for us to publish the whole of this interesting debate; but we shall give as many speeches as we can.  We begin this day with Mr. C.J. Ingersoll's speech-and shall follow it up to-morrow with Mr. Belser's.

     The Globe of Tuesday night sketches the debate of that day in the House of Representatives.  It notices the severe castigation which Mr. Yancey of Alabama, has administered to Clingman of North Carolina.  It says, that "Mr. Yancey, from Alabama, in his first speech in the House, distinguished himself by his severe sarcasm and fervid eloquence.  We did not hear his introductory remarks, but learn that they were made up of caustic for Mr. Clingman.  It is certainly a good maxim which teaches to take the beam out of our own eyes before we attempt to spy the mote in another's, and this couching of the eyes of a Southern man, by a Southern man, was quite appropriate.  We must confess that we have seen with some regret, that a portion of our Southern friends have, for years, shown a disposition to find fault with their distant political allies as not feeling that intense sympathy with them on political matters which affected them locally, while they were inclined to spare their own men of the South, who sacrificed the great interests of that region to its selfish Northern enemies.  The Tariff discussion, the vital measure in regard to which, at the last Congress,  almost every Whig in the South gave  up his often avowed principles-the known will of the people he represented-their rights and interests, to foster a remote privileged class, and support its candidate for the Presidency, furnishes an example of this.  And yet the vials of wrath of the opponents of the Tariff in the South were not poured out on these betrayers at home of the domestic cause; but on a few Northern Democrats, who believed they represented the wishes of their constituents faithfully in opposing a change in the Tariff.  Now this mode of dealing with the [ . . . ] in our party conflicts does not evidence a feeling of political justice.  Charity should not begin at home for the betrayers of a cause; nor should vindictive persecution be attempted towards those who, differing with political friends on a question of policy in regard to the interests of their constituents, resolve to maintain the fundamental principle of our Government, of fidelity to the constituents, rather than the [ . . . ] of a majority of their own party.  We are led to these reflections from the reform which Mr. Yancey seems disposed to introduce in the mode of treating the Southern enemies of the new Southern topic at present under discussion-the re-annexation of Texas.  If the shafts of invective are to be hurled against any in this new controversy, let it be against the neighbors and kindred of the heroic men of Texas, who would surrender them to the tender mercies of military government in Mexico, forgetful alike to the perfidy and atrocity under which Fanning and his brave men perished, and of the magnanimity of Houston, through which Santa Anna and his army survive the wrongs which they had perpetrated.  Mr. Yancey did well to-day in [ . . . ] his spear at Mr. Clingman as among the first of the Southerners to appear in the tournament against the South; and he did well, too, in the conclusion of his speech, to deal his blows upon those in the North, who, from their hostility to the South and Southern institutions, would immolate the Union.  The Hartford Convention conspirators, and those who now harbor that infamous treason in their bosoms, deserve the indignant animadversion with which he visited them," &c.

     The Globe adds: “We heard the speech of Mr. Bayly of Virginia with great pleasure.  It was a profound view of the question debated, sustained at every step by an able constitutional argument.  Mr. Bayly is a strong man; and if the early promise holds, Virginia has gained much by his transit from the judicial bench to the floor of the H. of Representatives."

     [Such is the sentiment which every liberal and enlightened man expresses for Thos. H. Bayly.  He is indeed "a strong man"-and does honor to the District which he has the honor of serving in Congress.]

     The "Constitution," too, notices the argument of General Bayly in the following terms: "He proceeded, then, most powerfully and ably to illustrate his views of the question.-He. demonstrated most conclusively that Congress had the power under the Constitution to acquire territory by bill of joint resolution, as well as by treaty.  He proceeded by numerous and authoritative historical illustrations, to show the sinister, the aggressive and insincere policy of England in regard to slavery and the slave trade.  He also showed that her diplomacy had been brought to bear upon this question, the result of which, if successful, would be to embarrass, if not to defeat annexation altogether.  The whole scope of his argument was most dignified, able and conclusive.  When fully reported, as it will be with all its illustrations, it will be found to bean argument fully sustaining our policy and purposes in regard to Texas.  Posted up to this point of time, we are happy to say to the friends of Texas, that the sum of the argument is immensely in favor of annexation."

     (Gen. Bayly will prove himself, by his talents, worthy of filling the space of Wise.)

     In the Senate, the debate upon Texas has not commenced.  But they are not altogether standing still.  On the same day, Mr. Niles of Connecticut submitted the following bill, which is intended to introduce Texas as a State, (by the vote of Congress,) rather than directly in the form of a Treaty:

     Mr. Niles, pursuant to notice heretofore given, asked and obtained leave to introduce the following joint resolutions-which were read twice:  Joint resolutions for the admission of Texas into the Union as a State, on certain conditions, and for certain purposes:  "Whereas the Government and people of Texas have manifested a desire to unite their country with the United States of America, to constitute one or more States of this Confederacy; and whereas there are reasons to believe that a decided majority of the people of the United States are in favor of such union, and the same being regarded as highly conducive to the peace and best interests of both countries: therefore- "Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Texas, with such territory and limits as rightfully belong to it, and with the restriction hereinafter provided, shall be admitted into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States, to be called the State of Texas; and which admission shall be subject to the following conditions, and shall take effect when the said conditions shall have been complied with to the approval and acceptance of Congress:

     "First.  The citizens of Texas in such way and form as the Government may direct, to express their assent to this union, and according to the terms of these resolutions; said assent to be given before the first Monday of December, 1845.

     "Second.  The citizens of Texas, before the said first Monday of December, 1845, so to alter or modify their Constitution, as to make it in all respects confirm to the requirements of the Constitution of the U. States.

     "Third.  That the citizens of Texas prescribe the limits and boundaries of the State of Texas, Northernly and Westerly, so as not to embrace a greater extent of territory than that of the largest State in the union, and as one of the conditions of  this Union, that the State of Texas,  within one year from its admission in the Union, will cede to the United States all the right of sovereignty and jurisdiction belonging to, or claimed by it, over its whole territory, not included in the State of Texas; and the limits and boundaries of such territory, so far as the same may be in dispute with any foreign power; and also those of the State of Texas shall be settled and adjusted by the United States, with the foreign nation, or nations, interested therein: Provided, That if any portion of the territory so ceded shall, at the time of such cession, be in the occupation and under the actual jurisdiction and government of any foreign power; the cession, in respect to such portion of the territory which it may include, shall be held to be void, and the United States will not claim, or assert, any right or jurisdiction over the same.  The several acts herein require to be performed, as conditions of the admission of Texas into the Union, shall be officially certified by the proper authorities of Texas, to the President of the United States, with a copy of the Constitution of Texas, as altered or modified, to be by him communicated to Congress as its next session, so that Congress may decide whether the conditions herein contained have been complied with, so as to entitle Texas to an admission into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States.

     "And be it further Resolved, That nothing contained in these resolutions, nor the admission of Texas as a State into the Union, nor the cession of its jurisdiction over the territory not included in the State of Texas, shall in any way impair or affect the private rights of the citizens of Texas, or those of the citizens of the United States having claims against  Texas or the citizens thereof; nor in any way impair or affect the title or claims of individuals to lands, whether within, the State of  Texas, or the territory ceded to the United States; nor in any way impair or affect the right which Texas may have at the time of her admission into the Union; in the soil in the public or unsold lands, whether the State of Texas, or the territory so ceded by her.

     "And be it further Resolved, That, should it be desired by Texas, the United States will advance to her a sum not exceeding three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, to discharge the debt due from Texas to the executors of Frederick Dawson, late of Baltimore, and for the redemption of exchequer bills, which may be in circulation at the time of her admission into the Union, and which shall be reimbursed to the United States, by the State of Texas, from the proceeds of the  sales of her public lands.

     "And be it further Resolved, That, on the admission of Texas, as a State, into the Union, it shall be entitled to one Representative in the House of Representatives of the United States, until the next general census shall be taken by the authority of the United States.

     "And be it further enacted, That the territory which may be ceded by Texas to the United States, shall be united to some existing Territory, or formed into a district territorial Government; and that the inhabitants who are, or may become residents therein, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States in other Territories West of the Mississippi; and that they shall be admitted into the Union as one or more States, as soon as, from their population and other considerations, Congress may deem it just and reasonable.

     "And whereas, by the ordinance of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, adopted in a spirit of compromise, it was ordained and established as a fundamental law, that slavery or involuntary servitude should not exist in the territory Northwest of the Ohio; and whereas, subsequently, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty, the restriction of the aforesaid ordinance was extended and applied to the territory (excepting that embraced in the State of Missouri) which was ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies North of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes North latitude; therefore

     "Be it further Resolved, That the eighth section of the act entitled 'An act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' approved the sixth day of March, 1820, shall be applicable to the territory which may be ceded by Texas to the United States, and so modified as that the restriction and prohibition contained therein shall extend to, and be in force in and over the whole of that part of the territory which may be so ceded, which lies west of one hundred degrees of west longitude, so long as the same may remain a territory of the United States."

     On motion by Mr. Archer, the resolutions were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.

     Upon a subject so deeply interesting to the whole U. States, it becomes proper for the press to speak out.  We shall not enter into the comparative merits of the various forms of annexation by bill, resolution or acts of Congress-whether it be best to admit her as a Territory, or first as a State.  We see no objection to the great State principle of Mr. Niles's bill; and if it be most acceptable to a majority of the friends of Texas, we see no reason why it should not be adopted.  In this spirit, we hope all its friends will approach the subject.  Where there is such a variety of opinions, and so many projects, there must be some conciliation shown, and some compromise effected.  Nothing but the want of this spirit can defeat one of the most important measures of modern times.

   "The Constitution," after reciting the substance of Mr. Niles's bill, adds: "We hail this proposition, coming from the quarter it does, with great pleasure.  It is intrinsically valuable, and is entitled to the most favorable consideration.  We have no fears from the multiplicity of propositions.  It is by a candid discussion and comparison of the whole, that the best features of all [ . . . ] and unite all the friends of the great measure in its final support."

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c5

New Orleans, Dec. 13, Later From Texas

    

The schooner William Bryan [ . . . ]. [ . . . ] are [ . . . ] to Captain Moss for the Galveston News of the 24th inst., three days later than received by the New York.  The News contains a message from President Jones to Congress, conveying his views and opinions in regard to such measures connected with the public interests, as he deems proper to engage their attention.  We have not space to give a synopsis of this document to-day, but will endeavor to do so to-morrow.   The Valedictory message of President Houston, and the Inaugural Address of Vice President Anderson, are also published in the News.  Of the latter of these documents, we have nothing to say.  General Houston's Valedictory is well written, and suited to the occasion.  He refers to the prosperous condition of Texas, to her rise and progress as an independent nation, and speaks with confidence of her future prospects.  The following extract is interesting:

     "When I look around me, my fellow-citizens, and see and know that the prospects of the Republic are brightening, its resources developing, its commerce extending, and its moral influence in the community of nations increasing, my heart is filled with sensations of joy and pride.  A poor and despised people a few years ago, borne down by depressing influences at home and abroad, we have risen in defiance of all obstacles, to a respectable place in the eye of the world.  One great nation is inviting us to a full participancy in all its privileges, and to a full community of its laws and interests.  Others desire our separate and independent national existence, and are ready to throw into our lap the richest gifts and favors.

     "The attitude of Texas now, to my apprehension, is one of peculiar interest.  The United States have spurned her twice already.  Let her therefore maintain her position firmly, as it is, and work out her own political salvation.  Let her legislation precede upon the supposition, that we are to be, and remain, an independent people.  If Texas goes begging again for admission into the United States, she will only degrade herself.  They will spurn her again from their threshold, and other nations will look upon her with unmingled pity.

     "Let Texas, therefore, maintain her position.  If the United States shall open the door and ask her to come into the great family of States, you will than have other conductors, better than myself, to lead you into a union with the beloved land from which we have sprung-the land of the broad Stripes and bright Stars.  But let us be as we are, until the opportunity is presented: and then let us go in, if at all, united in one phalanx, and sustained by the opinion of the world.

     "If we remain an independent nation, our territory will be extensive, unlimited.  The Pacific alone will bound the mighty march of our race and our empire.  From Europe and America her soil is to be peopled.  In regions where the savage and the buffalo now roam uncontrolled, the enterprise and industry of the Anglo-American are yet to find an extended field of development.  With union, industry and virtue, we have nothing to apprehend.  If left alone, we have our destiny in our own hands, and many become a nation distinguished for its wealth and power."

     Intelligence has been received at  Galveston, that John R. Kemper, of Victoria county, was lately murdered by a party of Caronkawa Indians, near his residence, some 10 or 15 miles below Victoria, on the West bank of the Guadeloupe River.  The News says:

     "The Indians afterwards made an attack upon his house, but the inmates, consisting of his wife, children and mother-in-law, saved themselves by escaping to the forest.  The house was burnt, and much property destroyed or taken away by the savages.  Captain K. was an old citizen of the West, and his death will be much regretted."

     The Lagrange Intelligencer says that an engagement took place between some Lipan Indians and the citizens of Sequin, a few days since, which resulted in the death of two of the Indians.  The citizens came off uninjured, having re-taken the property, stolen from Sequim, the evening before the fight.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c6

Revolution in Mexico [from the N.O. Picayune, 29th]  

The New Orleans Picayune of the 29th ult. brings one day's later news from Mexico.  The baroque Eugenia, with Mr. Cushing on board, brought accounts from Vera Cruz to the 12th December.  The schr. Fortuna, which brings the news to New Orleans, left Vera Cruz the next day, (13th.)  The additional accounts are not decisive of the fate of Santa Anna.  We shall content ourselves with giving a few paragraphs from the Picayune, showing the then desperate state of Santa Anna's fortunes.  The Picayune infers from the various intelligence it has collected, "that Santa Anna's career is drawing to a tragic close.  Unless some lucky chance has befallen him, his doom, ere this, has been as terrible as well deserved.  The new Cabinet has not had time to develop its policy in relation to foreign matters.  The disturbances are so violent in their nature, and important in their results, as to leave the authorities little time to attend to any other concerns than such as relate to the crisis wrought in the domestic affairs of the country."

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c6

Important From Mexico  

     By the arrival yesterday of the schooner Fortuna, from Vera Cruz, whence she sailed on the 13th December we have the important information that the revolution, started in Jalisco by Gen. Paredes, has finally extended almost entirely over the country, and that the complete overthrow of the tyrant Santa Anna is certain, although he is still in command of a few troops at Queretaro.  In the city of Mexico the revolution broke out on the 3rd instant, and by the 7th all was quiet.-General Jose Joaquin de Herrera was in command at the last dates, with the title of Provisional President, while Canalizo and some of the chief minions of Santa Anna were in arrest.

     On the 1st of December, fifty-five members of the House of Deputies issued a manifesto, protesting against the orders promulgated by President Santa Anna, and denouncing Government for not having had him removed from office.  The next day, ten others, who were not able to get into the hall on the 1st, signed it.  The Senate likewise adopted the same proceeding on the 2d of December-every member, save four, of that body signing the [ . . . ] of [ . . . ].  This action giving great offence to the Dictator, it seems that, on the 3d December, General Canalizo, by the express order of Santa Anna, issued a decree for the dissolution of Congress.  The dictator was at that time at Queretaro, at the head of some 8,000 men, on his march against the revolutionists in Jalisco.  No sooner was it known in Mexico, that the arbitrary decree had been promulgated, than an immense excitement was created among all classes.  The Chamber at once made three protests, besides a proclamation to the citizens; but before they could have them printed, Canalizo issued a peremptory order that all printing offices, with the single exception of that of El Diario del Gobierno, Santa Anna's own paid organ, should be closed, and that publications of every description were expressly forbidden.  When these tyrannical decrees transpired, the excitement rose to such a pitch, that all business was suspended, and groups of men collected in all quarters to talk over the obnoxious measures, and prepared to act as circumstances might dictate.  Canalizo, in the mean time, seeing the affairs were coming to a crisis, and deeming himself unsafe, collected at the palace all the troops he could gather, (some 2,000 in number,) and shut himself up with them.  Baranda, Rejon (the latter a name become familiar to the people of the United States) and Salas, three Santa Anna's minions, also took refuge in the palace at the same time.

     During the 4th and 5th of December the excitement continued, with little or no abatement at any time.  Early on the 6th large numbers of the inhabitants; comprising not only the lepers and middling classes, but all the most wealthy and respectable citizens gathered, with arms in their hands, at the Convent of San Francisco.  Here the members of Congress, having been driven from Chambers, had assembled, amongst them being Generals Herrera, Garcia, Conde, and Cespedes.  Previous to this the greater part of the troops in the garrison and in la Ciudadela had really pronounced in favor of the revolution.  Generals Conde and Cespedes had come from the Ex-Acordada, where the movement was going on, and reunited themselves with the deputies in the Convent.

     From this place, as we learn by some of the accounts, the entire body-members of Congress, citizens leperos and all- marched to the principal plaza in front of the palace, and ordered Canalizo to surrender-giving him two hours to reflect and no more.  Thinking that his officers and soldiers would stand by him, Canalizo prepared to attack the citizens, and called upon his troops to make a sortie.  At this crisis, one of his officers exclaimed that he was the soldier of no tyrant but of the nation, and then shouted, "Long live the Congress."  This cry was taken up by the ranks stationed at the palace, when Canalizo at once fled in consternation to his apartments.

     Here he was commanded to surrender, and in reply, he assented, on condition that his safety was guaranteed, and passports to leave the country were given to him, the four Ministers and the Commandant-General.  What disposition was made of this demand, our accounts do not say; but it is certain that he was detained a prisoner in the palace, together with Salas, the Commandante General, as he is called.  The Ministers of War, and of the Home Department, had been set at liberty upon giving security, while Rejon and Baranda had made their escape.

     On the 7th of December, Gen. Herrera was appointed Provisional President of the Republic with a Cabinet, as follows; Don Luis G. Cuevas; Minister of Foreign Relations; Don Mariano Riva Palacios, of Justice and Public Instruction; Don Pedro Echeverria, of Internal Affairs; Gen. Pedro Garcia Conde, of War and Marine.

     On the evening of the 6th and during the whole of the 7th of December the greatest rejoicings took place in the city of Mexico, accompanied by many acts which show the deep detestation in which Santa Anna was held.  A number of his portraits in the public places were dragged through the streets, torn into fragments, and every lepero preserved a piece as a memento of their oppressor's downfall.  The statue of Santa Anna in the plaza was tumbled down, broken in pieces, and the head borne in triumph through the city.  It is also stated that the crowd, intoxicated with joy and frantic with revenge, afterwards proceeded to the monument where the leg of their Dictator had been buried with so much pomp a year or two since, broke it into atoms, and then kicked and dragged the embalmed limb through the plazas and principal thoroughfares.  While all this was being enacted by the mob, the more prominent citizens were rejoicing heartily in the change of Government.  Messages of congratulation between the triumphant Senate and House were interchanged, and the new President, Herrera, was waited upon by the crowds, who appeared most joyous in obtaining relief from the despotic ruler under which they have groaned since the downfall of Bustamente.  Such were the scenes enacted in Mexico-great were the rejoicings all over the country.

     The revolution against Santa Anna appears to be general, yet we hear of little bloodshed except at Jalapa, where a few persons were killed.-At Puebla, the inhabitants rose as with one voice, tumbled down the statue of the obnoxious Tyrant, and tore his portrait into a thousand tatters.

     Here we will insert an extract of a letter to a gentleman in this city, showing the completeness of the revolution.  It is dated, "Vera Cruz, Dec.11, 1844.

     "As far as I can learn, no place holds out for Santa Anna.  Jalapa, Perote, [Girzala], and [ . . . ] have pronounced, and the great mans fall appears to me inevitable.  I do not see a loophole for him to creep out of, and I shall be glad if I am the first to give you this decisive news.

     "This has been a revolution of public opinion.  Not a sword has been drawn nor a drop of blood spilt; and, amidst all the apparent disorder of a revolution, and with no military to restrain the populace, no excess has been committed.

     "Here Santa Anna's portrait was taken out of the Municipal Rooms and thrown to the populace, who tore it into a thousand pieces.  The greatest enthusiasm prevailed; and, as I said before, in the midst of all this confusion, there is not a single instance of any excess having been committed.  This is the triumphs of popular opinion over the force of arms, and is the commitment of a new era in the existence of the Mexican Republic.

     "It is asserted, that the new government offers Santa Anna no terms short of his paying up the twelve millions of dollars of the public money he is charged with having uselessly squandered or appropriated to his own private purposes.  This condition it can scarcely be possible to execute, and in default of complying with it, the disposed tyrant is threatened with death."

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p1c7

House of Delegates  

            Mr. WITCHER moved to make the Report of the Committee of Elections on the Bath contested election, the order of the day for Friday next.

            Mr. BOWDEN moved to amend by making it the order of the day for Monday next, which was lost-49 to 55.

            The House then fixed the subject for Friday next.

            Mr. BLUE moved a resolution, that the House will, with the consent of the Senate, proceed on Wednesday, the 15th instant, to the election of a Councilor of State.

            Mr. STEPHENSON moved to fix it for the 22nd January, to which suggestion Mr. Blue acceded, and the resolution was adopted.

            On motion of Mr. SMITH,

            Resolved, That the Committee on Banks on quire into the expediency of amending the first section of an act to establish the Band of Kanawha, passed on April 4th, 1839.

            Petitions, &e., were presented and referred.

            By BROWN, a remonstrance of some of the stockholders of the Rivanna Navigation Company  against the application of said Company to be released from the requirements of their charter, prescribing the dimensions of their improvement; also a remonstrance of citizens of Albemarle, to the same purport.

            By Mr. LACY, a petition of J.M. Ferguson, Sergeant of the city of Richmond, in relation to Sergeant’s fees;

            By Mr. McRAE of Henrico, of John Robertson, G.A. Myers and B.B. Minor, committee of the Richmond Library company, for the […] said company;   

            By Mr. TAYLOR of Norfolk Borough, of May Nester, widow of a Revolutionary […] for an increased pension from the Cincinnati […]

            By Mr. THOMPSON of Dinwiddie, documents in relation to the extension of Centre Warehouse;

            By Mr. KIDWELL, a petition of Thomas S. Haymond, Commissioner of forfeited and delinquent lands in Monongalia, praying legislation in relation to the sale of a tract of 840 acres of land sold by him as such commission.

            By Mr. FLOOD, of rurally citizens of Buckingham for a change in one of the precinct elections in that country;

            By Mr. RAMEY, of sundry citizens of London for a special road law for said country;

            By Mr. STEPHENSON, of citizens of Tyler county for the right of way to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

            The House resumed the consideration of the Southwestern Turnpike Road bill - Mr. Garnett’s motion for indefinite postponement still pending.

            Mr. LEE sustained and Mr. WITCHER opposed the bill.        

            Mr. PRESTON replied at length to […] of Halifax, and WITCHER, and in support of the bill.

            Mr. RICE opposed the bill.

            The vote was then taken and the bill indefinitely postponed by the following vote:

            Ayes-Messrs, Pitts, Powell, Campbell, Blick, Harrison, Seruggs, Fox, Lacy, Winfree, […] of Culpeper, Hobson, Thompson of D. Wood, Garnett, Grigsby, Edmunds of F., Leake, […], Edmunds of H., Stovall, Ward, Wonton, Godwin, Bowden, Davis of K. & Q., Wallace, Hawes, Flanary, Ramev, Gordon, Blackwell, Banks, Billups, Baskerville, Wade, Hamilton of Monroe, Kilby, Cabell, Taylor of N.B., Watts, Happer, Yerby, Middleton, Oliver, Davis of Orange and Greene, Turner of P., Bolling, Witcher, Cocke, Dey, Daniel of P.G., Macrae of P.W., Smother, White, Couan, Kane, Sebrell, Hedgman, Freeman and Rice-[…]

            Noes-Messra, Southall, (Speaker), Brown, Harvie, Fulton of Augusta, Frazier, Van Buren, Pendleton, Myers, Thompson of B., Hays, Flood, Moseley, Beuhring, Toler, Tyree, Street, Brooks, Carson, Lovett, French, Parks, McPherson of Greenbrier, Blue, Winston, Lee, Bassett, McKan of Henrico, Turner of J., Powner, Smith, Farley, Grubb, Kidwell, Hall, Pool, Preston, O’Ferrall, Edgington, Hiner, Gay, Anderson, Storm, Moore, Martz, Denison, Stickley, Tate, Newlon, Stephenson, Funsten, Goodson, Jackson, and Fulton of W.-53

            On motion of Mr. ANDERSON, the House adjourned.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p2c5

Military Convention  

     At a meeting of the Officers of the Seventy-fourth Regimen, in the county of Harborer, held at the Court House on Monday, the 26th of November, 1844-Colonel Thomas M. White was called to the Chair, and Captain Hudson M. Wingfield appointed Secretary; and the following [ . . . ] and Resolutions were {...} adopted:

     Whereas, it is believed that the Militia System of Virginia is radically  defective, and not [ . . . ] to answer the purposes for which it was intended; and whereas, it is the sincere desire of  the members of this meeting to see the system place, upon a better footing throughout the Senate, and also have an opportunity afforded them[ . . . ] no training the regiment in which they [ . . . ] commissions, as to render it an efficient and valuable force to the country, in time of danger; therefore, be it

     Resolved, That we cordially approve of the resolutions recently adopted by our brother officers of the 87th regiment in the county or King William, and that we go heart and hand with them and all others who have pursued a similar course in their laudable efforts to reform the Military system of Virginia.

     Resolved, That we heartily approve and [ . . . ] earnestly second their recommendation to the officers of the different Regiments throughout the State to hold meetings and to appoint delegates to the Military Convention proposed to be [ . . . ] in the city of Richmond on the first Monday in January next.

     Resolved, That the following gentlemen be appointed delegates to the said Conventions, to [ . . . ].  Our delegate elect, William D. Winston, [ . . . ] Col. Thomas M. White, Lieut. Col. John S. Atkins, Major William Atkinson, [ . . . ]  Davis, Capt. Samuel Perrin, Capt. Robert Atkinson, Capt. Edwin Grenshaw, Capt. William [ . . . ] Capt. Charles P. Higgerson, Capt. Leland W. Butler, Capt. George W. Richardson, Capt. [ . . . ]  B. Mason, Capt. James M. Taylor, Capt. [ . . . ].

     Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting be published in the Richmond Whig and Enquirer.

     And, thereupon, on motion, the meeting was adjourned.   THOS. M. WHITE,  President [ . . . ] M. Wingfield, Secretary

     At a meeting of the [illegible] consider the reorganization of the militia is the State, Col. Spencer A. Mann was called to the Chair, and Lieut. Thomas E. Bottom appointed Secretary.

     The object of the meeting having been explained, the following Resolutions were unanimously adopted:

     1. Resolved.  That a well regulated militia begin essential to the security of a free State, and the present militia system in Virginia being extremely defective, we conceive it to be of paramount importance that it should undergo a material reformation.

     2. Resolved.  That we cordially approve the resolutions adopted by the officers of the 87th Regiment Virginia Militia, recommending to all the officers of the militia in the Commonwealth, [ . . . ]  hold a Convention in the city of Richmond on the third Monday in January next for the purpose of devising some plan for the better organization and discipline of the militia of the State, by which military spirit, at present depressed and withering, may be revived and encouraged."

     3.  Resolved.  That Lewis E. Harvie, Col. Spencer A. Mann, Capt. Thomas Coleman, Capt. Samuel R. Seay, Capt. Joseph M. Clark, Lt. Philip Southall, Lt. Samuel S. Weisiger, Lt. Thomas E. Bottom, Lt. Wm. A. Scott, and adjutant John Roberts, be appointed delegates to said Convention.

     4. Resolved.  That the Richmond Enquirer and Whig be requested to publish these proceedings.   SPENCER A. MANN, President.  Thos. E. Button, Secretary.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p2c4

Signs From Texas

     We have received from Texas the Valedictory Address of General Houston, and the Annual Message of the new President, (Anson Jones,) to Congress, Mr. Jones does not touch upon annexation at all-unless the following beautiful passage may be considered as an exception to our remark:

     The history of the world demonstrates, that the infancy of every community, however exalted or distinguished may have been its subsequent career and elevation, has been nursed and cradled amidst the stern concomitants of adversity and poverty-until nerved and fitted to win in the race of empire, regardless of the toils and difficulties of the course-and the fact, that our Republic has heretofore struggled and labored beneath the burthen of adverse and depressing influences, only shows that she could neither claim nor expect in her favor any exception or remission of the destiny prescribed for all.  We have reason, however, for joy and congratulation, that our past history and our present attitude alike [ . . . ] to the powers of the earth out capacity for self-government, and our undeniable claim to distinct and elevated nationality, and for unfeigned gratitude to Almighty God, whose providence has guided our nation through her initiatory struggles, by exhibitions of favor and protection, not less obvious in the course of events, and in the connection of cause and effect, than the pillar and the flame, which absently proceeded and led his chosen people in their journey to the promised land.

     "The fears of our friends touching the permanency of our institutions, and the misrepresentations of our enemies abroad, have no doubt heretofore had an effect greatly to lessen-the amount of emigration from other countries to this; but within the past year the [ . . . ] influence of these causes has been greatly mitigated, through doubtless not completely removed-This is apparent, from the tide of emigration, consisting of thousands of families, which, during the last few months, has flowed into the Northern, Eastern and other portions of our territory-so that the rich harvests and plenteous crops, which in those sections crowned the labors of the cultivator of the soil, have not sufficed to prevent a temporary scarcity of provisions, in a land hitherto overflowing with abundance."

     General Houston notices the subject in very dignified and eloquent terms, as the reader will perceive, from the following extract which is contained in the New Orleans Tropic of the 31st ultimo.

     The election of Mr. Polk over the ill-starred Clay seems to have been hailed with great pleasure in Texas.  It has cheered the people, and encouraged them in the hope of annexation.  A public meeting at Matagorda was held on the 7th, for the purpose of exchanging congratulations upon the result of the Presidential election in the United States.  The "Texas National Register" (printed at the town of Washington, on the 21st) denies, that the new President has yet given any grounds to suspect him of any opposition to annexation.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c1

Senate    

        Mr. McMULLEN, from the Committee on Internal Improvement, reported the bill amending the act appropriating a certain sum of money to the Cumberland Gap Road, which was on motion of Mr. CARTER, laid on the table.

            Mr. WALLACE, from the Select Committee to examine the printed Journal of the Senate made a report, specifying certain errors discovered therein, which was agreed to, concluding with a resolution, which makes it the duty of the Clerk of the Senate to examine the proof sheet before printing.

            Texas

            Mr. WALLACE, from the Select Committee to whom was referred so much of the Governor’s message as relates to the annexation of Texas made a report accompanied with the following resolutions which were laid on the table, and on Mr. SHINN’S motion, ordered to be printed.

            Whereas, by the Treaty of Louisiana it was expressly […] by the U. States that the inhabitants of said territory should be incorporated into the Union, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all rights, advantage and immunities of citizens of the U. States and whereas, the people of that part of said territory known as Texas, have expressed their desire to be received into this Confederacy according to the terms set forth in said treaty:

1.    Resolved, Therefore, That it is the rights of the people of Texas to be admitted into the Union, and the duty of the people of the U. States to perform in good faith all their of legations assumed by them in the purchase of Louisiana.

2.    Resolved, That Texas should be admitted into this Union as soon as practicable.

3.    Resolved, That the […] from this Commonwealth in the Senate of the U. States be instructed to affect that object.

Mr. McMULLEN reported a lull concerning the Price’s Turnpike, which was laid on the table.

Mr. PEYTON, from the Committee on Court of Justice, reported the bill from the House of Delegates which authorizes E. Dodson, of Mecklenburg, to qualify as High Sheriff at his own house, with a substitute to the same, which makes it a general law in all similar cases.

After some discussion among […], PEYTON, WALLACE, SHINN, GALLAHER, THOMPSON of  K. BAPTIST and McMULLEN, the bill was laid on the table.

Mr. NEWMAN, from the Select Committee, reported the bill authorizing William Jones of Brooke, to establish a ferry across the Ohio River-which, being ready, was passed.

Mr. THOMPSON, of K., from the Select Committee, reported the bill of changing the time of holding the Courts of Jackson county-which was read and passed.

Mr. THOMSPON, of K., from the Committee of General Laws, reported the bill apportioning the school quotas of Harrison, Barbour, Marion, and Taylor-which was read and passed.

Also, the bill to allow Cromwell Orrick further time to establish his Ferry-which was read and passed.

Also, a bill authorizing separate elections in Kanawha, Nansemond, Jackson, & tc. -which was read and passed.

Mr. DENNIS, from the Select Committee, reported that bill changing the time of holding certain Courts in the 2nd Judicial Circuit-which was on motion of Mr. D., laid on the table.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c3

Texas, Part of Louisiana

     The National Intelligencer, true to its instincts, where the interests of a foreign State clash with those of the United States, comes forward in its last No. with an article under the head of a "Legal Definition of the bounds of Louisiana as by us purchased of France."  The object is to prove that Texas was no part of Louisiana-that "we ourselves voluntarily adopted, on the side of Texas, the line of the Sabine-then and now the line of possession-as the real extent of our purchase from France, as the true Louisiana.  All the rest, then-the subsequent claim to Texas-was but a diplomatic after-thought, skillfully employed to make Spain yield to us what we really then wanted-Florida."  It also professes to quote the acts of Congress of October 1803, authorizing the President to take possession of the territory-and the act of March, 1804, erecting Louisiana into two territories-and the act of 1811, to enable the people of the territory of Orleans to form a State Government-as evidences, on part of Congress, "and the administration that made and sanctioned the Treaty," to show that they did not claim beyond the Sabine.  "What, then, (says the Intelligencer,) becomes now of the proposed re-annexation, or of the proposition to admit the State of Texas into the Union?

     This is indeed a desperate effort to cut us off from Texas.  It professes to lay down a boundary to the territory acquired by Mr. Jefferson, which neither he nor any of his successors ever sanctioned.  He, as well as the rest of them, in fact, contended for a line West of the Sabine-and the very act of cession of the territory West of the Sabine, to Spain, in lieu of Florida, shows that, in the opinion of Messrs. Monroe and Adams, at the time (in 1819) they were ceding what did belong to us, (West of the Sabine.)  And the efforts of Messrs. Adams and Clay afterwards show, that they were anxious to reclaim what had been so improvidently ceded.  We have rarely seen, indeed, a bolder effort made to deny the concurrent evidence of our historical documents, or to cloak a grosser effort to defeat the interests of our country by a misrepresentation of our records.

     We shall first notice the facts upon which it relies-and then introduce other facts which it has carefully suppressed.

     The Intelligencer confesses, that the act of 1803 furnishes no evidence on the point of issue.  It is a simple authority to take possession of the newly-acquired Territory.

     The act of 1804 divides the Territory into two portions-one which was called the Territory of Orleans-and the residue into another, called by the general name "District of Louisiana."  The former is run West "to the Western boundary of the said cession."

     The act of 1811 erects the territory of Orleans into a State, under the name of the State of Louisiana.  Its Western boundary is here specified to be "the river Sabine” and, therefore, the Intelligencer argues, that the Sabine was regarded in the act of 1804 as the "Western boundary of the said cession."  This is clearly a non [ . . . ].  It was surely competent for Congress in marking off the boundaries of the new State, in 1811, to designate such boundaries as they pleased, whether it was the whole or a part of the territory of Orleans.  They limited her Western boundary to the Sabine; but does it appear that Congress still claimed nothing beyond it?  By no means. -  They gave her all the land to the Sabine-but there are no expressions in the act to show that they considered the Sabine to be the Western boundary of the cession.  Congress considered itself at liberty to mark out the territory as they pleased, and then to make out of these territories such States as they might please according to such boundaries as might suit the views of Congress.  Thus, the other territory, called in the act of 1804, "the residue of the province of Louisiana," was not erected into a single State afterwards; but a part of it was carved up into Missouri-another part into Arkansas, &c.

     But to show how completely the Intelligencer misrepresents the whole subject of the Western boundary, we subjoin the following interesting extracts from Mr. Walker's able letter, to show that Mr. Jefferson, who acquired the Territory, and the succeeding Presidents, never did confine themselves to the Sabine; but that they claimed beyond it to the Rio del Norte.  These historical records are conclusive-and now we ask the N. Intelligencer whether we have not a right to consider it as a  re-annexation-and whether we do not owe it to the people of Texas themselves to comply with the Treaty, and admit the State of Texas into the Union:

     "Is it expedient (says Mr. Walker,) to reannex Texas to the American Union?-This is the greatest question, since the adoption of the Constitution, ever presented for the decision of the American people.  Texas was once our own: and. although surrendered by treaty to Spain, the surrender was long resisted by the American government, and was conceded to be a great sacrifice.  This being the case, is it not clear that, when the territory which we have most reluctantly surrendered, can be re-acquired, that object should be accomplished?  Under such circumstances, to refuse the re-annexation is to deny the wisdom of the original purchase; and to reflect upon the judgment of those who maintained, even at the period of surrender, that it was a great sacrifice of national interest.

     (illegible) as New Orleans itself: and that it was a part of that region, is demonstrated by the discovery, by the great Basalle, of the source and mouth of the Mississippi, and his occupancy for France West of the Colorado.  Our right to Texas, as a part of Louisiana, was asserted and demonstrated by Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Q. Adams.  No one of our Presidents has ever doubted our title; and Mr. Clay has ever maintained it as clear and unquestionable.  Louisiana was acquired by a treaty with France, in 1803, by Mr. Jefferson; and in the letter of Mr. Madison, the Secretary of State, dated March 31, 1804, he says, expressing his own views and those of Mr. Jefferson that Louisiana "extended westwardly to the Rio Bravo, otherwise called Rio del Norte.  Orders were accordingly obtained from the Spanish authorities for the delivery of all the posts on the West side of the Mississippi."  And in his letter of the 31st January, 1804, Mr. Madison declares that Mr. Laussat, the French commissioner who delivered the possession of Louisiana to us, announced the "Del Norte as its true boundary."  Here, then, in the delivery of the possession of Louisiana by Spain to France, and France to us, Texas is included.  In the letter of Mr. Madison of the 8th July, 1804, he declares the opposition of Mr. Jefferson to the "relinquishment of any territory whatever Eastward of the Rio Bravo."  In the letter of James Monroe of the 8th November, 1803, he encloses documents which he says "prove incontestably" that the boundary of Louisiana is "the Rio Bravo to the West;" and Mr. Pinckney unites with him in a similar declaration.  In a subsequent letter-not to a foreign government, but to Mr. Madison-of the 30th April, 1805, they assert our title as unquestionable.  In Mr. Monroe's letters, as Secretary of State, dated Jan, 19, 1816, and June 10, 1816, he says none could question "our title to Texas," and he expresses his concurrence in opinion with Jefferson and Madison; "that our title to the Del Norte was as clear as to the island of New Orleans."  In his letter, as Secretary of State, to Don Onis, of the 12th March, 1818, John Quincy Adams says: "The claim of France always did extend westward to the Rio Bravo;" "she always claimed the territory which you call Texas as being within the limits, and forming a part of Louisiana."  After demonstrating our title to Texas in this letter, Mr. Adams says: "well might Messrs. Pinckney and Monroe write to M. Cavallas, in 1805, that the claim of the United States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo was as clear as their right to the island of New Orleans."  Again, in his letter of the 31st October, 1818, Mr. Adams says our title to Texas is 'established beyond the power of further controversy.'

     "Here, then by the discovery and occupation of Texas, as part of Louisiana, by LaSalle, for France in 1685; by the delivery of possession to us in 1803, by Spain and France; by the action of our government from the date of the treaty of acquisition to the date of the treaty of surrender, (avowedly so on its face;) by the opinion of all our Presidents and ministers connected in any way with the acquisition, our title to Texas was undoubted.  It was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819; but Mr. Clay maintained in his speech of the third April, 1820, that territory could not  be alienated merely by a treaty; and consequently that, not withstanding the treaty, Texas was still  our own.  In the cession of a portion of Maine, it was asserted, in legislative resolutions, by Massachusetts and Maine, and conceded by this government, that no portion of Maine could be ceded by treaty without the consent of Maine.  Did Texas assent to this treaty, or can we cede part of a territory, but not of a State?  These are grave questions; they raise the point whether Texas is not now a part of out territory, and whether her people may not now rightfully claim the protection of our government and laws.  Recollect this was not a question of settlement, under the powers of this Government of a disputed boundary.-The treaty declares, as respects Texas, that we  cede to his Catholic majesty.'  Commenting on this in his speech before referred to, Mr. Clay says it was not a question of the power in case of dispute 'of fixing a boundary previously existing.'  'It was on the contrary, the case of an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain."-  Although, then, the government may be competent to fix a disputed boundary, by ascertaining as near as practicable where it is; although, also, a State, with the consent of this government, as in the case of Maine, may cede a portion of her territory-yet it by no means follows that this government, by treaty, could cede a territory of the Union.  Could we by treaty cede Florida to Spain, especially without consulting the people of Florida? and if not, the treaty by which Texas was surrendered was, as Mr. Clay contended, inoperative.

      "By the treaty of 1803, by which, we have seen Texas was acquired by us from France, we pledged our faith to France, and to the people of Texas, never to surrender that territory.  The 3d article of that treaty declares: "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the Unites States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the religion which they profess."  Such was our pledge to France and to the people of Texas, by the treaty of cession to Spain was not unconstitutional and invalid, it was a gross infraction of a previous treaty, and of one of the fundamental conditions under which Texas was acquired.

      "Here, then, are many grave questions of constitutional power.  Could the solemn guaranty to France, and to the people of Texas, be rescinded by a Treaty with Spain?  Can this Government, by its own mere power, surrender any portion of its territory?  Can it cut off a territory without the consent of its people, and surrender them and the territory to a foreign power?  Can it expatriate and expel from the Union its own citizens, who occupy that territory, and change an American citizen into a citizen of Spain or Mexico?-These are momentous questions, which it is not  necessary now to determine, and in regard to which I advance at this time no opinion.  Certain, however, it is, that with the consent of the people of Texas, Congress can carry out the solemn pledges of the Treaty of 1803, and admit one or more States from Texas into the Union.

     "The question as to Texas is, in any aspect, a question of the re-establishment of our ancient boundaries, and the re-possession of a territory moat reluctantly surrendered.  The surrender of  territory, even if constitutional, is almost universally inexpedient and unwise, and in any event, when circumstances may seem to demand such a surrender, the territory thus abandoned should always be re-acquired whenever it may be done with justice and propriety.  Independent of these views, we have the recorded opinion of John Quincy Adams as President, and Henry Clay as Secretary of State, and also of General Andrew Jackson as President, and Martin Van Buren as Secretary of State, that Texas ought to be re-annexed to the Union.  On the 26th of March, 1825, Mr. Clay, in conformity with his own views, and the express directions of Mr. Adams as President, directed a letter to Mr. Poinsett, our Minister at Mexico, instructing him to endeavor to procure from Mexico a transfer to us of Texas to the Del Norte.  In this letter Mr. Clay says, "the President wishes you to effect that object."  Mr. Clay adds: "The line of the Sabine approaches our great Western mart nearer than could be wished.  Perhaps the Mexican Government may not be unwilling to establish that of the Rio Brasos de Dios, or the Rio Colorado, or the Snow Mountains, or the Rio del Norte, in lieu of it."  Mr. Clay urges, also, the importance of having entirely within our limits 'the Red river and Arkansas, and their respective tributary streams.'"

     "On the 15th of March, 1827, Mr. Clay again renewed the effort to procure the cession of Texas in his letter of instruction, of that date, to our minister at Mexico, he says: "The President has thought the present might be an auspicious period for urging a negotiation at Mexico, to settle the boundary of the two republics."  If we could obtain such a boundary as we desire, the government of the United States might be disposed to pay a reasonable pecuniary compensation.  The boundary we prefer is that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio del Norte in the sea shall ascend that river to the mouth of the Rio Puereo [sic]. thence ascending this river to its source, and from its source by a line due north to strike the Arkansas; thence following the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source, in latitude 42 degrees north; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South sea."  And he adds, the treaty may provide "for the incorporation of the inhabitants into there Union."

     "Mr. Van Buren, in his letter, as Secretary of State, to our Minister at  Mexico, dated August 25, 1829, says: "It is the wish of the President that you should, without delay, open a negotiation with the Mexican Government for the purchase of so much of the province of Texas as is hereinafter described." "He is induced, by a deep conviction of the real necessity of the proposed acquisition, not only as a  guard for our Western frontier, and the  protection of  New Orleans, but also to secure forever to the inhabitants of the valley of the Mississippi the undisputed and undisturbed possession of the navigation of that river."  "The territory, of which a cession is desired by the United States, is all that part of the province of Texas which lies East of a line beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, in the center of the desert, or grand prairie, which lies West of the Rio Nueces."  And Mr. Van Buren adds, the treaty may provide "for the incorporation of the inhabitants into the Union."  And he then enters into a long and powerful argument of his own, in favor of the re-acquisition of Texas.

     "On the 20th of March, 1833, Gen. Jackson' through Mr. Livingston as Secretary of State, renews to our minister at Mexico the former "instructions on the subject of the proposed cession.  On the 2d of July, 1835, Gen. Jackson, through Mr. Forsyth as Secretary of State, renews the instructions to obtain the cession of Texas, and expresses "an anxious desire to secure the very desirable alteration in our boundary with Mexico."  [Illegible] minister at Mexico endeavor to procure for us, from that Government, the following boundary, 'beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, proceeding along the eastern bank of the river Rio Bravo del Norte, to the 37th parallel of latitude; and thence along that parallel to the Pacific.'  This noble and glorious proposition of Gen. Jackson would have secured to us, not only the whole of Texas, but also the largest and most valuable portion of upper California, together with the bay and harbor of San Francisco, the best on the western coast of America, and equal to any in the world.  If, then, it was deemed, as it is clearly proved, most desirable to obtain the re-annexation of  Texas, down to a period as late as August, 1835, is it  less important at this period?"

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c4

Governor Briggs of Massachusetts

The Legislature of Massachusetts is now in session, and the new Governor has sent in his Message.  The Boston Morning Post analyzes its positions with its usual acumen, and remarks, among other things, that “”His Excellency say not a word of South Carolina, and has disapproved many in not declaring war against that State; but his is probably reserved for a special message.

            “The main theme of the address is Texas, and on this the Governor revises the stale arguments which the people voted down in the last election, and shows that Massachusetts is now just as wise and just as liberal as she was when she opposed the annexation of Louisiana.  We trust that the Democratic members of the Legislature will not be led from the only true position of the National Democratic Party by his Excellency’s twattle on this topic which he treats like a small caucus lecturer, rather than like a statesman.  It seems to be small pickings for a Governor in a State paper to make as much as he attempts to do of Mr. Murphy’s Texas letters.

            “His Excellency end his homily on Texas with a right solemn warning, that if we annex Texas, our Republic will turn out just like Rome, and that Texas will bring the barbarians to our gates, as love of conquest did to the gates of the eternal city; which proves satisfactorily, that his Excellency has read Goldsmith’s History of Rome!  You can find any quantity of the same sort of prophecy in the old Federal papers and messages about Louisiana.”

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c3

Letter to the Editor, The Question of Annexation [written by Mr. Dromgoole]

We lay before our readers the following letter, received by yesterday’s mail.  It presents a new proposition from Mr. Dromgoole, which is entitled to serious attention, not only on account of the high source from which it proceeds, but from the character of its provisions.

            The provision in Mr. Niles’s bill, which adopts the line of the Missouri Compromise, excites much observation and some objection.  It is said, at Washington, that Texas might reject the offer of Annexation, if it were coupled with such a condition, as to any part of her territory, which is cut off by 36 degrees, 20 minutes, by the Missouri Compromise line.

            We cannot but confidently indulge the hope, that some wise and conciliatory compromise may be pursued by the friends of Annexation, before the expiration of the present session.  The Globe, of Monday last, cheers us in this expectation.  It says, that “It is well ascertained now that majority exists in the House, and probably in the […] also, in favor of re-annexing Texas to the Union.  The conditions alone remain to be adjusted.”

            The Globe further says:

            “The Treaty scheme of last session, as presented in joint resolutions, it is understood will not pass in either branch.  The proposition of recognising our obligations to Texas, under the Treaty of Mr. Jefferson in 1803, and entitling it to admission as a State at once, or as a Territory, with a view to subdivision, for admission in several States, with the principle of the Missouri Compromise engrafted, seems to meet with most favor.  It is possible, however, that the act of the present Congress may take the shape of that under which Mr. Jefferson secured Louisiana, being an appropriation to enable the President elect to effect at once what he may be instructed to accomplish in some form or other; submitting the alternatives to his discretion, and the confirmation of the next Congress.”- (We trust that Congress may adopt a more prompt and efficient measure than that-[Enquirer.)

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p3c5

Washington City, Jan. 8, 1845

            To-day, another plan for the admission of Texas into the Union was submitted to the House.  It was introduced by Mr. Dromgoole, the Representative from the Petersburg District.  It was more brief and simple than any yet offered.  It is not encumbered or embarrassed by questions of doubtful powers, and difficult constructions.  Without complication, it rest plainly upon a single provision of the Constitution-“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”  It gives in advance he consent of Congress to the formation of the new State, with the approbation of the existing Government and authorities of Texas, and with a Constitution to be framed and adopted by a Convention of People.  It provides, that on a day certain hereafter (not immediately) the new State shall be received and admitted into this Union.  It is understood, that Mr. Dromgoole relies for precedent and authority for this provision, admitting the State on a future named day, upon the act of Congress approved February 4, 1791, enacting and declaring that Kentucky should be received and admitted into this Union on the first day of June, 1792, more than one year after the passage of the act; and also upon the act, approved February 18, 1791, enacting and declaring that, on the 4th day of March, 1791, the State of Vermont shall be received and admitted into this Union, less than one month after the passage of the act.  (See Laws of Congress, vol. 2, pages 191, 2, 3.)

            The acts referred to are very short and simple; and it might perhaps be well to publish them in the Enquirer, for the information of your readers.  It is worthy of remark, that all the States except Vermont, had ratified the Constitution, had thus formed “this Union,” and had thereby superseded the previously […] articles of Confederation.  Vermont was out of the Union.  It is believed, that the Judicial system of the U. States adopted under Constitution, did not embrace Vermont.  And the act of Congress of taking the census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the United State, approved March 1, 1790, did not embrace the inhabitants of Vermont.  In this condition, Vermont applied for admission as a new State, and was so admitted by the act of February 18, 1790, and then, by an act approved March 2, 1791, effect was given to the laws of the United States within the State of Vermont, by extending the judicial system to the same, providing for taking the census, and for the application and enforcement of the act providing for the collection of duties.

            Below I give you a copy of the bill introduced by Mr. Dromgoole.        Your’s respectfully.

            A Bill declaring that consent of Congress that a new State be formed within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Texas, and admitted into this Union.

            Be it […] by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the Congress both consent that a new State may be erected with the jurisdiction of the Republic of Texas, adjoining the States of Louisiana and Arkansas, and bounded also by the Gulf of Mexico, with a Republican form of Government, to be adopted by the inhabitants of said Republic, assembled, by deputies, in Convention, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that said new State may be admitted into this Union.

            And be it further enacted and declared, That the foregoing consent of the Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit:  That the new State shall be formed, and its Government adopted, prior to the fourth day of July in the present year; and that the boundaries of the said new States, conforming to the outlines before stated, and containing an area not exceeding-thousand square miles, shall be defined by the Convention of deputies, and inserted in the Constitution or form of Government; and that the assent of the State shall also be inserted, to such boundaries of the remaining territory, property pertaining to Texas, and to be claimed and held by said new State on superseding the present Government, as may be settled and defined by the Government, as may be settled and defined by the Government of the United States by negotiation and treaty, or otherwise.

            And be it further enacted and declared, That on the said fourth day of July, in the present year, the said new State, having been thus formed and defined by the name and style of the State of Texas shall be revived and admitted into this Union, as a new and entire member of the U. States of America.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p4c1 82 words

Marine Journal

The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

            High Water this day at 5 o’clock, P.M.

Arrived
Steamer Curtis Peck, Davis, Norfolk.

Sailed
Schr. Marietta Burr, Bamber, New York.
Schr. Oneida, Collins, New York.
Schr. Walter R. Jones, Brown, New York.
Steamer Pocahontas, Hollingshead, Baltimore.
Schr. Curlew, Stone, Baltimore.

Below
Ship Louisiana, off Pagan Creek.
Schr. Bergen, off James Town.
Schr. Nahant, off Windmill Point.
Schr. Lady Washington, off Watkins.
Schr. Cora, in Dutch Gap.

[AMB]


Friday, January 10, 1845 RE41i79p4c1

James River & Kanawha Canal, Richmond, January 7, 1845

The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Canal.

Arrived

      Canal Boat Ohio, J. Gilmore master, with 403/4 tons merchandise from Lynchburg, to Deane & Brown, John Maben & Co., S. J. Jones and J. R. Anderson.
      Boat Metamora, George Newberry master, with 211/2 tons merchandise from Cartersville, to Deane & Brown, Warwick & Barksdale, Fords & Woodson and B. Sheppard.

Cleared
    Boat Virginia, Wm. T. Minor, master, for Scottsville, empty.
    Boat Thomas M. Bondurant, E. Henry master, with 21/4 tons merchandise for New Canton.
    Boat Exchange, D. Bland master, with 41/2 tons merchandise for Lock No. 9 and Scottsville.
    Boat Nanny Perkins, Geo. Cabell master, for New Market, empty.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i49p1c3

Monday Morning, January 13, 1845

     The Richmond Whig […] is most […] Northern Federal allies, in its bitter opposition to the annexation of Texas.  It stigmatizes certain resolutions submitted to the Virginia Senate by General Wallace of Fauquier as “reprehensible, detestable and revolting,” and full of “atrocity.”  Speaking of the proposed admission of Texas under the Treaty of Louisiana, the Whig thus grossly winds up its Article:

     “Such a proposition is now unblushingly advanced, under the influence of Texas pecuniary interests, (not that we mean that Gen. Wallace is anything more than the cats-paw!) to the Senate of Virginia itself.  We hope that honorable body, without the least regard to party, and in defiance of party influence, will spurn the proposition out of their hall, never before debased by a proposal so unjust.”

     It is a pity that this pure and disinterested Editor, whose sole weapon consists in attacking the motives of others, could not find other arguments against the great measure, than the pecuniary interests.” Which he has so long and so childishly harped upon, and which some of the leading men of his own party have so scathingly refuted.  The people are sick of such puerile attacks-without the least foundation, and unworthy of a manly discussion of important principles.  The Whig has grossly misrepresented General Wallace.  He is no “cat’s paw” of any man or set of men.  The able report and resolutions, (which he has submitted on the Distribution Resolutions,) as well as the report on the subject of Texas, are the fruits of his own vigorous mind and unbiased freedom of thought and of action.  They speak the sentiments of Virginia and of the Union-and we are yet to see, if the representatives of the people will be bold enough to “spurn out of” either Legislative Hall, the popular will most clearly and undeniably expressed at the late election. The Whig is counting without its host, when it violates all decency and denounces in such gross language-a proposition which a great many independent men of its own party will glory in seeing achieved.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c4

Hermitage, January 1, 1845 [written by Andrew Jackson]

     My Dear Mr. Blair:-I cannot forbear, on this first day of the year 1815, to let you know that I am still in the land of the living, although, greatly afflicted and debilitated.  My whole family join me in kind salutations to you and yours, wishing you the joys of the season. May you all live to see many happy New Years.

     I observe that you have before Congress too many joint resolutions for the reannexation of Texas.-This argues want of unanimity in the Democracy upon this great national and most important subject.  I have just received from Maj. Donnellson, a letter dated at Washington, in Texas, from which I would infer, that if Congress expects to annex Texas to the U.S., they must act speedily, or it will be found to be beyond our grasp.  The rejection of the advances of Texas has given offence to some, and a handle to others to press the liberal propositions of England upon the Texians, together with the splendid view of Texas independent, growing into a vast Republic, in time to embrace not only the limits of Texas, but all the domain once Montezuma’s.  This view, to ambitious aspirants added to the guaranties of England of her independence, and the loan of large sums for ten years, based upon a Treaty that English, manufactures shall be free of duty, is gaining a party in Texas.  General Houston is still the leading star; and his influence alone can be counted upon to resist the present influence of England and its increasing power.  How long this influence of England can be successfully withstood in Texas, is becoming a very questionable matter.  I have taken a view of the whole ground giving to all information it due weight, and I say to you, that, unless Congress acts upon this subject promptly, Texas will be beyond our grasp, and […] to the Untied States forever, unless regained by the sword.  What will be the situation of our country, with a British manufactures introduced duty free into Texas?  Comment is unnecessary.

     I hazard nothing in saying that, if the present Congress does not act promptly upon this subject, the next will not have the power.  The consent of Texas cannot then be obtained.  Great Britain will have laid the lion’s paw upon her, and bound her by treaty.

     I am exhausted; but, from Major Donnellson’s letter, and other sources of information, the danger of losing Texas seemed so imminent, that altho’ feeble, I could not forbear to say this much to you, that you might communicate it to my friends.  May God bless you and yours.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c4

To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 10, 1845

            Up to 4 P.M., nothing definite had been heard in this city, relative to the affair between […] and […].  At nine o’clock, A.M., one or both the parties were at Barnum’s Hotel, Baltimore.

            I send you the following extract from the Houston City Telegraph, received here by the last mail:

            “It is probably known to many of our readers, that a proposition is now, and has been for some time, before this Government, to the effect that England and France conjointly, or England alone, […] Mexico, and guarantee our independence, upon condition that we forever renounce annexation to the American Union.  The proposition so naturally results from that trans-Atlantic policy which has been long avowed, both officially and by Government journals, that it now appears to be considered as a matter of course, by our best informed citizens.  Our information on this subject is […] from those in the confidence of that government.”

            I can assure you that from a personal knowledge of the Editor of the Telegraph, as well as the standing of the Journal, (the first in Texas) that the paragraph is entitled to confidence.  Thus it appears, that England has moved in the matter.  Up to this day I had not dreaded that the failure to consummate re-annexation during the present session of Congress would endanger the chance session of Congress would endanger the chance session of Congress would endanger the chance of effecting it at the next, so far as Texas herself is concerned, because it seemed improbable that England would run the risks consequent upon a direct interference with our concerns.  But as Texas has now the alternative of choosing between the chances of annexation on the one hand, and the certainty of absolute and unconditional freedom from Mexico on the other, with the almost certain prospect too, of advantageous commercial treaties with England and France, no rational man can doubt that she will choose “the bird in the hand” rather than the “two in the bush” that she will embrace the liberal offer of those European powers who see in re-annexation nought but additional strength for the institution […] commercial resources of the United States, rather than take the alternative of a fourth of next March goes by without the consummation of the project, argues very little knowledge of human nature.

            The lending politician of Texas is both […] and skillful for, he has learned the diplomats art in a hard but sound school-that of adversity.  I doubt if Houston’s superior as a diplomatist now lives.  You may be surprised at this section, but one unacquainted with the numerous and carried difficulties though which he has guided the Texian bark of State for the last ten years, cannot imagine the trouble by which he has been surrounded.  At this moment, […] not President of the little Republic, he holds in his hands, not only its destinies, but to a certain extent those of the United States; and when he advises his Government that the chances of re-annexation are doubtful, it must move in the only line of policy left to secure certain and absolute independence of Mexico.  As an Independent Government, its policy to arrive at national importance is too plain to be mistaken.  It must form (as it how can at any moment,) a commercial treaty with England, reviving her manufactures either duty free or at the nominal Tariff, and securing in return the advantage resulting from a market in England, duty free, for her […].  It must strive to make Galveston the depot for at least one half the manufactured goods consumed in the Mississippi Valley; to be transshipped and smuggled into the South-western States through the tributaries of the Mississippi river.  One who can doubt that such will can be inevitable result of a failure to annex Texas this Winter, as her present relations with Britain stand, has neither eyes to see, ears to hear, nor mind to understand the simples and most natural consequences of national rivalry.  A treaty which shall tender the provisions of the Tariff of 1842 inoperative against England, in the consuming half of the United States on the one side, while it makes the cotton of Texas worth per pound the amount of the English  duty more than American cotton of like quality on the other hand, offers too great is temptation, both to England and Texas, to allow me a least to believe, that it will not be formed the instant the latter Government finds herself obliged to look out for her own interests, and for them alone.  It is into this hazard that the spirit of Federalism is now driving our country.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c2

House of Delegates, Saturday, Jan. 11

A communication was received from the Senate, by their Clerk, stating that they had passed acts “Changing the times of holding the County Courts of Jackson County.”

            [Illegible]

            Barbour, Marion, and Taylor;”

            “Allowing Cromwell Orrick further time to establish his Ferry;” and

            “Authorizing a Ferry from the lands of William Jones, in the county of Brooke, across the Ohio River.”

            Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:

            By Mr. FRAZIER, of Thomas Clarke and other citizens of August, for an increase of the Capital Stock of the Staunton and James River Turnpike Company, to enable them to McAdamize their road; also, of R.D. Hill and others to the same effect; also, another to the same effect;-also, of George Baylor, jr., and J.H. Evans, for the refunding of a sum of money to them;

            By Mr. MARSHALL of F., of the President, &c., of the Fauquier and Alexandria Turnpike Company, for a suspension of the act of 1834, with regard to domestic  lotteries;

            By Mr. O’FERRALL, of sundry millers and farmers of Morgan county, and of mechanics, doctors, merchants, and farmers of Washington county, Maryland, against the right of way to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, except upon certain conditions.

            By Mr. CAMPBELL, of citizens of Bedford and Campbell, for authority to religious and benevolent Societies to receive and hold requests;

            By Mr. STURM, proceeding of the County Court of Barbour [illegible]

            By Mr. VAN BUREN, proceedings of the Bath County Court, for a change of Court day;

            By Mr. RAMEY, petition of citizens of Loudoun, for the call of a Convention;

            By Mr. POULSON, of Thomas Underhill, for payment for services rendered during the late war;

            By Mr. BOLLING, of J.C. Swann, John Pollard, and eight-two other citizens of Petersburg, asking an appropriation for him erection of a public depository of arms in said town;

            By Mr. TOLER, documents relative to the petition of Amanda Crow, for a divorce;-also a petition of Sidney S. Baxter and Thomas H. Ellis, Committee of the Stockholders of the James River & Kanawha Company, for aid for certain specified objects;

            By Mr. MOSELEY, a remonstrance of sundry citizens of Buckingham against the removal of the precinct election from Goodwyn’s Church, in said county?

            By Mr. Fulton of August, a communication from the Superintend of the Western Asylum, for a geographical division of the State in relation to the Eastern and Western Lunatic Asylums;

            By Mr. COOTES, a remonstrance of citizens of August against having the Staunton and James River Turnpike Road McAdamized; and

            By Mr. TAYLOR of Norfolk Borough, a petition of citizens of Norfolk Borough for an amendment of their character.

            By Mr. HOBSON, that the Committee of Propositions, &c., enquire into the expediency of establishing a warehouse for he inspection of tobacco, on the land of Edward W. Sims, in the town of Car Jar, in Cumberland county;

            Also, that the Committee of Courts, &c., report a bill requiring the same forms in the transfer of personal estate, held by females before marriage, as are now required in the transfer of real estate;

            By Mr. TAYLOR of Loudoun, that the Committee on Finance enquire into the expediency of abolishing the tax on writs.

            A message from the Senate by Mr. BONDURANT, that they had agreed to the resolution of this House, for the election of the officers of the Capitol and Penitentiary Institution, with an amendment, changing the day from the 13th to the 22nd January, and including also the election of a Councillor [sic] of State.

            The House resumed the discussion of the contested election from Bath-and continued the canvassing of the votes on Van Buren’s poll objected to by Cameron, the contestant.

            Mr. STOLVALL moved to reserve the decision of the Committee, and declare legal the vote of James N. McGuffin, who voted upon a title-bond, executed him on the 22nd of October, 1842, for which he paid the money at the time.  By the terms of the title-bond, a deed for the land was to be made by the 1st January, 1844, or at anytime he should call for it-“according to his best recollection.”  Cameron admits that he has seen said title-bond, and that the deed was to be made on or before the 1st January, 1844.

            This motion was sustained by Messrs, STOVALL, BANKS, LEAKE, and BOWDEN, and opposed by Messrs. STOTHER, WITCHER, FULTON of Wythe, EDMUNDS of Halifax, and LEE, and was lost, ayes 57 to noes 67-Mr. Fulton of Wythe having called the ayes and noes.

            The vote of said McGuffin was then declared to be illegal.

            Mr. BANKS moved to reverse the decision of the committee, and to declare the vote of Thomas Smith legal.  That vote was declared illegal by the committee, as there was no evidence that said Smith was twenty-one years of ago, it being objected by the contestant that he was not of age.  Mr. B. thought the contestant should prove the objections raised by the contestant, viz: that the voter was not of age.

            Messrs. STOVALL, DAVIS of Orange and CARSON sustained and Messrs. GARNETT, BROADDUS of Caroline, Taylor of N.B., BROADUS of Culpepper and STROTHER opposed Mr. Bank’s motion, which was lost, ayes 51, noes 71, Mr. B. living called the ayes and noes-and the vote of said Smith declared illegal.

            At this stage of the proceedings, on motion,

            The House adjourned.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c2

House of Representatives

Mr. CHOATE presented a petition from Chas. T. Page and other citizens of Boston, against the annexation of Texas.

     Mr. HUNTINGTON presented a petition against the annexation of Texas, (place not heard.)  Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

    One also, from the same place against the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia. -  Laid on the table.

     Mr. ARCHER presented a memorial from citizens of Pennsylvania, asking for an alteration in the naturalization laws.  Also, one from Madison county New York for the same purpose.  Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

     Mr. EVANS asked leave to introduce a bill providing for evidences of the public debt.  Granted.

     Mr. Johnson's resolution in relation to the claims of persons residing on Homas' grant, noticed yesterday, and asking the Judiciary Committee to inquire whether the Secretary of the Treasury acted in accordance with law in issuing patents to persons having no right to those lands, was taken up.  Mr. Johnson spoke at considerable length in defense of his resolution in the competency of the Judiciary Committee to take cognizance of it.

     Mr. DAYTON dissented from such a power being vested in the Committee, and offered an  amendment giving the Judiciary Committee the right to report on the subject or not; if they should  find, on  examination, that the power to investigate the action of another department of the Government  belonged exclusively to Congress, Mr. Johnson's resolution should be adopted.

              SMITHSONIAN LEGACY

     Mr. CHOATE asked leave to withdraw a part of his amendment offered yesterday, by striking out the words beginning with the 24th line, in the first section, and after the word "provided."  It appeared, upon reconsideration of that proviso, that it made it peremptory on the board of managers of the institution to confine themselves to the purchase of a given description or kind of books.  He did not wish to confine them to such narrow limits, but wished to give them a wider field for their operations.  In lieu of the proviso was substituted the words "for the purchase of books on the arts, sciences and works in general," but not to confine the purchase to books of this description exclusively.

     The question was then taken on striking out the proviso, and it was carried-26 in the affirmative, noes not counted,

     Mr. CHOATE then asked to strike out the 7th section, and insert an amendment, to the effect that the managers of the institution should be empowered to employ a competent agent from time to time, to deliver lectures on the arts and sciences, and to pay him an adequate salary therefore; which was adopted.  He also moved that the 8th section be struck out, which referred to the duties of professorships, which no longer existed in the bill, and substitute therefore a clause authorizing the purchase of a general assortment of books.

     Mr. CRITTENDEN offered an amendment to this, designating such books to consist of those relating to the arts and sciences; which was negative.

     Mr. NILES offered an amendment limiting the sum to $5,000 for such purpose.

     Mr. BUCHANAN asked the Senate if by such an amendment, it was intended to make a library worthy of the age and nation in which we live?  If so, he would oppose it on the ground of its inadequacy.

     The amendment of Mr. Niles was also lost.

     Mr. TAPPAN proposed the sum to be $91,000; which gave rise to a considerable debate, in which Messrs. Choate, Rives, Crittenden, Morehead, Bagby, Breese, and Niles participated.  A compromise was affected finally, by an amendment of

      Mr. MOREHEAD, adding $50,000 to the sum proposed by Mr. Tappan; and

     On motion of Mr. PIERCE,

     The Senate adjourned over till Monday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

          ARMY AND NAVY.

          Mr. McKay, from the committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill making appropriation for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1816.

     Also, a bill making an appropriation for the support of the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1816;

     Which were severally read a first and second time, referred to the committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

        ANNEXATION OF TEXAS

     The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair) and resumed the consideration of the resolution for the annexation of Texas in the United States.

            Mr. E.S. HAMLIN expressed his opinion that never had there been brought before Congress a question of such general interest as the one now before them.  The question was, whether our ship of State, our ship of Zion, which had been preserved for many tears, should now be moved from her moorings, and started on a voyage on an unknown sea; but he desired to have wanted no change in any one of them.  The first question which stared them in the face was, not has the President and the Senate the power to annex Texas, but had Congress?  If so, where was it to be found?  He cared not in what form it was presented-whether it stood on the Treaty or on the principles of the treaty of 1819-whether in the bills and resolutions for this purpose-no matter in what form, it amounted to this: a proposition on our part, to be accepted by Texas-which would amount to a contract with a foreign nation.  It was in vain to say that Texas was a part of ourselves, "bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh"-for had we no acknowledged her independence-did we not acknowledge it every day, but keeping our Charge d' Affaires located near that Government.  Texas, he again asserted, was an independent nation-and he saw no where in the Constitution the power to make a contract, as annexation would be, between nations acknowledged to e sovereign and independent.  He referred to the Alpha of this question, and quoted from the correspondence of Messrs Upshur and Calhoun to our Ministers to Great Britain, Spain, &c., to show that the measure had its origin in the endeavor to prevent the abolition of slavery in Texas, and to demonstrate that, it was alleged emancipation would be advantageous to Great Britain and injurious to all other nations of the earth.  This stood forth on official papers, in the correspondence with foreign Governments, by speeches made in and out of Congress, in this House, and in the other end of the Capitol.  But what if money had been appropriated in England to set the slaves free in Texas?  Would to God, that money was heaped up, not only to set the slaves free in Texas, but in all lands!  Why should this alarm us?  He then stated his views in detail.

Mr. WELLER contended that this question was not one affecting the people of any particular section of our country, but was of a national character, affecting all-the commercial, agricultural, and navigating interests.  It was one, on which the Representatives from every section were called to deliberate and judge for themselves.  For himself, he would be unwilling to vote for the measure, had not the people, in the late Presidential Election, declared in favor of Annexation.  The consummation of this object would open for the West a market for her cattle and breadstuffs, and afford to the North, likewise, a market for her manufactures.  If any section of the country should be injured, it was the South, for the rich lands of Texas would thereby be brought into active competition with her own.  They were bound not, only to guarantee undisturbed security to the South, but to preserve the compromises and assurances of the Constitution.  If it were even necessary to annex the Northern portion of Great Britain bordering on the United States, to give to Maine or Vermont their constitutional rights he would not legislate to give to such a proposition his support.  He insisted, and argues, that the extension of our territory would not result in war with any foreign power, and he replied to several gentlemen in the opposition who had preceded  him; and, in conclusion, he expressed himself as not wedded to the resolutions for annexation, heretofore submitted by him; but, on the contrary, he did not believe that any of the propositions would violate the Constitution which he, in common with others, had sworn to support, and, therefore, he could vote for any of the measure before the committee.

            Mr. BRENGLE opposed the resolutions; and called upon gentlemen who were in favor of them to point to that part of the Constitution which conferred on Congress the power to acquire foreign territory.  There was no provision in that instrument which would justify it.  That Congress had power to admit new States was clear, but there was no example, no precedent, that would warrant the annexation of Texas in the manner proposed.  The Constitution had power not found in it was now sought to be exercised for the first time.

            He argued against the admission, ad labium, of new States, by a mere majority of Congress, as calculated to open the way for increasing the number of the representative body, without regard to population, and in violation of the wholesome, just and constitutional principle, that representation and taxation should go together.  If it had been intended to admit foreign territory into the Union, there would have stood in the Constitution a provision palpable and indisputable.  So far as regarded Texas, she did not ask us to protect her, but we were exhorted to woo her, that she might protect us.

            Mr. CAREY, of Maine, addressed the Committee in favor of annexation, and when he concluded his remarks,

            The SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the House adjourned.

            IN SENATE

            Friday, January 10, 1845

            The Senate did not sit to-day, having adjourned over to Monday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

            Mr. HALE asked leave to submit a proviso, which he said he intended to urge when the House should come to a vote on the various propositions for the annexation of Texas.  He desired that it should take the usual course-be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.  [Cries of "Read, read."]

            The Speaker informed the gentlemen that it could be received only by general consent.

            It was however read for information, and provides in substance that immediately after the boundary between the United States and Mexico shall be definitively settled by the two Governments and before any State shall be equally divided and in that portion lying south and west of the line, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.  This arrangement to be considered as a compact, and binding, and forever remain unalterable, unless by the consent of two-thirds of the States of the Union.

            Messrs, McCONNELL, BURKE, and SLIDELL objected to the reception of the proposition; whereupon,

            Mr. HALE moved a suspension of the rules prescribing the order of business, and asked for the yeas and nays.

            The SPEAKER said, that the motion could not now be made, in consequence of other business having precedence.

            HOUR OF MEEING

            The House proceeded to the consideration of resolution heretofore offered by Mr. Thompson, to change the daily meeting of the House to eleven o'clock, A.M., to which Mr. D. L. Seymour had proposed an amendment, as a substitute, that there be a daily evening session of the House, to commence at seven o'clock, P.M.

            Mr. HOLMES moved that the resolution be laid upon the table, and

            Mr. DUNCAN asked for the yeas and nays-which were taken, and the result was-yeas 78, nays 93.

            So the resolution was not laid on the table.

            The previous question was moved and seconded; and on the question, Shall the main question be now put?-being on the amendment-the yeas and nays were ordered and taken, and resulted in the affirmative-yeas 90, nays 86.

            The amendment was then rejected; and, on agreeing to the resolution the yeas and nays were asked, but not ordered; and

            The question was taken by tellers-ayes 72, noes 79.  So the resolution also was rejected.

            TEXAS AGAIN

            Mr. HALE moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to introduce the proviso above referred to, that it might be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; and he asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

            The proviso being again real, at the request of several gentlemen,

            Mr. HALE repeated his object in moving for a suspension of the rules.  [A voice: "No speech now;" and another, "We understand it very well." "Go on, go on with the call."]

            The yeas and nays were taken, and the House by a vote of yeas 92, nays 82, refused to suspend the rules-not being two-thirds.

            On motion of Mr. J.W. Davis, of Indiana, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair) and resumed the consideration of the resolutions for the annexation of Texas to the United States.

            Mr. SAMPLE opposed the measure, and especially the manner in which it was sought to be effected.  Contracts and agreements between this and foreign nations could not constitutionally be made by the Legislature, but by the Executive or treaty making power.  Suppose that were should now agree to admit Texas on certain terms, and those were acceded to and accepted by that Republic, and hereafter there should be a majority in both Houses adverse to the act, and should appeal it-what then would become of Texas?  What cement would hold us to our contract or agreement?  If, then, there was a power in the Constitution to annex Texas, or any other government similarly situated, the manner proposed in the resolution, there was certainly the same power to undo the act: and to what unfortunate results was the exercise of such an assumed power, in either case, likely to lead, should it be exercised!  And in a country like ours, where public opinion was unstable, it was not improbably that a law passed by one Congress might be repealed by another.  It was not designed by the framers of the Constitution, that any other territory than that acknowledged by the treaty with Great Britain in 1783, should be erected into States and admitted into the Union and he read various extracts from debates in Convention, etc., in support of his argument.

            He argued that the position of the country, in its relations to the residue of the North American coast, would be infinitely safer without Texas than with it.  In a military point of view, and every other, so far as the protection of the frontier was concerned, that nation, being independent, was a greater protection, than if she belonged to us-without subjecting us to the expense and trouble of fortifying the coast.  He opposed the measure, further, that it was calculated to administer to the spirit of aggrandizement and conquest; for, it was observed by a gentleman from Alabama, the other day, that the "lone star" would, at some future time, float from the palace of the Montezuma’s-and that, while it would "extend the area of freedom," as contended, it would, at the same time, extend the boundaries of slavery.

            Mr. DEAN regarded this as the most important measure ever brought before Congress for deliberation.  The question was had they the power, by the Constitution, to annex a sovereign State to the Union?-and this was, properly, the inquiry involved in the discussion.  Gentlemen had insisted that the Constitution did not justify the acquisition of territory, but they had forgotten that in many of the States the Indian had receded before the force of the white man, and his hunting grounds converted into cities and fertile fields.-Our march had been onward, and history demonstrated that our people had not rested contented with the narrow limits to which we were confined at the termination of the war of the Revolution.  If this argument of the opposition were correct, how would we acquire Oregon?-But he had no doubt whatever, that Congress had the power to admit Texas either as a Territory or as a State.  The Federalists, under the cognomen of Whigs, denied it; for they were always on the wrong side, and never drew lessons of wisdom from the experience of the past, but they pressed on in the errors of their ways, with the tenacity of life, and with the same vigor that the miser clung to his gold.

            The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 4th of June last, requesting the President to cause to be communicated to the House a copy of the instructions of George W. Irving upon his appointment as minister plenipotentiary to Spain, in the year 1814, and afterwards during his mission to that court, which have not even heretofore made public.  The report and the accompanying papers were very voluminous.

            Mr. ADAMS moved that they be laid on the table, and printed; which was agreed to.

            Mr. JENKS, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, reported a joint resolution authorizing and directing the accounting officer of the Post Office Department to inquire into, audit, and settle the claims of Alexander M. Cumming, late mail contractor.  It was read twice and committed to the Committee of the Whole.

            Mr. PRATT, from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, reported a bill making an appropriation for furnishing, painting, and repairing the Executive mansion, and for other purposes.  It was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and was ordered to be printed.

            The House then adjourned.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p1c6

A letter from a Correspondent

     The letter of our regular Correspondent form Washington, to whom we are indebted for so many valuable favors, is very able in the views which it takes, and  interesting from the facts which it reveals.  The quotation which it gives from the Houston Telegraph confirms the last, strong letter which Gen. Jackson has addressed to Mr. Blair.  We must act- act, now-or we may lose Texas forever.  NOW is the accepted time.  We call upon our friends in Washington to hearken to these repeated counsels-to act with decision-and to adopt a conciliatory spirit, which must lead to success.

     The signs are more cheering from Washington, in defiance of Hal[ . . . ] from New Hampshire.  We are happy to hear that Col. Benton will give up his bill.  Instructions are confidently expected from the Legislature of Maine to her Senators.  The cause of annexation is gaining ground even in Massachusetts.  It is thought that in a few days the members of Congress friendly to the measure will go into caucus, and adopt some available plan.

     The Correspondent of the Baltimore Patriot thinks that Mr. Dromgoole's scheme is the most popular.  The correspondent of the New York News thinks it will prevail, perhaps with some modifications.  The correspondent of the Philadelphia Inquirer (Whig) has changed his opinion, and is now fully convinced that an annexation proposition, in, some shape or other, will pass the House at this session.  It is not at all improbable but that the measure may succeed in the Senate.  I have this from the best authority.  The chances now are that Texas will be annexed at this session of Congress."  So be it.

     We are sure it is unnecessary to call the public attention to the following manly and thrilling appeal from the Old Hero.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p2c3

"It Is My Thunder!"

     Mr. J P. Kennedy the Novelist of Swallow Barn and Horse Shoe took the floor on Saturday last, in the House of Representatives, in opposition to “annexation in any shape or form in which it may be presented.” He cut and slashed in every direction around him – just as boldly as if he had not written a very confident letter before the election, the predictions of which had all passed off in smoke. No Whig follows the footsteps of Mr. Clay more faithfully than the Representative of Baltimore. The moment the oracle pronounced the fiat from his tripod at Raleigh, Mr. K. determined to go against Texas, and he is now opposed to annexation in any form or phasis [sic] whatever. In his Saturday’s argument, he makes an allusion to a letter “he had recently seen from Washington to the Richmond Enquirer, which furnished evidence of the unanimity which prevailed in the Democratic party in relation to the question of annexation. The letter seemed to come from one who had become, by some means or other, well versed in the consultations on this subject. That letter was written before the holidays, and it announced the perplexities which prevailed at that time. It gave the names of parties to whom they had been referred for adjustment, and then prophesied that, by new year’s day, they would be brought into a state of harmony, and then they were to have some ‘thunder’ – Democratic thunder,” &c., &c.

     If the anticipated harmony has not yet arrived, it is no reason why it may not yet take place. It is true, that many propositions have been made, (and Mr. K. notices most, and opposes all of them.) They have called forth much discussion among the friends of annexation; but in a spirit of harmony which promises the ultimate selection of some measure of annexation. There has been no want of “harmony” then, as our correspondent predicted – though as yet there has not been any unanimity of purpose. Our friends agree upon annexation – but not yet upon the best mode of affecting it. Every day’s discussion, however, is shedding new light upon the merits of the subject and the opinions of the members – and we confidently trust, that a new consultation among its friends may, in the course of this week, strike out some plan of compromise, which may reconcile its provisions to the Constitution, as well as to a majority of House.

     Mr. K. will confess that our Correspondent is fight in one of his predictions. They have “thunder” – and they are likely to have enough of it – not “Democratic thunder” alone, but the mock thunder of the Theatre – not only the explosion of the Jupiter Tonans of the Democratic party, but the mimic thunder of the Whig Salmoneus , who “used to drive his chariot over a brazen bridge, and to dart his burning torches on every side, as if to imitate the lightening.” But Mr. K. may depend upon it, that it will require more than his thunder and lightening to defeat a measure, which the best interests of the country so earnestly recommend to one adoption.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p3c1

Debate on the Texas Question

Speech of Mr. Belser, of Alabama.

1.     The House of Representatives, Jan. 3, 1845.

On the joint resolutions reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, proposing to annex the republic of Texas to the United States, and to the amendments offered thereto by Mr. Weller of Ohio and Mr. Douglas of Illinois.

     Mr. BELSER having obtained the floor, rose and said that, in his opinion, a great error had accompanied most of our recent discussions. – He had scarcely heard an argument during the session, on any subject in which the speaker had failed to mention some incident connected with the late presidential election. Believing this to be the wrong, he had prescribed a rule for his guidance in future which was, that, whatever might be the topic finder consideration, he would endeavor to keep his vision bounded by the record. Arguments addressed to the popular ear were usually of a peculiar kind, well enough in then place, but when reiterated here they unfit the representative for correct thinking and were a waste of the public time.

     The subject on which the House was now called to act had been before the people of the States in their primary assemblies; and without undertaking to say what had, or had not, been decided by them, he would say this: that a sufficient expression of opinion had been given throughout the United States to entitle this people, and the government of Texas, to action on this question. For some time past he had made up his mind in favor of it; and it on any occasion he had evinced an unnecessary zeal for its early consuumation, be hoped that the fact would not be attributed to unjust motives. He was an American in feeling – a native of the sunny South – early taught to admire her institutions – to love her people; and under such circumstances; it was but natural that he should have the warmest, [ . . . ] for her prosperity. Having said this much in the way of introduction, he would next proceed to the examination of the interesting question before the committee.

     The constitutional right of annexing a foreign republic to this Government, by a concurrence of the legislative power of both countries, presents for our consideration no common matter; and before such legislation is attempted, the ground on which we stand ought to be fully viewed Candor compelled him to admit, that, so far as his research had been extended, he had discovered no precedent embracing the exact point. Since the commencement of the present century, the Louisiana and Florida Territories had become portions of the United States, and out of the former several new States had been admitted into the Union: but these acquisitions to our national domain had, in the first instance, been obtained by the treaty-making power. There then being no legislative explosion which fully meets the question, we must, at a proper time, look into the character of our Government for its solution.

     Some there are who contend that Texas cannot be constitutionally annexed to this Government, either by treaty, bill, or joint resolution. They assimilate the Union to a political firm, of which the States are members, and say that any contract of annexation made with Texas, without their entire assent, would be void. They entrench themselves behind the treaty of 1783, fixing the limits of the United States, and publish it as their opinion, that the power to admit new States vested in congress is to be confined to those limits. – They further declare, that slavery is a strain on our national escurcheon [sic], and that the authorities of the Federal Government have no right to increase it by the annexation of new slave territory to the Union: that, by virtue of the compact, it is limited to those States where it existed when the instrument was framed: that, under that compact, a single slave cannot be constitutionally brought into that Union; and yet, by the proposed annexation of Texas, all the slaves in that Republic are to be made to form a part of our population.

     Those who hold these doctrines, with a few exceptions, are the abolitionists of the country – the men whose daily vocation is to slander and vilify, as far as they are able, the present administration. They hate the President and his Secretary. (Mr. Calhoun.) because these statesmen have foresight and firmness enough to counteract Great Britain – in a word, to be Americans. They are the same who once desired to see Louisiana remain a desert for howling where wolves to roam over, sooner than it should become a part of this Government. – Their direct influence in the councils of the nation is limited; but still they hold the balance of power several of the largest States. They are never found in any political conventions except their own; and, by strategy in, are endeavoring to circumscribe our institutions. They have their friends on this floor – men of great talent – whose exertions should be reserved for a better cause; for if slavery be the evil of which they speak, they should recollect that Great Britain, with the aid of New England, entailed it on us; and further, that not only our prosperity, but likewise our personal security is involved in the keeping of the two races separate and distinct.

     There are others who, to a certain extent, disagree with those whom he had just adverted to. – They acknowledge the right of the Treaty making power to admit foreign territory into the Union, but deny that it can be done by the legislation of this Government and Texas. They maintain that the Treaty-making power must first incorporate the territory, before Congress can [ . . . ] the new States. They say that, by the Constitution, the power of making treaties is vested in the President and two-thirds of the Senate, and, being thus conferred, that Congress had no authority over the subject; that such legislation, if permitted would supersede the written Constitution and substitute for it the omnicontend [sic] of the British Parliament. They further contend, that the United States, having recognized the independence of Texas, by the act made her a perfect nation that every compact between independent nations is a Treaty; and that every Treaty must be made by the President, and afterwards be adhered to the Senate for ratification.

     If the views of either of these parties are correct, then the question is concluded; for neither the consent of all the members of the Confederacy, nor that of two-thirds of the senate, can be obtained for the measure; and hence it becomes our duty to examine, with care, their positions.

     In the settlement of these difficulties, which have been so eagerly presented by the opponents of Annexation, there are three clauses in the Constitution of the United States to which a fair interpretation must be given.

     1st. The legislative power of the Union, vested in congress, and to consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

     2d. The Treaty-making power, vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring in any Treaty which he may submit.

     3d. The power of Congress to admit new States into the Union, under certain restrictions, intended to guard and protect the States.

     From the reading of these several provisions, he interred that there could be but little difficulty in coming to a correct conclusion, provided the character of our government is kept clearly in view. All sovereignties of which history informs us are said to be based on three fundamental provisions executive, legislative and judicial. That mole in which these several powers are to be exercised, focus the main distinction between governments. In those which are unlimited, they are concentrated in a single individual. Sometimes they are lodged in a few select persons, and, when such is the case, it is denominated, an uncontrolled aristocracy. Our Government is unlike either of the foregoing. Sovereignty with us originally existed in the people of the State Governments. For the purpose of forming a more perfect union, a portion of it has been transferred by the Constitution to the Federal head. Congress, then, is the best exponent of the public will; for it is chosen by those who are, to a great extent, the original fountain of all legitimate authority.

     The right of every nation to take care of itself, and to provide every thing which may be necessary for its preservation, is a principle too plain to be questions. The authority to incorporate foreign territory with our own is not expressly delegated to the President and Senate, but it attaches as an incident to sovereignty; and this sovereignty is more perfect in the law-making power, than in ay other department mentioned in the Constitution. It, then, sovereignty gives the right to acquire foreign territory, either by conquest or by purchase that right can be most property exercised by that branch of the Government in which it most clearly exists. The language of the Constitution is, “new States may be admitted by Congress into the Union.” How can new States be admitted into the Union by Congress, composed of foreign territory? If to admit new States be a power expressly given to Congress, then all the means which are appropriate may constitutionally by employed to carry the same into effect; and the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion. In such cases, the legislature can mould and model the exercise of its powers as its own wisdom and the public interests shall require. This power to admit new States is not to be found in the Articles of Confederation. Its origin is but coeval with the Constitution; still the debates on the adoption of that instrument clearly indicate, that those who made it a part of our national compact, did not intend to limit its operation to what was then considered the territory of the Union. They were for supplying the defects which manifested themselves during the existence of that confederation; and the task before them was a perilous and difficult one! They did not intend to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but they intended to act for posterity. Their design was not to confer an expanded territory on the Federal Government to be used entirely for its own purposes; but they intended to create a counterpoise to it in the number and independence of the States. Territory, according to their ideas, was made for mankind; and when incorporated into the Union, it was to be guarded by those needful rules and regulations which Congress might prescribe; and as soon as possible this right of guardianship was to cease, States were to be framed out of it, and then to be admitted into the American family. Every Government, then, in his opinion, which possessed the power of interesting its population, had also the inherent right to provide territory for its use.

     Another ground, he said, had also been assumed, which was, as he had before stated, that every compact between independent nations is a treaty; and that, for this reason, Texas could not be annexed without the intervention of the treaty-making power. He observed that, since the adoption of the Constitution of the U. States, many compacts by acts of legislation had been entered into between the Federal and State Governments, and also between the former and foreign nations.

     On the 4th of March, 1789, Congress assembled under the Constitution which, but a little while before, had been ratified by eleven States. In November of the same year, North Carolina also acceded to it; and in May, 1790, the assent of Rhode Island was likewise obtained. On the 2nd of April following, Congress passed an act accepting from the State of North Carolina a deed of cession of he claims of said State to a certain district of western territory therein named. This compact contained many weighty provisions, and was performed by joint legislation. – (See 21 vol. U.S. Laws, p.85.)

     On the 24th April, 1802, a similar compact was formed between the General Government and the State of Georgia, for an amiable settlement of the limits of said State, and for the establishment of a Government in the Mississippi territory. But it Georgia ceded to the Government the country west of the Chattahoochie river. – (See 1st vol. U.S. Laws, p. 488.)

     He would here inquire whether these were contracts entered into by sovereigns for the incorporation of a territory into the Union? After the ratification of the Constitution by eleven of the States, and while North Carolina and Rhode Island were deliberating as to whether or not they would come into the Union. Congress taxed their trade the same as it they had been foreign nations. – This early legislative exposition seemed to settle the character of the States while out of the Union; and then admission into it afterwards, with, entitled them, in his opinion, to be considered independent nations, while ceding their territory to the Government by acts of concurrent legislation.

      After briefly examining these cases of legislative compacts between the Government and the States, be now would advert to certain legislative compacts with foreign nations; and whether they be for territory, trade, or anything else, this cannot alter the principle, unless in cases where the object is controlled by the Constitution. He observed that all of our intercourse with foreign patrons, to a certain extent, partook of this kind of legislation. From time to time we had said to Great Britain, France, and other countries, if you will move certain restrictions on one branch of trade, we will, upon the principle of reciprocity, do the same on another equally important. And what, he asked, were these, but legislative compacts between independent nations? But a case more directly in point was the establishment of the boundary between this Government and Texas a few years since – one of the highest acts of sovereignty that could be performed by nations; a legislative compact of the greatest import, which, as soon as it was agreed on, vested rights in the citizen of which he could not afterwards be deprived. He was assured that the Senate passed this law of the House unanimously; but still it was not submitted to that body as a treaty, nor legislated on as such by it.

     And in his humble opinion, there was another ground on which the legislative power of this Union, with the concurrence of Texas, or without it, could incorporate that country into our own. All writers on national law agree that a weaker power, for the sake of protection, may verge its existence in a greater, and further, that the greater power, to perfect itself, or to guard against danger, may lawfully receive the weaker, or, in certain contingencies, take it by force. It was in pursuance, partly, of this last principle, that Congress, on the 31st of October, 1803, authorized Mr. Jefferson to take possession of and occupy the ceded territory from France to the U. States, embraced in the treaty of Paris; Mr. Madison, on the 15th January, 1811, to take possession of the country, East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia and Mississippi territory; and again on the 12th of February, 1833, to take possession of another tract lying South of the Mississippi territory, and West of the Perdido. In his opinion, the several classes of eases to which he had referred, settled the right of the legislative power of this Government to annex Texas to the United States as a territory.

     Mr. B. would here proceed to examine the various propositions before the Committee. He was prepared to support any one of them; still he had a preference. He would take up that one which had been submitted by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Douglass]. He desired to inform the gentleman wherein he thought that his plan was not the proper one. He objected, in the first place, to the preamble. He admitted that, in 1819, Texas had been improperly par tee with. – What had induced our negotiators to violate the obligation given to that people in 1803, we should perhaps never know. He presumed, however, that it was to obtain Florida, which, from her [ . . . ] position, controlled in a degree the commerce of the Gulf, and the trade of the Mississippi. – This was the charitable view of the matter. He further admitted that, according to the law of nations, there was but one case, in which this Government would part with any position of its citizens, and that was a case of actual necessity; they could not be traded away, like cattle, or other property. He also was advised that, wherein subsequent treaty is in conflict with a prior one, the latter is void. But we had, by our own act, incorporated the people of Texas with those of a foreign nation, afterwards recognized them as her own in our intercourse with her and with Mexico, while they are united to the latter under the compact of 1821. He conceived that, on this point, we were estopped by our own act, so far as that doctrine can apply to a Government.

     Mr. Douglass, here asked leave to explain. – The resolutions he had offered did not proceed on the principle of denying the validity of the treaty, as far as we were concerned the position he took was, that, though the treaty was void in itself as it respected us, we were bound by it. We could not claim Texas under the treaty of 1803; but he contended that Texas had a right, under that treaty, to demand admission at our hands.

     Mr. Belser resumed. He was pleased to learn from the honorable gentleman that there was so little difference in their views as to the treaty alluded to. He agreed with him, that we were still; he thought that the gentleman’s preamble had a tendency to perplex the question.

     He further contended, that when, by the treaty of 1819, the inhabitants of Texas were bargained away, it was at their option whether or not they would become citizens of Spain; and if they chose not to incorporate themselves with that government, and had been able to stand alone, they were as independent as any people on earth. These inhabitants of Texas never did become incorporated with any other form of Government, save the Mexican Constitution of 1824. When that Constitution was overturned by the strong arm of the military, and a central despotism, under Santa Anna, was erected in its stead, Texas was not bound by the new Government, and well did she refuse to submit to it. He then put the question on the ground of conquest. Texas had done, with respect to Santa Anna and his government, just as we had done, in the days of the revolution to England and her government; and she had achieved her independence and maintained it just as we did ours. This, he conceived, was the true basis on which the matter stood; and it was one established by the law of nations and maintained by common sense.

     He had heard a great deal about an alleged violation of our Treaty with Mexico in 1832, as the inevitable consequence of Annexation. Now, what had been our stipulation with Mexico in that Treaty? It was this: that we would maintain perpetual amity and friendship with Mexico, and with all her territories. Very well; but Texas was now no territory of hers and, therefore, the stipulation of that Treaty did not in the least interfere with our exercising dominion over it. Further, the language of that Treaty was that there should be peace between the United States and the united Mexican States. Texas, at the time it was made, was one of those united Mexican States, and hence the guaranty extended also to her. Again: in that Treaty with Mexico, this Government did not say to her that, if the preservation of the Federal Union should require such a Treaty to be departed from, its authorities would not consult their own safety. No, that was a natural right inherent in nations that could not be surrendered by negotiation.

     But he also objected to that position of the honorable gentleman’s proposition which introduced into this discussion the Missouri compromise. In his belief, that act had done more to unsettle American institutions than any other in the history of the Government. It had introduced into our councils a dangerous principle – to writ: that Congress had the right to legislation the subject of slavery. Abolition petitions, tracts, &c., were its fruits, and he feared that they were but the harbinger of worse measures. It was true, that there was but little said here on the subject of abolition now; but the silence which prevailed in regard to it; might prove to be like that which precedes the earthquake.

     Mr. B. would next direct his attention to the resolutions of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Weller]. He preferred them to those of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Douglass;] still he thought that they were deficient in some things.

     He believed that, as soon as Texas shall consent to become a member of our family, her government should cease; and further, that we should evince to Mexico a disposition to settle the question of boundary on just terms, and to cultivate a friendly intercourse in every other particular.

     The original report, emanating from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, he thought also subject to the same objections which he had just urged against the plan of the gentleman from Ohio. – There were reasons, however, why it should be preferred, and a weighty one was that it had once been sanctioned by the representatives of both governments. We are not alone to be consulted about this compact. Texas is to have a voice in it, and, therefore, she should at this time be heard. To those who object to this report because the Senate has already rejected it in the form of a treaty, he had but little to say. If any were to be governed by such motives while a great national negotiation, involving agricultural, commercial, manufacturing, and mechanical interest was pending, those he would remind that the argus eyed people are watching our deliberations with intensity, and will no fail to discover our errors.

     He had likewise read the bill and resolutions of his friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Tibbatts,] published in several of the papers, of proposing to annex as a State. He confessed he had more doubt as to the constitutionality of this scheme for annexation than of any other, but even if called on to vote for it, he would pursue the judicial rule, and when, in doubt, give effect to the legislative will.

     Mr. B. had a proposition of his own, see appendix No. 1, which, like unto that of his friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Tibbatts,) was not yet before the committee, although it had been printed. He knew very well that men were apt to be fond of the children of their own creation, and he did not plead an exemption from the feeling; but this he could say, if he had ever given to any subject his earnest and undivided attention, it was this. His first resolution was for the annexation of the territory; the second authorized the President (as soon as jurisdiction was obtained by the consent of Texas) to erect therein a temporary government; the third was to settle the difficulties as to boundary, which might arise with Mexico; and the fourth guaranteed to Texas protection during the negotiation. It seemed to him that any true friend of annexation ought not to hesitate to vote for his, proposition. There were precedents to justify it – one of them to be found in the 3d volume of the United States laws, page 562, [see appendix No. 2;] and another in the 6th volume of the said work, page 593, [see appendix No. 3.] He again declared that he was not wedded to any plan which had been submitted. He meant to vote for Texas, it he could. And if gentlemen are in doubt, he would say to them, with Hoyle in his treatise on whist, “When you are in doubt, take the trick.” [Great laughter.]

     But, (said Mr. B.,) we are told by the opponents of Annexation, that our citizens settled in Texas; that the United States encouraged them in it; and that it is through their influence that the country has been wrested from Mexico, and consequently it would subject us to improper suspicions if we annex the Republic at this time. – Here arises a home view of this question. How was it that this Government had removed the Indians West of the Mississippi? When the first navigators from the Old World discovered this Continent, it was in the possession of independent nations or tribes. European powers were anxious to annex it to their own dominions, and nautical adventurers were found sailing along the coast, claiming for their rulers certain countries between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. – Since then, in the arrangements of Providence, Indian possession had gradually given way before the advances of civilization. And so it must ever be. Gentlemen might talk as they pleased about their devotion to the thirteen original States – about prescribing limits to the American people. There were none – there could be none! They would go, and go, and still continue to go, until they reached the ultimate boundary which the God of Nature had set to the progress of the human race. He, for one, hoped that the day was not far distant when they would go a little farther. [A laugh.] He meant farther than the point at which his friend from Pennsylvania had fixed their ultimate boundary, when he had so eloquently described it as being marked “in the configuration of this Continent by an Almighty hand;” he was not, he hoped, so impious as to throw out the idea that they could transcend a point fixed for them, by the decrees of God.

     After this continent had been discovered, we succeeded to the rights of Great Britain. We inherited the soil by the sword. The country was still ours. We could [ . . . ] trade, in the neighborhoods of Jamestown and of Plymouth, the ancient track of the post boy, as we could, in the great West, the footsteps of the Catholic missionary and of the French soldier. The land was ours but where were the people? Where was that brave aboriginal race which once chased the deer and conquered the bear in its mountains, and valleys? They were gone, and we were in their places. And how had we obtained their country? Talk of cessions and Indian treaties; it was a farce. We had got their possessions by the strong arm of power. We removed these tribes from their hunting grounds, who did not cultivate the land, in order that we might accomplish the greatest amount of good to the human race. And has Texas done any thing more than we did before her? No, sir! – no sir!

     Let gentlemen look on those two figures which have so recently been erected in the eastern portico of this Capitol, (great laughter,) and learn an instructive lesson. Gentlemen might laugh at the nudity of one of them; but the artist, when he made Columbus the superior of the Indian princess in every respect, knew what he was doing. And when he likewise placed the ball in his hand, he intended further to represent the power of civilization and what were to be the effects of the discovery of that wonderful man.

     And does the history of the past furnish no sight into the future? What is to become of our population in a half century or a century hence? According to a calculation derived from the best of sources, in fifty years it will number one hundred millions; and in double that period three hundred millions. Talk to him about confining the area of liberty! – it could not be done. Freedom’s pure and heavenly, light was here, and it would continue to burn, with increasing brightness, till it had illumined this entire continent.

     Why, what did gentlemen suppose was to become of the rising generation to the West? Did they think it was to stay there to vegetate like a plant and die on the spot where it grew? No, you had as well attempted to arrest Niagara. It would go onward and onward; it would fill Oregon; it would fill Texas; it would pour like a cataract over the Rocky Mountains, and, passing to the great lakes of the West, it would open the forests of that far distant wilderness to the light of the rising sun. And whoever should live and visit this continent at that day, might hear the voice of the American reaper on the far shores of the Pacific. The idea thrown out by President Houston, in one of his messages, that the lone star of Texas would yet one day float in triumph over the ancient place of the Montezuma, had been much ridienied [sic]; but, in his apprehension, it was likely to be converted into somber fact.

     Mr. B. then did not believe in limiting the spread of liberty, or in checking the migration of our people. Extension, in his opinion was the antagonistical principle of centralization. Our duration as a nation consists in our inestimable institutions, in our expansive territory, in the virtue of the people; and, combined with these, were our noble rivers, our internal communications, the abundance which we raise, and the certainty of bringing into requisition in the hour of need our physical force. On this branch of the subject he agreed with Gen. Jackson. That great man had been misrepresented by his enemies. They had charged him with a want of polish, with a lack of learning. It might be true, that he had not so much knowledge of books as many others less prominent in life; but he knew men, he read human nature, and had that kind of information which was worth more than that of all the bookworms in the country.

     The inhabitants of the new States had entered Texas in large numbers with the hope of bettering their condition, and with an honest ambition to occupy elevated stations in the new Republic. This was the genius and spirit of the popular system which distinguished our country. And are we prepared to reject Texas again? In the language of one of her sons. – “What! Reject a proffered territory as extensive as four or five of our largest States, equal in fertility to the most favored, superior to most them in natural advantages; with a thousand miles of sea coast; from its position constituting an unseemly interference with our territory? What [ . . . ] reject a compact which secures to Texas no advantages – save the solitary isolated one of nestling in the folks of the star-spangled banner.”

     In conclusion, Mr. B. observed, that he had recently been reading a historical legend which afforded an exemplification of what he thought ought to be our national condition and character. When the city of Corinth was taken, sacked and burnt by the Roman consul Mammius , in the fusion of metals produced by the intensity of the heat, a mixed and compounded one was produced of far greater brilliancy and beauty than any of the materials of which it was composed. It was called Corinthian brass, and was held more precious than gold. He desired to see the day speedily come when our country will, so far as a spirit of brotherhood can exist, resemble just such a metal as was formed at Corinth. And that that Government, whose independence was first proclaimed by the Henrys, the Thompsons, the Adamses, the Middletons, the Rutledges and the Lees, will survive the ghastly glare of an unbridled fanaticism; and that some interceding spirit will yet rise up to check the now wide-spread flames. Long may our country prove itself the asylum of the oppressed. Let its institutions and its people be extended far and wide, and when the waters of despotism shall have inundated other portions of the globe, and the votary of liberty be compelled to betake himself to his ark, let this Government be the Ararat on which it shall rest.

APPENDIX –No. 1.

     Mr. Belser asked leave to introduce a series of joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas to the United States, in the following form:

Preamble and joint resolutions for the Annexation of the Republic of Texas to the United Sates of America.  

     In view of the present peculiar situation of the Republic of Texas, and the influence which she is destined, from her immediate location upon our Western borders, and her intimate connection with the territory, population, and resources of the United States, to have upon our national security, tranquility, and commerce, we, the supreme legislative authority of the American Union, in order to secure the blessings of peace and prosperity to ourselves, and safety, good Government, and liberty to the inhabitants of Texas, do hereby adopt the following resolutions, annexing the said Republic to the United States:

1.     Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, with the consent of the authorities of Texas, so much of the territory as rightfully belongs to the said Republic be and the same is hereby annexed to the United States, and made one of the territories of the same, under the name of “the Territory of Texas.”

2.     And be it further resolved, That as soon as jurisdiction over the territory of Texas shall be obtained by the United States, as herein provided, the President of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to take immediate possession of the same; and until other provision be made by Congress to establish therein a temporary Government upon the principles regulating other territories of the U. States, so far as the same may be applicable; and the military, civil and judicial powers are hereby vested in such authorities as he may establish in pursuance of this resolution for the protection and maintenance of the inhabitants of the said territory in the full enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.

3.     And be it further resolved, That these resolutions are hereby declared to be the fundamental law of annexation between the United States and Texas, so soon as they shall be concurred in by both Governments; and that if any dispute shall thereafter arise with any foreign power respecting any boundary of Texas, the President of the United States is hereby authorized to open all necessary negotiations for the settlement of the same upon just and honorable terms, subject to the ratification of this Government.

4.     And be it further Resolved , That if, during the pendency of these propositions, any attempt shall be made by any foreign power to occupy by Republic of Texas, or to harass or destroy her commerce, the President of the U. States is hereby authorized and directed to afford protection to the same; and for that end may employ such parts of the military and naval power of the United States as may be necessary.

5.     And be it further Resolved , That as soon as these resolutions shall have passed the Congress of the United States, and been approved by the President, he shall forthwith transmit a copy of the same to the Government of the republic of Texas for its concurrence.

APPENDIX – No. 2.

     An act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April last; and for the temporary government thereof.

SECT. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to take possession of, and occupy, the territory ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth day of April last, between the two nations; and that he may, for that purpose, and in order to maintain in the said territories the authority of the United States, employ any part of the army and navy of the United States, and of the force authorized by an act passed the third day of March last, entitled “An act directing a detachment from the militia of the United States, and for erecting certain arsenals,” which he may deem necessary, and so much of the sum appropriated by the said act as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated for the purpose of carrying this act into effect; to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States.

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That, until the expiration of the present session of Congress, unless provision for the temporary government of the said territories be sooner made by Congress, all the military, civil and judicial powers, exercised by the others of the existing government of the same, shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct, for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. Approved, Oct. 31, 1803.

APPENDIX – No. 3.

     Taking into view the peculiar situation of Spain, and of her American provinces; and considering the influence which the destiny of the territory adjourning the Southern border of the United States may have upon their security, tranquility and commerce. Therefore,

     Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, under the peculiar circumstances of the existing crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see any part of the said territory pass into the hands of any foreign power; and that a due regard to their own safety compels them to provide, under certain contingencies, for the temporary occupation of the said territory; they, at the same time, declare that the said territory shall, in their hands, remain subject to future negotiation. Approved, 15th Jan., 1811.

     An act to enable the President of the U. States, under certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia, and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the U. States of America, in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to take possession of, and occupy, all or any part of the territory lying East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, in case an arrangement has been, or shall be, made with the local authority of the said territory, for delivering up the possession of the same, or any part thereof, by any foreign Government; and he may, for the purpose of taking possession, and occupying the territory aforesaid, and in order to maintain therein the authority of the United States, employ any part of the army and many of the U. States which he may deem necessary.

Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, That one hundred thousand dollars be appropriated for defraying such expenses as the President may deem necessary for obtaining possession as aforesaid, and the security of the said territory to be applied under the direction of the President, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, That in case possession of the territory aforesaid shall be obtained by the United States as aforesaid, until other provision be made by Congress, the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to establish, within the territory aforesaid a temporary Government, and the military, civil, and judicial powers thereof, shall be vested in such person and persons, and be exercised in such manner as he may direct, for the protection and maintenance of the inhabitants of the said territory in the full employment of their liberty, property, and religion

Approved 15th January, 1811.

     An act concerning an act to enable the President of the United States, under certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying East of the river Perdido, and South of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes, and the declaration accompanying the same.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this act, and the act passed during the present session of Congress, entitled “an act to enable the President of the U. States, under certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying East of the river Perdido; and South of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes” and the declaration accompanying the same, be not printed or published until the end of the next session of Congress, unless directed by the President of the United States, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

Approved March 3, 1811.

An act authorizing the President of the United States to take possession of a tract of country lying South of the Mississippi Territory and West of the River Perdido.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President b, and he is hereby, authorized to occupy and hold all that tract of country called West Florida, which lies West of the river Perdido, not now in possession of the U. States.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, for the purpose of occupying and holding the country aforesaid, and of affording protection to the inhabitants thereof under the authority of the U. States, the President may employ such parts of the military and naval force of the U. States as he may deem necessary.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, for defraying the necessary expenses, twenty thousand dollars are hereby appropriated to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise, appropriated, and to be applied, for the purposes aforesaid, under the direction of the President. –

Approved, February 12, 1813.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p3c2

New York Views of Annexation

     Mr. “Horse Shoe Robinson” sneeringly points to Governor Wright’s Message, as throwing a cold blanket upon the Annexation of Texas. – Mr. W. does not introduce the annexation by name – and Mr. Kennedy concludes that the Governor is dodging the subject. The New York Herald also relies upon his silence, and upon Mr. Stetson’s speech as conclusive evidences of a disposition which the Herald is pleased to hatch from its own brains, on the part of the New York Democrats to cut the South – to unite the Northern Democracy upon Northern principles – and even to strike up something like a coalition between the Democrats and the Whigs. The whole appears to us to be a gratuitous suggestion – unworthy of the sagacity of its Editor – and scarcely less ridiculous than the fiction of the Richmond Whig, in its most novel and ingenious supposition, that Mr. Polk means to conduct his administration upon Whig principles. We must caution our friends in both sections of the country, against the unfounded visions of the press. We scout the idea of any movement on the part of Mr. Silas Wright, or of any of our Democratic friends in New York, or in the North against the broad interests of the Democratic party. We have an unshaken confidence in the principles and sagacity of Silas Wright – not as warm a friend to the Annexation, perhaps, as some in the South; but as true a friend of the Republican party as any one – and in the ability to serve cause, he is inferior, perhaps, to no man. One slight shade may have come over the brilliant disc of his superior mind – but it will be as slight and as evanescent as the cloud which comes over the sun, if he will only listen to the assurances of men, who were in April last almost as warm friends to Martin Van Buren’s nomination as himself – and men, moreover, who would scorn to deceive him for any consideration upon the face of the earth. Let the political speculators, then, who view those events only through the medium of their prejudices, and count upon a division in the Democratic Party, banish such idle phantoms from their imaginations. The South will listen to no such voice. They will cherish heir long-living and deep-seated sentiment of union with their “natural allies, the Democracy of the North.” In this region of the sunny South, we have no ambitious aspirations to indulge; no narrow and sectional purposes to promote. We go for a New York Democrat as ardently as a Southern – And we claim to have in the South as great and admirable statesman, as any of whom the North can boast. The one to whom the New York Herald alludes, under the name of “the Southern Statesman,” is of this description. – We proved our feelings for a great Northern Statesman in 1836 and in 1840 – and when the Baltimore Convention nominated Mr. Polk, it was not under the intrigues, of the influence of any man. If Mr. P. did come from the South, it was because he was first nominated by the North. It was as in the case of Gen. Washington, when the motion to place him at the head of the army came from Massachusetts.

     But we recommend to Mr. Kennedy’s notice the following more emphatic article from the Albany Argus:

     “OREGON AND TEXAS.” – The subject of the occupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas was brought before the Senate yesterday, by Gen. Clark, in a serious of resolutions, which will be found in our legislative report.

     “It will be seen that they go for Annexation, ‘at the earliest practicable period,’ stripped of all embarrassing questions, direct or incidental. We do not doubt that they express the pervading popular sentiment of the State.”

     Yet if Mr. Kennedy is pleased to lay such stress upon the silence of the Governor’s Message, will he turn to the Albany Argus of Saturday last? – He will find its accomplished Editor, (the State Printer,) and the friend of Governor Wright and Mr. Van Buren, calling the attention of its readers to “an interesting article (on the subject of Texas and Annexation) from the pen of an able writer and much respected citizen” – which originally appeared in “The Utica Observer.”

     It bears the title of “The Annexation of Texas, considered with reference to the justice of the measure, as respects foreign nations, and it effects on the U. States – by A. B. Johnson.”

     We have room only for the conclusion of the article – and it evidently bespeaks a master-spirit:

     “Who that has a mind to comprehend these facts, and a heart to feel them, would wish to check this progression by suspicious fears? And especially while now, if such fears are well founded, we are sufficiently extended in territory and numbers, to fall a victim to these elements of destruction, if such they truly are. Nay, if imagination, must govern us, may we not rather suppose that diversities of local interests will be harmonized by the augmentation of our confederacy; just as the turbidness [sic] of separate streams is neutralized in proportion to the magnitude of the recipient river. Some statesman, men of no little acuteness and consideration in public affairs, maintain as the best policy, a species of free trade that would seem to require for its consummation that all the nations of the earth should constitute a single Government.

     “But, aside from all geographical jealousies, many persons on principles of abstract moral repugnancy to slavery, oppose the annexation of Texas to our Union, for, if Texas be not annexed, she may be physically coerced by Mexico, or morally by Great Britain, to relinquish slavery. – I admit the contingency. A like result by means of a servile war or foreign interposition might follow the ejection from our Union of the existing slave States. To a man morbidly absorbed by one idea, the above contingencies may be sufficient to make him both reject Texas and repudiate Louisiana, though some persons believe that Texas will be instrumental in suppressing slavery in all our old States, by supplying a more profitable field of operation for the slaves; and that free labor flowing into fill up the vacuum, a state of society will be engendered destructive of slavery; and further, that slavery, thus concentrated in Texas, will, by the proximity of races in Mexico, kindred to the slaves, be gradually allured from Texas, and lost irreclaimably in Mexico.

     “But abandoning hypothesis, I would invite such of our citizens as are disposed to balance the good and evil of any measure, and to be governed in their preferences by the preponderance of the good, to look at the certain benefits that must result from the acquisition of Texas. It is in size about equal to six times the dimensions of our Empire State, with a climate said to be salubrious, and giving us the monopoly of the finest cotton land, and of the finest cotton that the world produces an article which is yet in a condition of giant infancy, as relates to its commercial importance to our country and the world, and its many ministrations to the comforts of the poor, and the gratification of all classes. – Under the auspices of our Union, this immense country will become the home of millions of human beings; not drawn from other regions to depopulate them, but by the laws of nature a new growth of immortal, accountable, intelligent beings. In the birth of such an empire, with its ramified consequences to the end of time, land through eternity, can we see nothing but the naked, and perhaps temporary question of slavery? Is the addition nothing of such a territory to our home, such a member of our family circle, with whom we may interchange productions without the obstructions of conflicting nationally? The acquisition of these benefits seem to expand each one of us into something more than our present stature; and to give to every mechanic, manufacturer, merchant and cultivator of the soil, some source of additional activity and prosperity.

      “I know, however, that many persons believe our Union is already sufficiently large for strength; and that additional extent will only encumber us. If we examine this notion, we shall find it is founded on analogies that are not an applicable to our condition. When an empire is composed of conquered nations, that are continually struggling to regain their lost independence, every new acquisition but divides the strength of the conqueror, and he becomes exhausted by the division. But our union is voluntary, and like an arch, constitutes a reciprocation of strength which all the members yield to each, and each yields to all. Such at least is the result of our system thus far; and the experience of half a century of peace and war is a safer indication of its nature, than the conjectures of any theory.

     “But are we willing that annexation shall be obtained at the expense of a war with Mexico, and perhaps with England? This question is best answered by ascertaining whether annexation is compatible with our duty as a moral and [C]hristian people; for no nation is required to avert war, by any other means than to act justly.

     “Next April nine years will have elapsed since the capture of Santa Ann and his army, by the Texans, at the battle of San Jacinto. Mexico has ever since refrained from the subjugation of Texas, from a wan of power or an abandonment of its exercise. In the war of our Revolution, the capture of Burgoyne by our troops, was alone deemed so vital a seal of Independence, that France forthwith treated us as an independent nation; though her obligations towards G. Britain, with reference to us, were doubtless as great as our obligations to Mexico with reference to Texas.

     “In the recent struggle between the provinces of Greece and the empire of Turkey, nothing occurred that will compare in decisiveness with the battle of San Jacinto, or the acquiescence of Mexico; still England and the other principal Governments of Europe decided that Greece had virtually freed itself from the authority of Turkey, and they assisted in consolidating her provinces into a separate kingdom. The same sovereigns at the subsequent revolt of Belgium from the authority of Holland, allowed the king of Holland a brief period to reduce to obedience his rebellious province, but prohibited him from continuing in vengeance efforts that were seen to be ineffectual for the purposes of subjugation; and Belgium was organized into an independent kingdom. These results differ from the incidents of remote history, but the difference is claimed by the Government of Europe as a triumph of justice over physical power, whose reign terminated with the overthrow of Napoleon. England, therefore, is mortally estopped by her own practices, from any exceptions against the independent volitions of Texas; and in the judgment of all Europe, as evinced by the foregoing cases; Mexico has no just cause of offense against us our disregard of her latent sovereignty.

     We are apt to estimate the right of Mexico to Texas as identical with a man’s ownership of a chattel. The proprietary right in both cases s founded in resulting social benefits; but I deny that social benefits require that the rules of ownership which apply to the sovereignty of one nation over another. In the spirit of our Declaration of Independence, and nearly in its language, all Governments are instituted for the happiness of the governed; hence, the right of Mexico in a mere chattel is for the benefit not of the chattel, but of Mexico. We have the authority of the word of God for a still more restricted estimate of the proprietary right of all nations. The division of the earth into district sovereign ownerships is a contrivance of man, instituted for his social benefits; but revelation declares that the earth is the Lord’s, and the use thereof is for man in common. In this enlarged sense, Texas, so far from being property of Mexico, is not exclusively the property of the Texians, except as their use of it quadrates with its usefulness to all men in common. On this Christian principle, and on this alone was justified the recent successful attempt by Great Britain to constrain the people of China to relinquish the exclusive monopoly which they have usurped for ages over the regions which they inhabit. On this principle alone, we can justify our forcible obtrusion on the aborigines of America; and our compelling them to abandon to us such lands as they could not use themselves beneficially to the common rights of all – in thus acting, instead of being wrong doers, we are but fulfilling the command of Providence to multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it.

     “Having thus shown that the natural right of Mexico to Texas is not inconsistent with the right of the Texians to change their allegiance, and that the conventional laws which regulate the intercourse of nations will not under existing circumstances be outraged by the exercise of this right in favor of the United States; I have accomplished all that I intended, having preliminarily shown, that the consequences of the act will produce results grateful to philanthropy every where, and profitable is particular to us, in all our great social interests; and finally all to be attained “without money and without price,” for even in a pecuniary view, (the lowest rational view that can be taken of such a question,) what are the millions more or less, that Texas will cost us, in comparison not with its civil advantages to us, or its military advantages, not with the extent of national domain that may be acquired with the territory, but simply with the perpetual right in claim imposts on all importations of such a country, as it is, and as it will be, increasing and compounding in an onward course of population and wealth forever?”

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p4c3

Marine Journal

The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

            High Water this day at 8 o’clock, A.M.

Arrived
Schr. China, Small, Charleston, S.C., Rice to Davenport & Allen.
New York, Jan. 11. – arrived, Schr. Manchester, Worth, Richmond.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 14, 1845 RE41i80p4c3

James River & Kanawha Canal

            Richmond, January 13, 1845

Arrived
Canal Boat Red Bird, Ben Godsly master, with 15 tons mdze., from Lynchburg, to L.D. Crenshaw & Co., Shields and Somerville, and Ludlam, Preston & Co.

Boat Buchanan, T. Lenahan master, with 43 tons mdze., from Scottsville, to J. J. Faris & Co., Blair & Brochenbrough, N.H. Rogland, Deane & Brown, shields & Somerville, Parrish & Heazley, Fry & Co., A.T. Harris, S. I. Crump, and Warwick & Barksdale.

Boat Gen. Harrison, C. R. Sheppard master, with 363/4 tons mdze., from Hardwicksville, to Deane & Brown, A. T. Harris, Fry & Co., and Wren & Macon.

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81plcl

POLITICAL DEBATE ON THE TEXAS QUESTION

In the House of Representatives, Tuesday, Jan. 7.

            The house being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the joint resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the annexation of Texas to the United States.

            Mr. BAYLY having obtained the floor, spoke as follows.  The fate of the annexation of Texas will depend upon the decision of Congress as to its power to accomplish it by bill or joint resolution for it Texas is not annexed in this manner it will not be in any other. No one now hopes for a majority of two-thirds of the Senate in its favor. The great question, therefore, is can foreign territory be acquired by bill or joint […] [unreadable word] of the two Houses of Congress?   And I agreed at once (said Mr. B.) to the discussion of it.

            Under our political system, there are two leading houses of powers conferred upon the General […] [unreadable word] comment the one relating to our foreign, the other to our domestic relations. In all questions rising out of the former, the interests of the different sections of the country are inseparable. In our domestic affairs, they are as variant as the […] [unreadable word] climate, productions, and pursuits of the people of the several States. In all that relates to the former, the statesmen of every part of the country are equally well informed. The latter are only understood by the people they immediately concern. In reference to the first, the National Legislature can legislate wisely. To the first it cannot, without certain mischief. Hence, in our wise system there is a plenary delegation of power to the General Government in all that concerns our external affairs, and a specified delegation in what relates to our domestic. A different mode of construction, therefore, ought to proceed as the power sought to be exercised belongs to the class or the other- strict construction as the rule in the latter case, and a liberal construction in the former. This distinction grows out of the character of the Constitution itself; was recognized by Jefferson and Madison, and the propriety of it will not, I fancy, be questioned by any one. Bearing this in mind, I proceed to point out the clauses of the Constitution in which the authority of Congress to pass the resolution before the Committee may be found. In my opinion it may be found in two- in the clause authorizing Congress to declare war, and in the one permitting the admission of new States into the Union, and also in the general power which I shall show to exist, to make alliances and confederations. Let it not be said that, in referring the power to two clauses of the Constitution, I make it rag rant and disprove its existence in either; for in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Gibbons and Ogden, “the idea that the time measure might, according to circumstances, be arranged with different classes of powers, was to novelty to the framers of our Constitution. All experience shows that the same measure or measurey , scarcely distinguishable from each other, may flow from distant powers.

            It has always been admitted, in the administration of the Government, that the power to declare war carries with it the power of doing whatever […] [unreadable word] directly to prevent it. In the language of Chief Justice Taney, in the Supreme Court, “Everything that concerns our foreign relations, that may be used to preserve peace or wage war, has been committed to the hands of Congress.”    I do not say it carries with it the power to do everything which a visionary might fancy would tend to prevent it; but it certainly does everything which immediately and directly tends that way. It was in this manner the constitutionality of the embargo and non-intercourse laws, adopted in advance of the late war, was defended. And the power is derived “in time of peace to prepare for war”. Our Southwestern frontier is exceedingly expected, as I shall hereafter show; and as far as our constitutional authority goes, we might erect fortifications upon its whole extent. This no one will question. Such being the case, cannot be with he consent of the people to whom the intervening territory belongs, extend our boundary to the Rio Grande, which, “in connection with the mountainous desert which skirts it, forms the first class of military obstacles, and which would affect us better protection from invasion in that quarter than a cordon of fortifications from the mouth of the Sabine to our utmost Northern summits.”    The importance of Texas, as a means of military defense, and its consequent intimate connection with the war power, I shall show […] [unreadable word].

            From the days of the Roman eagle, indeed as before them, to this time, the leading object of war has been to acquire or defend territory. When the power was conferred upon Congress, all general terms, to declare war, it carried with it all of its usual incidents; and it is impossible to believe that the framers of the Constitution meant to withhold from the Government the power to accomplish by it what had been the great object for which most of the wars with which the world [..] [unreadable word] been scourged, has been waged. I infer, therefore, that we can unquestionably acquire territory by conquest. If this be true, the whole question is settled; for, if we may take the territory of the Texans from them by force, surely we may do it peaceably, with their consent. If we can rob them of it, surely we can take it as a gift. If we should march an army [tomorrow] to Texas for the purpose of capturing their country, presume there would be no occasion for fighting, provided the Texans were willing that we should accomplish our purposes without bloodshed.

            Mr. Clay, in his celebrated letter from Raleigh, upon the subject of Texas, says:

            “If any European nation entertain any ambitious designs upon Texas, such as that of colonizing, or in any way subjugating her, I should regard it as the imperative duty of the Government of the United States to oppose to such designs the most firm and determined resistance, to the extent, if necessary, of appealing to arms, to prevent the accomplishment of any such designs.”

            If we might go to war to prevent Texas from falling into the hands of a foreign government, may we not still more effectually provide against it, by her peaceable acquisition?

            But the power of Congress to annex Texas by joint resolution may also be derived from the authority given to Congress to admit new States into the Union. The power is general, without any other limitation than that “no new State shall be formed or created within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of Congress.”   The imposition of this limitation, upon the most familiar rules of construction, excludes the idea of the intention to impose any other. I know an attempt is made to impose another by implication, and to continue the power to admit new States to such as might be carved out of the territory within the limits of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.   But such a construction is contradicted by the plain import and obvious meaning of the Constitution itself, and also by the history of its passage through the Convention which framed it.

            “In the resolutions offered by Mr. Edmund Randolph, as a basis for the new Constitution, and which contained the first propositions of that character which were submitted to it, the power in question was described as follows, viz:   “that provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether arising from a voluntary junction of Government or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the Legislature; less than the whole. In Mr. Charles Pinckney’s draught, it was proposed that “ the legislature shall have power to admit new States into the Union on the same terms with the original States, provided two -thirds of the members present in both houses agree, leaving out the clause in respect to the character of the territory. Mr. Randolph’s proposition, containing the restriction confining the power to States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, was at one time adopted in Committee of the Whole, and in that state referred with others to the Committee of Detail, the article upon this subject contained the following propositions:   1st.  That new, States lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the United States, might be admitted by the Legislature in this Government. 2d. That to such admission, the consent of two-thirds of the members present in each House should be necessary. 3d. That if a new State should arise within the limits of any of the present states, the consent of the Legislature of such States should also be necessary to its admission. 4th.  That, if the admission was consented to, the new States should be admitted on the same terms with the original States; and   5th.  That the Legislature might make conditions with the new States concerning the public debt then subsisting. The 2d, 4th and 5th clauses were stricken out by the votes of the Convention; and after that had been done, the following was adopted as a substitute for the whole viz:   ‘New States may be admitted by the Legislature into the Union; but no new State shall be erected within the limits of any of the present states, without the consent of the Legislature of such States, as well as of the General Legislature’ leaving out that part of the first clause which related to the domestic character of the territory; and this substitute was consequently revised and amended so as to make it conform in its phraseology to the section as it now stands in the Constitution. These proceedings show that the proposition to restrict the power to admit new States to the territory within the original limits of the United States, was distinctly before the Convention, once adopted by it, and finally rejected in favor of a clause making the power in this respect general.”

            But it is unnecessary to dwell farther on this point. Mr. Clay, who embodies in himself, according to their own admission, the opinions of the Whig party, admits no such fanciful limitation. The President elect of the Democratic party scouts it. Mr. Van Buren’s argument against it makes a clear education of its absurdity impossible. And the repeated action of every department of the Government, in the most solemn form, settles the question forever.

            It is insisted, however, that the power is to admit “new States,” and that it does not authorize Congress to acquire territory. That, it is said, can only be done by a national compact, which is a treaty, the power to make which is confided exclusively to the President and the Senate.

            The first answer to this argument is, that authority for the admission of new States carries with it every thing which is necessary and proper to accomplish it; and Congress may take such initiatory steps as may be necessary, preparatory to the admission of the new State into the Union upon equal footing with the rest. There is nothing in the Constitution which shows that the framers of it supposed that it was indispensable that the new State should spring into the Union full armed, like Minerva from the brain of Jove. If they had they would have found no analogy for such proceeding except in heathen mythology. They certainly would not in the natural world, where everything progresses gradually from infancy to age. If we bring Texas under our jurisdiction as a territory by the passage of a bill, in which provision shall be made for its future admission into the Union as a State, what hereafter shall be done, each step in the proceeding, must be part and parcel of the same transaction and constitute but one act. Those who agree that we may admit a foreign State into the Union as a State, but deny that we may bring it in as a territory, involve themselves in an absurdity of maintaining that the lesser power is not included in the greater; and that, although we may exercise the last, we cannot the first.

            If it be true that, under the power to admit new States, you may not first in the case of a foreign State, bring such State under the jurisdiction of our laws as a territory, then the whole clause authorizing Congress to admit them in practice would be nugatory. The Constitution of any foreign State, suited for its Government as an independent power, would, for that very reason, be unsuited for its Government as a member of this Confederacy; and with it unchanged, such State could not be admitted into this Union. And it is exceedingly improbable that an independent State would consent- as it is very certain Texas will not – to break up her form of Government and adopt a Constitution not suited for her Government as an independent State, upon the uncertainty which always attends all future legislation of her admission into the Union.  

            But it may be said, admitting this argument to be sound, yet it only proves that the foreign State must, of necessity, be brought under our jurisdiction as a territory preparatory to its admission into the Union; but it does not prove that this may be done by a joint resolution. On the contrary, it is insisted by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Winthrop,) that this can only be effected, if at all, by an international arrangement, which is a treaty, the power to make which is exclusively vested in the President and Senate.

            This argument is founded upon the assumption, that an agreement or arrangement can only be made between nations by treaty. If this shall turn out to be untrue, and we shall find that compacts and agreements are constantly made by legislation, the whole argument falls to the ground.

            The idea of the gentleman from Massachusetts, that every agreement between nations is technically a treaty, is contradicted by the highest authority, and, in our case, by the Constitution itself. 

            The subject of international compacts is referred to in three distinct clauses of the Constitution.   In the first clause of the 10th section of article 1st, it is declared that “no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.”   In the last clause of the same section, it is also declared that “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”    In the second clause of second section of second article, the President is empowered, “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”

            It must always be borne in mind, in construing the Constitution that it is almost as remarkable for the literary execution as for the profound political statesmanship displayed in it. The meaning of every word seems to have been deliberately weighed:  every word, therefore, must have its due weight and appropriate meaning, and not one can be rejected as superfluous. In the language of the Chief Justice of the United States, (in the case of Holmes vs. Jennison et al., 14th Peters, 571) concurred in by Messrs. Justices Wayne, McLean, and Story- the last two of whom, I presume, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Winthrop) will admit as authority:  

            “No word in the instrument, (the Constitution,) under consideration, after it has been adopted by us, would continue it an alliance, or confederation, or agreement, or compact. And surely it would be doing no violence even to technical language to call it either.

            If it were necessary to fortify by precedent, what seems so plain, that Congress may make agreements and compacts with foreign nations, it could be done from every part of our commercial code. We have been constantly saying in our legislation, since the formation of the Government to foreign nations, if you will do particular things, we will do others. Examples may be found of this in the law regulating our intercourse with the British West Indies, and in our embargo and non-intercourse laws.

            It is thus shown that, as far as our constitution authority is concerned, there is no obstacle to the annexation of Texas to this Union.

            I proceed at once (said Mr. B.) to the next question which presents itself:   Is Texas competent to assent to a union with this country by her own act, without consulting that of any other nation?   When I can refer to the unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that she is a free independent and sovereign State, it does seem to me, that all argument upon the point is at an end. The independence of Texas has been acknowledged by England, France, and Holland – all the great Powers of Europe and ourselves.   And all of these nations are clearly estopped from questioning her right to do whatever any sovereign State may of right do.   But, it is said, this acknowledgment is of her independence “de facto,” and not de jure.”    The conclusive answer to this is, the distinction between a Government “de facto” and a Government “de jure,” in the sense in which it was originally used, is obsolete. In this nineteenth century there is practically no such distinction. It originated in the monstrous dogma that Kings rein by divine right and the expression “de jure” is but a contraction of “de jure divine.”   Since our Revolution, the will of the governed has ever been regarded as the only legitimate foundation of Government.   And when, therefore, foreign nations find in any country an organized Government, in possession of the administration, with such evidences of stability and order as excludes the idea that it is the result of a mere temporary revolutionary eruption, such as would authorize them, according to the old notions, to treat with it as a Government “de facto,” they are compelled to admit that it has the will of the people, the only rightful foundation of Government, as its basis, and it becomes at once a Government “de jure.”    And even where this distinction prevailed between a Government “de jure” and de facto,”   I defy gentlemen to produce an instance where, under the law of nations all the contracts and engagements of the government “de facto” were not held binding upon all subsequent administrations of the same country. But in truth, sir, the doctrine in which this distinction between a government “de jure” and “defacto” originated was exploded long before our revolution. At the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, the legitimacy of the English revolution of 1683 and the cause of the Stuarts was finally abandoned by France, and with it the principle of hereditary indefeasible right on which it was founded. When, therefore we find such evidence, of stability in the Texan Government as authorizes foreign nations to treat with it as the Government “de facto” of he country, we find such as shows that it is founded in the will of the governed, and it becomes at once a Government “de jure.”   No one supposed that engagements entered into by Cromwell were not binding upon the English nation, because his was not, according to the notion I have referred to, a Government “de jure.”   Nor that France was not bound by those made by Napoleon, even after the Bourbons regained possession of the French throne. It is in this way only that our title to Louisiana is sustained. I could illustrate this argument but it would only consume my time, without perhaps making my position stronger. It is shown, therefore, that the Texan Government is independent “de facto” as well as “de jure,” and that it may do whatever independent nations of right may do, and of course unite its destinies with ours.

            It might be shown further, if necessary, that the present Government of Mexico never had any authority in Texas, and that if it had, it has acknowledged her independence in a manner obligatory upon it. But my time will not allow me to press this view of the subject. I state the position, and I shall adduce the proof of it in the full report of my remarks. 

            It is thus shown, that we are capable of acquiring Texas, and Texas of uniting with us. Is it desirable that we shall do so?   This is the next question. Texas is a fine country, as everybody admits; it is as large as France, and is peopled by our race- by bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. Prima facie, its acquisition is desirable. Let us therefore, look to the objections to it. But, before I do that, I must be excused for interrupting the course of my argument for a moment meant to notice a remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Winthrop.)   I consider this due to the duties of private friendship and the memory of the dead. The gentleman was pleased to say:  

            “He could not help feeling some sympathy with the people of Texas under the precise circumstances in which they were now placed, betrayed, as they had been in so humiliating a posture by false pretences and false promises. Where has been the fulfillment of that promise which a President of the United States, speaking through his Secretary of State had dared to hold out to them:   ‘Measures have been taken to ascertain the opinions and views of Senators upon the subject, and it is found that a clear constitutional majority of two-thirds are in favor of the measure.’   Mr. W. began to entertain some hope that the people of Texas would awake to some respect for themselves under the treatment they had received, and would no longer suffer themselves to be duped and trifled with either by Presidents or Congress.

            Sir, said Mr. B., I knew the late Judge Upshur well. He was my neighbor, my friend. He was a man of honor, who, in the most immaterial transaction of life, would not have lightly given assurances which should regulate the conduct of others. And in so important a transaction as an official negotiation, to say nothing about the solemn dignity of the one in question, I am perfectly certain that he would not have given such an assurance as is referred to by the gentleman, unless he felt fully authorized by such information as would satisfy the most cautious man that he might with propriety do it.   Indeed, he expressly says in the dispatch referred to, that every necessary step had been taken to procure accurate information of the disposition of the Senate. And, Mr. Chairman, if departed spirits could be permitted to revisit this world, and the lamented Gilmer, by whom the duty of sounding the senate was undertaken, as I am told, could appear among us again—if Upshur were here to explain a memorandum found among his papers too meager to be understood by others, in which a list is given of Senators “certain for” and “certain against” the former comprising two-thirds, perhaps it would be found that the small politicians of the country were not the only persons who suddenly changed their position upon the Texas question after the appearance of the Raleigh letter. The memorandum may not have referred to the Texas negotiation; but it is known that at the time, the subject was uppermost in his mind, and absorbed all his thoughts. It was, I believe, the only negotiation he was conducting at the time, and I do not know to what else it could refer. But, be that as it may, of one thing I am certain, that however he or the President might have been deceived, I am certain both of them are incapable of betraying others by “false promises and false pretences.”   But to return from this digression from the regular course of my argument, which I felt it due, as well to the living as the dead, to make.

            It is said Texas is still at war with Mexico; and that by annexation we instantly adopt that war and make it our own; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. J. R. Ingersoll) to excite the alarm of navigating interest of the North, said, that in that event our commerce will be destroyed by the depredations of privateers commissioned by the Mexican Government. The ready answer to this is, that, according to the law of nations, two-thirds of the crew of a privateer must be citizens of the country which commissions it, or it becomes a pirate, and, in the event of capture, liable to be treated as such.   Now, I ask (said Mr. B.) where is the Mexican marine from which two-thirds of the crews of enough privateers are to be found to harass seriously our commerce?   Gentlemen know that there is none such.

            I deny, however, that by annexation, we adopt the war with Mexico, if any such exists. I deny that, in that event, we will take our law from Texas. On the contrary, I insist she will take her’s from us. The United states are not to be merged in Texas, but Texas in them. The United States are at peace:   after annexation, Texas will be at peace too. When we purchased Louisiana of France, France being at war, we did not assume the French war:  on the contrary, Louisiana, which was a part of the French territory, and as such at war with England, was at once placed at peace. It is true, Mexico may regard, if she choose, annexation as an act of such unfriendliness as to make it the pretext for [missing page].

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81plc3

HOUSE OF DELEGATES

Tuesday, January 14, 1845

            A communication was received from the Senate by their Clerk, that they had passed the Acts “Changing the times of holding certain Courts in the Second Judicial Circuit” and “Amending the Act passed January 18, 1837, concerning roads in the county of Rockbridge:” and also, with amendments, the act “Incorporating the Bower’s Hill Turnpike Company.”   The House concurred in said amendments.

            The following resolutions were adopted:  

            By Mr. McPHERSON, of Greenbrier, that the Committee of Propositions, &c., enquire into the expediency of incorporating the White Sulphur Springs Company in the county of  Greenbrier;

            Mr. O’FERRALL, that the Committee of Privileges and Elections enquire into the expediency of providing by law, so as to prohibit Clerks of Courts and Constables from acting as Superintendents of elections, or personating candidates at the polls.

            Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:

            By Mr. BASSELL, proceedings of a public meeting of citizens of Harrison county, in support of the prayer of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad for the right of way;

            By Mr. EDMUNDS of Fauquier, a petition of Wm. W. Wallace, for an act authorizing the sale of real estate belonging to his wards;  also, of James McLeaven asking remuneration for his services for tuition of poor children in 1844:  

            By Mr. TOLER, of Nelson Tinsley, to be permitted to bring back to the State of Virginia certain slaves belonging to him, and which were some time since removed to the state of Missouri;

            By Mr. MAYO, of officers of 92d Regiment Va. Militia in Lancaster county, for the reinstating of battalion musters.

            The engrossed bill “to prevent the destruction of oysters in Nasswadox creek, in Northampton county,” being on its passage, Mr. BOWDEN moved its indefinite postponement; which motion prevailed, ayes 68, noes not counted; and the bill was rejected. Afterwards the bill was reconsidered, on motion of MR. POULSON, who moved a ryder , providing that it should not apply to the county of Accomack.   Mr. WITCHER moved to amend the ryder by striking out “Accomack,” and inserting “the citizens of this Commonwealth.”

            Mr. YERBY opposed Mr. WITCHER’S amendment, as it was the law now, and was a dead letter; Mr. PITTS seconded the views of MR. YERBY. Mr. WITCHER’S amendment was then adopted.

            On motion of Mr. YERBY, the bill was then recommitted.

            The act providing for the payment of the interest upon certain lands guaranteed by the Commonwealth, and the semi-annual annuity due to the old James River Company, with the amendments proposed by the Senate, was taken up, and the said amendments agreed to.

            On the motion of Mr. GARNETT, a Resolution from the Committee of Rads, &c., against the petition of Robert Faver for authority to erect a wharf on the Rappahannock river in Essex county, was laid on the table, not be called up this session.

            The followed engrossed bills were read a third time and passed:  

            “To incorporate the Augusta Female Seminary;”

            “Authorizing the County Court of Morgan county to re-build the Courthouse of said county, and for other purposes;”

            “To incorporate the Virginia Collegiate Institute;”

            “Incorporating the Good Spur Turnpike Company;”

            “Incorporating the Buchanan and Clover Dale Turnpike Company;”

            “Amending the act passed March 23d, 1843, concerning roads and bridges in Brooke county;”

            “Concerning the commissions of sheriffs and other officers upon executions;” (Mr. HALL moved its indefinite postponement, which was lost, 43 to 67, Mr. STOVALL having called the ayes and noes- and the bill was passed;) and

            “Concerning the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company.”

            Many bills were read a first and second time,

            On motion of Mr. NEWLON,

            The House adjourned.

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p2c3

SENATORIAL ELECTION!

Snap Judgement !

            In compliance, most probably, with the mandates of a Whig caucus, held in the Capitol on Wednesday night, a motion was made in the House, yesterday, to go into the election of U. S. Senator, on Wednesday, the 22nd of the present month. The Republican party opposed this resolution, for the very satisfactory reasons, that, 1st, there was no sort of reason for hastening the election, because some thirty or forty days, of the session would remain after the 22d, within which period, the election could be fixed on some more satisfactory day:  2d, Because some of the members were absent, and could not possibly receive notice in time to be here on the day of election. Though some of the absentees were Whigs, yet the Whigs stood in a different situation from the Democrats; for, the Whigs, being in the majority, and of course, taking the lead in the subject, knew beforehand that the movement would take place about this time, and could have sent notice to their members days ago, so as to insure their attendance by the time of the election:  3d.  The day mentioned in the resolution was strenuously opposed on the following ground:   The contested election from the county of Bath had been hastened to a decision by the Whig House, and the only Democrat whose seat had been contested had been ejected. The seats of two Whigs were contested- and the House had not only not decided the claims of the contestants, but the rights of all were still pending before the committee of Privileges and Elections. Should the election take place on the 22nd, the Whigs would enter the contest with the certainty of having every member to whom they laid any claim, and possibly two more than they were entitled to; whilst, on the other hand, the Democrats would be forced to join battle under the disadvantage of having the claims on their side unsettled- and, when settled, it might result in a decision, that two Whigs, whose votes had given Virginia a Senator, were not properly entitled to a voice in the election – and that one, and probably two, or more, Democrats had been denied the exercise of their rights by the haste with which the House seemed determined to have a Senator elected.

            But these reasons produced no effect on the trained majority in the House, and the 22d was fixed as the day. Thus has it been decided by the Whig Party, that they would not only palm on the State a Senator to oppose, rather than to accomplish her will; but they have further decided, that in the perpetration of the deed, they would afford no opportunity to the representatives of the people, necessarily absent, from the city, to return and give a full expression of legislative Sentiment on this vital question; and they have proceeded further, to declare that this election shall be held without deciding the preliminary question,  Who are the representatives of the people, and, as such, entitled to cast the votes which are to decide the momentous result?   We are yet to see whether the people of Virginia will permit their rights to be thus trampled under foot by a party wielding the powers of an accidental majority, and exercising their little “brief authority” to advance the petty schemes of  party, rather than the great interests and recorded will of the State.

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p3c1

Twenty-Eighth Congress-2nd Ses. Wednesday, Jan. 15, 1845,

IN SENATE

Wednesday, January 15.

            Eight bills were received from the House of Delegates, which were committed to their proper Committees.

            Mr. McMULLEN, from the Committee of Internal Improvements, reported the bill concerning the Valley Turnpike Company.

            Mr. McMULLEN explained the provisions of the bill.

            Mr. STANDARD withdrew his opposition, and was in favor of the passage of the bill.

            Mr. GALLAHER also spoke in favor of the bill. It passed –ayes 21, noes 8.

            Mr. WALLACE moved to proceed to the election of Printer to the Senate, which had been delayed. Mr. W. nominated John Warrock, who received the unanimous vote of the Senate.

            On motion of Mr. WILLIE, the bill incorporating the Broadmeadow Mining Company was taken up.

            Mr. McMullen moved an amendment, which was opposed by Messrs. WALLACE, STANARD, COX and SHINN. Lost-ayes 12, noes 17.

            Mr. POULSON brought a message from the House of Delegates, announcing their readiness to proceed to the election of Judge, to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Judge Thomas H. Bayly- and that George P. Scarburgh was alone in nomination.

            Whereupon the Senate proceeds to vote as follows:

            For George P. Scarburgh- Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Cox, Sutton, Thompson of Amherst, Wallace, Peyton, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Caperton, Dennis, Penn, Stanard, Carter, Moffett, Sloan, Shinn, McMullen, Crump, Taylor, Guerrant, McCauley, Newman, Thompson of Kanawha-25.

            For En. P. Pitts- Messrs. Bondurant and Rogers—2.

            Joint Vote:   G. P. Scarburgh, 128, E. P. Pitts, 14; Geo. W. Southall, 1.

                        James River and Kanawha Company.

            A message was received from the House by Mr. Garnett, communicating the passage of a Joint Resolution for appointing a Joint Committee to examine the affairs of the James River and Kanawha Company.

            Mr. STANDARD presented a memorial of the James River and Kanawha Company to the Legislature, asking for a re-investigation of its affairs, &c. Laid on the table.

                                                            TEXAS

            The resolutions of Mr. THOMPSON of Kanawha, concerning the annexation of Texas, were taken up, on motion of Mr. McMULLEN.

            Mr. THOMPSON of K. sustained the resolutions.

            Mr. SHINN opposed them.

            Mr. STANARD offered the following amendment:

            “Having a due regard to the obligations of the Constitution, the internal peace and tranquility of the country, and the national faith and honor.”

            Messrs. WALLACE and McMullen opposed the amendment- and Messrs. STANARD and GALLAHER advocated it.

            The amendment was lost – ayes 10, noes 19- as follows:

            AYES- Messrs. Sutton, Thompson, Jr., Peyton, Bondurant, Gallaher, Stanard, Carter, Shinn, Grump and Rogers- 10.

            Noes-Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Cox, Wallace, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Dennis, Penn, Moffett, Sloan, McMullen, Taylor, Guerrant, McCauley, Newman and Thompson of K.-19.

            Mr. BONDURANT moved to lay the resolutions on the table. Lost-ayes 12, noes 17.

            After some further discussion, Mr. BONDURANT moved an adjournment, which was carried.

HOUSE OF DELEGATES.

                                    Wednesday, Jan. 15.

              Mr. Henry Frantz, the newly elected delegate from Roanoke county, took his seat.

            On motion of Mr. TOLER,

            Resolved, That the Committee on the Militia Laws enquire into the expediency of authorizing a majority of the officers of the three regiments in Campbell county to designate the places of training in said county.

            Mr. TAYLOR of Loudoun moved a resolution, which was lost, instructing the committee on the Militia Laws to enquire into the expediency of dispensing with all music or military Paredes, except for the volunteer companies, and also of reducing their pay.

            Mr. BOWDEN presented the Report of the Superintendent and Directors of the eastern Lunatic Asylum for the year 1841 watch, on his motion, was laid on the table, and 1000 copies ordered to be printed.

            The SPEAKER laid before the House the 17th Annual Report of the President and directors of the Western Asylum, which was laid on the table- and, on motion of Mr. FULTON of Augusta, 1000 copies were ordered to be printed.

            Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:

            By Mr. PARRIOTT, of citizens of Marshall county, for the right of way to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

            By M. FULTON of Augusta, memorial of Robert Wade and other citizens of Augusta county against any change in the location of the contemplated McAdamized road from Staunton to James River, on that part of the road which lies between Staunton and Waynesborough.

            By Mr. TAYLOR of Loudoun a petition of the officers of the 56th Regiment of militia, for the restoration of the office of Brigade Inspector;

            By Mr. CAMERON, of citizens of Bath county for authority to James Paine to erect a dam across the Cow pasture river at McDonnell’s falls in said county.

            On motion of Mr. SMITH, a joint resolution from the Committee on Courts, &c., was agreed to, for the protection of Virginia inspected salt against the inspection laws of other States.

            On motion of Mr. FULTON of Wythe, the Committee on Claims was discharged from the consideration of the petition of Andrew Crolley, which was ordered to be laid on the table.

            The House then proceeded to execute the joint order of the day, being the election of a Judge of the General Court and of the Circuit Court for the 3d Circuit and 2nd district to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Thomas H. Bayly.

            Mr. POULSON, in handsome terms, nominated Geo. P. Scarburgh.

            There being no other candidate, Mr. Scarburgh received in the House 103, Edward P. Pitts 12, and George W. Southall 1.

            The joint vote with the Senate stood, Scarburgh 128, scattering 15. So Mr. Scarburgh was declared duly elected judge, &c.

            On motion of Mr. TOLER,

            Resolved,  That the Board of  Public Works report to this House as early as practicable, whether any, and if any, what contract, conditional or unconditional, has been entered into, or proposed to be entered into between the Winchester and Potomac Rail Road Company, and the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company, for the sale by the former to the latter, of their corporate rights and interests in their said improvement, and the terms and conditions of such contract or proposed contract:  also, that said Board report at the same time to this, House a copy, or copies of any such contract, or other communication, made to them by said Winchester and Potomac Rail Road Company, touching the same, if any such has been made; also, whether the assent of said Board has been given, or promised to any such contract now made, or hereafter to be made; also, that said Board in like manner report the amount of the several debts now due from said Winchester and Potomac Rail Road Company to what person or persons, or body or bodies corporate, said debts are severally due, when they became due, and how and by whom, other than said Company, the same are secured to be paid.

            On motion of Mr. STEPHENSON, the engrossed bill “Providing for taking the sense of the people upon the propriety of calling a Convention to amend the Constitution of the State,” was laid on the table, and made the order of the day for Thursday, 23d  January.

            The following engrossed bills were read a third time and passed:

            “For the construction of a Canal from the North Landing to Elizabeth River.”

            “Establishing the county of Gilmer of parts of the counties of Lewis and Kanawha.”   (Opposed by Mr. EDGINGTON, and sustained by Messrs. HAYS, SMITH, JACKSON, and NEWLON.)

            The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the President and Directors of the James River and Kanawha Company, enclosing a memorial; which was, on motion of Mr. ANDERSON, laid on the table.

            Mr. ANDERSON then moved the following resolutions:

            The President and Directors of the James River and Kanawha Company having presented a memorial to the General Assembly, requesting an investigation of the affairs of the said Company by a joint committee of the two Houses of Assembly.

            Resolved, That a joint Committee be appointed, in conformity to the prayer of the said memorial, and that said Committee be charged with the duty of visiting the line of works, of examining the books and papers in the office, and of investigating the affairs and management of the Company, from the commencement of its operations to the present time; and that the said committee have full power and authority to send for persons and papers.

            Resolved, That the said committee shall consist of --members from the House of Delegates, and -- members from the Senate.

            After some conversation between Messrs. STEPHENSON and STROTHER, the resolutions were adopted; the first resolution having been amended, on motion of Mr. STROTHER, by striking out the words “of visiting the line of works;” and, on motion of Mr. GOODSON, by adding thereto, “and that said Committee report on or before the 25th instant;” and the blanks in the second resolution having been filled respectively, on motion of Mr. GARNETT, with “five” and “four.”

            The following resolutions we adopted:

            By Mr. FARLEY, that the Committee on Courts, &c., enquire into the propriety of allowing to witnesses, who travel more than ten miles within their county to the place of attendance, mileage.

            By Mr. MARTZ, that the Committee on Privileges and Elections enquire into the expediency of so amending the election laws, in regard to the duties of commissioners or superintendents of elections, as to make it illegal for them to sub-duct or erase from the polls any vote or votes after they shall have been recorded.

            By Mr. BLACKWELL, that the Committee on Courts, &c., enquire into the expediency of passing a law authorizing Orlando M. Smith, Committee of John N. Bell, of Lunenburg county, to sell certain lands belonging to said Bell.

            By Mr. BOLLING, that the Committee on Courts, &c., enquire into the expediency of exempting from jury service, for a limited time, the jury now engaged in the Randolph will ease, pending in the Circuit Court for the town of Petersburg.

            On motion of Mr. WITCHER,

            The House adjourned.’

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i8lp3c3

PLANS FOR ANNEXATION

            We published in our Wednesday’s paper the plan of Mr. Foster, a Whig Senator from Tennessee. We hail the spirit which he displays, with great pleasure- and we concur with the Madisonian, in regarding it “as more just and practicable than some others which have been proposed- and if the regular propositions should not succeed, we should joyfully hail its adoption.”

            The bill of Mr. Dromgoole in the House of Representative is calculated to command great attention. It admits Texas, in the words of the Constitution, as a “new State” – allowing it certain dimensions not disproportionately large; and the residuary territory would, of course, belong to the “new State” until ceded by it to the U. States, in pursuance of the words of the Constitution:   We are disposed to think, upon high and very respectable authority, that admission as a State is the only form in which it can pass Congress-and that if we are distracted by a diversity of views as to a compromise about slavery in this residuary territory, we may fail in the annexation- if not, that we shall succeed. “All (a correspondent writes us) depends upon this.”  

            If this be the case, who can hesitate about it?   What politician, who regards the great interests of his country, can pause for one moment amid the multitude of counselors, and the multiplicity of projects?   Give us, then, Texas as a State, according to Dromgoole’s plan. Let us have admission in its simplest form, and in conformity with precedents. We would not hesitate a moment about the measure.  The views upon this matter are so strongly presented in the N. York Morning News of the 13th inst., that we lay them at once before our readers:

            “ANNEXATION AT THIS SESSION.- We earnestly trust that the present Congress will not adjourn without settling this question. Constitutional obstacles are now out of the way, which stood before like a lion in the path, against the earlier forms which were proposed for the action of Congress. The admission of Texas as a “new State” into the Union, with stipulations as to her surplus territory, solves all that difficulty. This is the fundamental idea common to the three several plans of Mr. Niles in the Senate, and General Dromgoole and Mr. Tibbatts in the House of Representatives. We take it as pretty well settled now, that the action of Congress on the subject, in one form or another, must and will take this direction. Dromgoole’s is the briefest and simplest of the three, and so far the most desirable- independently of the question of slavery. It makes no stipulation, indeed, in regard to the surplus territory of the new State to be admitted, though it proposes to fix certain limits to the dimensions of that State; leaving that surplus territory, of course, to the continued ownership of the State, precisely as some of our own original States, at the time of the formation of the Union, held vast tracts of Western territory, which they afterwards ceded to the Federal Government. It also leaves untouched the whole debt question. The United States assume no more liability for the debts of Texas than they now have for those of Pennsylvania or N. York. This feature is a capital recommendation of Dromgoole’s plan. After the admission of the new State is consummated, it will be time enough to negotiate with her simultaneously about her lands, and the debt chargeable on them. Niles’s plan is defective in this respect, that it provides for the cession of the lands without a corresponding assumption of the debt. Both, or neither, is but fair play. With General Dromgoole, we prefer the latter, decidedly. It simplifies the measure. It removes from it all semblance of that stock-jobbing character which is fastened upon it in the prejudices of many of its opponents. And it will leave time for a more deliberate survey of the whole ground of the questions we so often hear blindly mooted in the dark- How much is the debt? and, what is the extent and value of the unappropriated lands?   There remains, then, but one serious difficulty in the way- the question of slavery. Mr. Niles’s plan compromises that at once, like Col. Benton’s, by making the 100th meridian of longitude a dividing line, on the East side of which slavery may be allowed, and on the West side prohibited.  This is about an equal division of the territory, though slavery gets all the coast. Corresponding to the natural laws of the climate and soil, this appropriates to Free Labor the portion less adapted to the negro race, and leaves to slavery the portion suitable for cotton and sugar culture. General Dromgoole’s bill leaves this question, like that of the debt, open for future adjustment.”

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i8lp3c4

HOUSE OF DELEGATES

Thursday, January 16, 1845

SENATE

                        James River and Kanawha Company

            The resolution for the appointment of a Joint Committee to examine the affairs of the James River and Kanawha Company came up for consideration, upon which arose a lengthy and warm discussion, in which Messrs. McMULLEN, COX, NEWMAN and SHINN, in opposition, and Messrs. STANARD, CAPERTON, BONDURANT, WALLACE and GALLAHER, in favor, took part and passed, ayes 18, noes 11, as follows:

            Ayes- Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Sutton, Wallace, Thompson, Jr., Peyton, Bondurant, Gallaher, Caperton, Dennis, Stanard, Carter, Moffett, Sloan, Crump, Guerrant, Rogers, McCauley and Thompson of K.- 18.

            Noes- Messrs, Cox, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Penn, McMullen, Taylor, and Newman- 11.

            The SPEAKER announced the following as the committee on the part of the Senate, viz: Messrs, Stanard, Guerrant, Thompson of A., and McCauley.

            A message was received from the House, by Mr. Broaddus, of Culpepper, announcing the passage of a resolution, fixing Wednesday, the 23d instant, for the election of a Senator of the United States from the 4th of March next.

            Laid on the table, on motion of Mr. NEWMAN.

            Mr. PEYTON reported a bill for the incorporation of the Virginia Collegiate Institute. Laid on the table.

            Also, to incorporate the Augusta Female Seminary.  Laid on the table.

            Mr. SLOAN reported a bill authorizing the County Court of Morgan to re-build the Court-house. Passed.

            Mr. CARTER moved an adjournment, Lost- ayes 12, noes 13.

                                                            TEXAS.

            On motion of Mr. NEWMAN, Mr. THOMPSON’S – of Kanawha – resolutions in regard to Texas came up.

            Mr. STANARD delivered an argument against the constitutional power of the Senate to originate the resolutions, concluding with the following substitute for the first resolution:

            Resolved, by the Senate,  That the annexation of Texas to the United States ought to be effected at the earliest period that may be practicable, consistently with the obligations of the Constitution, the internal peace and tranquility of the country, and the faith and honor of he nation.

            Mr. THOMPSON of Kanawha replied.

            Mr. McMULLEN also made some remarks.

            After some further discussion, in which Mr. GALLAHER participated.  Mr. STANARD moved to lay the whole subject on the table.—Lost –ayes 10, noes 19.

            Mr. STANARD’S substitute was lost by the following vote:

            AYES-- Messrs. Sutton, Thompson of Amherst, Peyton, Bondurant, Gallaher, Caperton, Stanard, Carter, Crump, Rogers – 10.

            NOES—Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,)

Cox, Wallace, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Dennis, Penn, Moffett, Sloan, McMullen, Taylor, Gueriant, McCauley, Newman, Thompson of Kanawha- 19.

            The original resolutions were then passed—ayes 18, noes 7—as follows:

            AYES—Messrs. Scott, (Speaker,) Cox, Crawford, Willey, Spark, Baptist, Garrett, Piper, Dennis, Penn, Moffett, Sloan, McMullen, Taylor, Guerrant, McCauley, Newman, Thompson of Kanawha—18.

            NOES—Messrs. Bondurant, Gallaher, Caperton, Stanard, Carter, Crump, Rogers-7.

            On motion of  Mr. GARRETT.

            The Senate adjourned at 5 ½ o’clock.

HOUSE OF DELEGATES

Thursday, January, 16, 1845

            A communication from the Senate by their Clerk, that they had passed the acts, “Amending the act passed January 29, 1844, appropriating a sum of money to the Price’s Turnpike and Cumberland Gap Road;” and “To change the place of training of the Officers of the 165th Regiment of Virginia Militia;” and also the act “concerning Mary Battle of the county of Brunswick,” with amendments, in which the House concurred.

            Petitions, &c., were presented and referred:  

            By Mr. FRAZIER, of Peter Moore’s administrator, (with accompanying documents,) for an appropriation to satisfy his judgment for half pay as a Captain in the Revolutionary war;

            By Mr. TYREE, of Geo. Hughart of Fayette county, asking compensation for service as a private soldier of Virginia, in 1793;

            By Mr. DENISON, two memorials of certain citizens of Shenandoah, against the formation of a new county out of parts of Rockingham and Shenandoah;

            By Mr. POWELL, a petition of sundry citizens of Bedford and Amherst counties, that James River may be made a lawful fence from the upper end of Roach’s Island to the mouth of Otter Creek.

            On motion of Mr. WATTS,

            Resolved, That the Committee of Roads, &c., enquire into the expediency of authorizing all the creditors of the Portsmouth and Roanoke Rail Road Company to convert the debts due them from said Company into stock, and of making such further legislative provisions upon the subject as may be deemed necessary.

            Mr. BROADUS of Culpepper offered a resolution, that this House will, by joint  vote with the Senate, proceed on Wednesday, 22d instant, to the election of a Senator of the United States, to supply the vacancy to occur on the 4th March next, by the expiration of the term of service of  Wm. C. Rives, Esq.:

            Mr. LEAKE moved to lay it upon the table.

            Mr. BROADUS of Culpepper asked for reasons for so doing.

            Mr. LEAKE said, he made the motion to lay the resolution upon the table, so that notice might be given to all the members of this House, who felt any interest in the election. Some members were absent, and if the 22nd of this month was fixed on as the day for the election, they could not be here to represent their constituents. There was a plenty of business before the House for them to act upon, and much more than could be attended to between this time and the day selected by the gentleman from Culpepper.  If there were not important matters before them claiming their attention, and some absentees, who would not be here at as early a day, he would not desire the delay of action on this subject. The gentleman supposing himself and party ready to proceed with the election, was for dispatch, whilst the Democrats had heretofore received no intimation of the necessity of getting ready speedily for the contest.

            Mr. GOODSON hoped the gentleman would not force us into the election until we were ready. The Whigs had had their meeting last night and came here organized. It was known a meeting of the Democrats was to be held to-morrow night. He thought it reasonable to allow them to get ready in the same way- That was all he asked.

            Mr. DANIEL of Prince George said, he would assign some additional reasons why the resolution should be laid upon the table at this time. He believed that it had been usual for the House to decide all the contests about elections of members, before they proceeded to such an important election as that of Senator of the United States. This had been the practice heretofore, and from which he saw no good reasons for a departure. There was now pending before this House a contest from Caroline county, which had not been disposed of; and also a memorial against the eligibility of the gentleman from Fairfax concerning which there had been no final action by this House. Until, therefore, this House had decided who were, and who were not, entitled to seats in this body, he thought the all-important election of Senator should be deferred.

            Mr. BOWDEN enquired of the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges and Elections, whether the Committee had taken action upon the case from Fairfax.

Mr. WITCHER said they had not had a meeting since the last papers were sent to the Committee; but he believed, and the Committee also believed, that it was the business of the Attorney for the Commonwealth, in Fairfax, to proceed against persons violating the anti-dueling act. He believed that was the proper forum, and not this house.   He thought the Committee would not change their opinion relative to this contest. He intended yet to look into that matter; - other business, and his own health, had, heretofore prevented the investigation:   but, after examination, from what he understood, he thought the opinion of the Committee would be, that the delegate from Fairfax should retain his seat.   

Mr. BOWDEN said he referred to the condition of the gentleman from Fairfax with pain; but he thought, until the House had decided his right, that he held at least a doubtful tenure- and he did not believe the election ought to be gone into until all the members had undisputed rights to their seats. All he asked was fairness; and he did not believe his opponents here would force us into the election until it was apparent that fairness could be attained.

Mr. EDMUNDS of Halifax said the member from Franklin was absent, and there was not time to write a letter to him and have it answered in time, or to get here after hearing of the election. He did not know that other members were in the same situation; but he knew the case of the member from Franklin, and he knew the distance to that county was such as to forbid the member’s return in time.

Mr. WITCHER said he had not a shadow of doubt of the result in the Caroline case- he believed the member now in his seat would retain it. He explained why the Committee had not reported sooner. He knew, also, that there were two members on his side of the question absent; but there was time for all to be here. Perhaps if you postpone the election longer, some members who are now here may be absent forever. He knew that the members who had the seats, had all the rights of members until they were evicted, but he did not believe it possible to change the result by evicting those members.

Mr. EDMUNDS of Halifax said there was not the slightest probability of the member from Franklin getting here in time—he had gone home without expecting this election to be brought on so soon, and it would be wrong to hurry the election before information could reach him. The other members who were absent might get here.

The motion to lay on the table was [negative] [unreadable word?].

Mr. GOODSON moved to amend to Wednesday, the 29th inst.

Mr. BOWDEN called the ayes and noes.

Mr. McPHERSON of Page, asked the gentleman to withdraw his amendment. He saw the predicament in which his party would be placed. It would pledge the party to go into the election. He thought this House ought to strengthen the majority in the other House.

Mr. GOODSON withdrew.

Mr. STOVALL moved to amend, and go into the election on to-morrow, the 17th inst.

Mr. McPHERSON of Page, could not vote for the amendment. He would not indicate any disposition to go into the election at all. He was opposed to it entirely. The State of Virginia was decidedly Democratic, and if we went into the election, it was evident that we should be beaten.

Mr. GOODSON hoped the amendment would be withdrawn. And he would tell the gentleman from Page, that he thought him a very good General, but he did not see the necessity of telling the enemy exactly what he would do.

Mr. McP. said he only told what he was aware the enemy already fully knew.

The Resolution was then adopted by the following vote, Mr. EDMUNDS of Halifax having called the ayes and noes:

AYES—Messrs. Southall, (Speaker,) Pitts, Brown, Fulton of A., Frazier, Cameron, Scruggs, Pendleton, Myers, Flood, Moseley, Beubting, Fox, Toler, Broaddus of Caroline, Lacy, Broadus of  Culpepper, Hobson, Wood, Garnett, Marshall F., Edmunds of F., Tyree, Payne, Brooks, French, McPherson of Greenbrier, Winston, Lee, McRay of Henrico, Wonton, Turner of  J., Towner, Smith, Wallace, Mayo, Farley, Ramey, Gruld, Taylor of L., Parriott, Billups, Hall, Baskerville, Preston, O’Ferrall, Kilby, Cabell, Taylor of N. B., Watts, Happer, Yerby, Oliver, Edgington, Turner of P., Bolling, Witcher, Lanier, [C…] [unreadable name]  Dey, Strother, Moore, White, Stephenson, Rice, Jackson and Fulton of W.—67.

NOES—Messrs. Poulson, Layne, Harvie, Powell, Thompson of B., Hays, Miller, Blick, Harrison, Marshall of C., Winfice, Thompson of D., Carson, Lovett, Leake, Parks, Batte, Edmund of H., Stovall, Blue, Ward, Bassett, Godwin, Bowden, Davis of K.& Q., Hawes, Flanagan, Gordon, Blackwell, Banks, Kidwell, Pool, Hamilton of Monroe, Wade, Middleton, Davis, Orange and Greene, McPherson of P., Hines, Gay, Hamilton of P., Anderson, Daniel of P. G., Macrae of P. W., Sturm, Frantz, Cootes, Sebrell, Hedgman, Dillard, Freeman, Newton, Perry, Funsten and Goodson—60.

A bill “Concerning bail in civil cases was taken up on motion of Mr. STEPHENSON, and being amended on his motion, Mr. JACKSON moved its indefinite postponement.

Messrs. JACKSON and TAYLOR sustained and Messrs. LEE and STEPHENSON opposed the motion.

The bill was indefinitely postponed, ayes 62 to noes 52; Mr. JACKSON having called the ayes and noes.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Governor, enclosing resolutions of the Legislature of New Hampshire, to the immediate re-annexation of Texas – also protesting against the imprisonment of Thomas Wilson Dorr of Rhode Island.  

Mr. STEPHENSON moved to lay the communication on the table.

Mr. LEAKE moved to amend the motion and ordering it to be printed.

Mr. STEPHENSON hoped no member would agree to the printing of at least a portion of the resolutions – especially, if it was not expressly declared, that the House did not thereby meanly endorse them.

Mr. LEAKE said, that the printing would to amount a sanction by this House. At the commencement; of the session, the House had without objection, ordered the printing of resolutions from Massachusetts, protesting against the annexation of Texas, as being tantamount to a Resolution of the Union. The same course should be pursued now.

Mr. STEPHENSON meant no disrespect to a sovereign State. All that he desired was that the House might not be understood as endorsing, the course of New Hampshire.

Mr. PRESTON hoped all the resolutions would be printed; so that the House and the [c…] [unreadable word] might understand them.

Mr. GOODSON thought a large number these of resolutions, as well as those from Massachusetts, should be printed for the information the people of Virginia.

Mr. Leake’s amendment was adopted and the papers ordered to be printed.

On motion of Mr. LANIER, the House adjourned.

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i8lp3c5

ANOTHER VOICE FROM THE GRANITE STATE!

            We lay before our readers another proposition on the annexation of Texas. It is offered by Mr.           Burke of New Hampshire to the House of Representatives. It breathes a fine spirit, and we thank him for it. It breathes a spirit, which becomes the man, the State, and an American statesman.

            Whilst on this subject, it is impossible for us to pass over another gentleman from New Hampshire, whose noble devotion to principle and to his country is on a par with his distinguished talents.   The Tariff—Texas—all the great questions of the day, have been met by him like a man and like a statesman. Whom can we mean but Levi Woodbury, Senator of the United States?   If the thanks of one humble Virginian- (one? – let us rather say of every Republican in Virginia,) be of any account in his eyes, they are justly his.   He does not fritter away his strength in struggling with imaginary monsters. He does not higgle about little or factitious difficulties, but marches up to his object with the wisdom of a statesman, and the firmness of a man. He declares himself openly and boldly for Texas, because he believes its acquisition necessary for the good of his whole country.   He considers her independent, and is willing to receive her into our bosom, without asking the consent of any other power. If Mr. Woodbury had done no more, than stand up for the immediate annexation of Texas, he would have been entitled to the gratitude of the people; but combined with this question his luminous views and efficient services on the other great problem of the day, the Tariff, and we for one are willing to say, “Good and faithful servant, go on and do your duty.”

            But, to return from this digression to Mr. Burke’s proposition. We have not the pleasure of his acquaintance; but we learn from those who know him best, that he is a Republican after our own heart. The Washington “Constitution of yesterday morning calls attention to his bill- the admirable “bill offered by Mr. Burke of New Hampshire. If we are not, greatly mistaken, this bill will be found to contain almost every good feature of each bill and resolution which has heretofore been presented. This is the point to be attained, and which we probably shall attain at last. This day’s debate shows that the spirit of conciliation and harmony is rather increased than diminished; and, as we have said elsewhere, augurs the best results.”

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p4c1

MARINE JOURNAL

PORT OF RICHMOND, JANUARY 17.
High Water this day at 10 ½ o’clock A. M.

ARRIVED

            Steamer Curtis Peck, Davis, Norfolk.
            Brig Clarissa, Watts, New Orleans, sugar and molasses to Dunlop, Moncure & Co.
            Schr. Martin L Smith, Wilson, Port Deposit, lumber.

SAILED

            Schr. Hannibal, Parker, New York.
            Schr. Heroine, Hollingshead, Baltimore.
            Schr. Cora, Groves, Philadelphia.
            Schr. Lady Clinton, Cramner, New York.

BELOW

            Schr. Orator, off Wind-mill Point.
            Schr. Arcade, at Dutch Gap.
            Schr. General Washington, at the Ferry.
            Schr. Celerity, at the Ferry
            Schr. John Thompson, at Ward’s Reach

            Baltimore, Jan. 15—arrived, schr. A. A. Penderzast Stephens, from Richmond

[AMB]


January 17, 1845 RE45v41ip3c1

     Mr. YANCEY commenced by expressing his regret that between the great political parties which divided our people, and which must ever exist under a free and popular Government, and animosities become so deeply seated, that what might otherwise have proved a blessing to the Government, by tending to guard and preserve its purity, had in fact proved its bane . Instead of estimating measures according to their bearings upon the best interests of the country at large, there were but too many who judged of them simply according to their probable effects on the party to which each belonged. That spirit, he lamented to see, had crept into this Hall, and he could not but give expression to his deep and unfeigned regret that the gentleman from Ohio over the way, (Mr. Vinton,) distinguished as he was in the possession of such keen and searching intellect, enlightened by so brilliant a wit, and graced by every accomplishment which could give luster to a public station, should have lent himself to lower the character of an American Representative, which he was so well qualified to adorn. – The consequence of the prevalence of the spirit to which he had alluded was, that we were fast becoming, if we had not already become, a nation of partisans. It was under the influence of convictions like these that he had rejoiced at the fact, that now, at length, a great question had presented itself, a question of such momentous magnitude, and of such pure and noble associations, as were calculated to elevate the soul, to warm every patriot heart, and to crush beneath its unparalleled importance all the contemptible machinations of partisans – of men capable of knowing, of feeling, and appreciating nothing but the mere bubbles which were ever found to float in the wake of party. Such a question was this of the annexation of Texas; a question so purely American, and addressing itself so directly to the honor and to the interests of the entire Republic, that all party feuds shrunk at its approach. Like that mysterious star which led the shepherds of old to the birth-place of the Savior of the world, this question was now culminating over the Republic, calling on all who loved their country to lay aside their wranglings , and arise and abet a cause whose spirit and whose tendencies were “peace on earth and good will to men.” Mr. Y. thanked God, that there were still among us men whose hearts leaped and fluttered at the waving of a banner on which their country’s honor was inscribed, and who like the ancient Jews, when their sacred trumpet sounded to arms, arose, and forgetting all party distinctions and party interests, girded themselves for their country’s cause. Not so the member from North Carolina. With him the momentous associations of this question; its bearing on the interests of our entire country, on its commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing prosperity; its effects, for weal or for woe, on the present and on the future – effects which were now agitating patriot hearts upon two continents – had not in them sufficient worth or dignity to draw his mind from the question whether he did not dine with a distinguished politician in N. York; and whether the sailors of the ship North Carolina voted in the city of New York, and not in Brooklyn. Such were the gentleman’s views of a question which was agitating this entire Union, and which, more than any question which had been started among us for half a century, was calculated to string the nerves and agitate the bosom of every honest man.

     We were all, said Mr. Y., in the habit of estimating the character of a person whom we had never seen, by reading his productions and by hearing from others what he said and did. Mr. Y., on such grounds, had formed an estimate of this gentleman; and he must confess that, for himself, he was not much surprised at the dimensions of intellect and qualities of heart which he now found the gentleman to posses. In that part of the Union which Mr. Y. had the honor to represent, that Representative was every where viewed as the betrayer of his country. He was looked on by every one as a renegade, recreant to the principles and the interest of that portion of the Union. With this estimate of him beforehand, even Mr. Y. himself was astonished when that gentleman got up to taunt his brothers of the South because their strenuous efforts and earnest and continued exertions had not been able to prevent the repeal of that rule of this House which prohibited the presentation of abolition petitions. The motives which he attributed to their conduct on that subject were such as could have been found only in the heart of him and going over to the ranks of the enemy, turned and flouted the colors of that enemy in the face of his own friends. Mr. Y. knew that such had been the estimate entertained by nineteen-twentieths of the men of the South respecting this gentleman; but he must confess his surprise when he rose in this House and bragged of what he termed the dishonesty and rascality of the State he had the honor to represent.

     Mr. CLINGMAN here rose and wished to explain.

     Mr. YANCEY: No, Sir; I want no explanations. Explanations elsewhere

     It was not for Mr. Y. to decide on the true character of such conduct: the people of North Carolina would decide that question. But surely it might have been supposed that every honorable heart would have paused and would have shrunk back within itself before it could consent to drag the disgrace of his own native State before the world. The unwelcome task, if it must be performed, should at least have been left for other hands. And well might North Carolina, thus wounded and gored by her native son, exclaim with the falling Caesar, “Et tu Brute!” Mr. Y. should pass no sentence on the gentleman; he should not undertake to pronounce what conduct like this deserved, but the Bible, [if the gentleman ever read that book] might teach him the fate of the man who forgot what was due to himself and his family. Let him look at the Patriarch Noah, betrayed in an unguarded hour and lying exposed in his lent. One of his sons saw his parent’s shame, and went forth and ridiculed the spectacle before his brothers; but those brothers took a mantle and without daring to turn their eyes or to look for so much as a moment on a father so exposed, walked up backwards and cast the mantle – the broad mantle of filial charity – to cover his indignity from his wine and heard what his younger son had done, and, gifted with the spirit of prophecy by God himself; pronounced upon him a curse which had come down upon him, and upon his seed, and upon his seed’s seed, to this every hour, witnessing and proving to all men the truth of the Scriptures, “A servant of servants shall he be, and shall dwell in the tents of Japheth on his western shore. Oh, had the departing spirit of the pure, the wise, the patriotic Macon been hovering in these Halls and among these stately pillars, and here had heard a son of North Carolina utter language such as had fallen from that Representative, he might have stopped an instant to gaze in astonishment, but full quickly would have descended in sorrow to the sepulcher:

     Mr. Y. said he should be pardoned if, in taking these views of the subject which the Representative from North Carolina had discussed, or rather had avoided, and of the character which he had attempted to give to a debate otherwise eminently dignified and worthy of that Hall, he should not follow him into the dark purlieus of party with which that gentleman seemed so disgracefully familiar; but should now address himself to the great question before the House.

     The first question to be settled was this: are the several propositions which have been presented for the annexation of Texas to this Union constitutional in their character? For himself, Mr. Y. preferred one of them which was not now immediately before the committee. He referred to the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Tibbatts) because it more exactly met Mr. Y.’s view of the Constitution. The reasons of his preference were these: that proposition confined itself to the very letter, as well as to the spirit of that sacred instrument. It would be remembered that, under the Confederation which held the States together previously to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, it was found in practice that too few powers were conferred on the General Government, and that those which were given were too limited and restricted to allow sufficient scope for the just action of the Government of so large a Confederacy. Remembering this state of things, (which had then become a subject of general complaint) if gentlemen would turn to the Articles of confederation, they would find that the 11th article was in these words:

     “Canada, acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the U. States, shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.”

     In this was found the origin of the present article in the Constitution, conferring on Congress the power to admit new States into the Union. – The article, it would be perceived, was specific in its terms, and yet it had compass enough to allow the Confederation to admit a foreign State by act of Congress. The spirit of that enactment of the patriot fathers had been preserved in the Constitution which they afterwards adopted, and was founded in the 4th article of the 3d section: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”

     Now, what was the history of the transformation of this article? And how could it be shown that the general power then given was preserved in its new form? If gentlemen would turn to the 4th volume of Elliott’s Debates on the Constitution; they would find that, in the Convention which sat for the formation of the new Constitution, Mr. Randolph offered the following proposition:

     “That provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of Government and territory. Or otherwise with the consent of a number of voices in the National Legislature less the whole.”

     This proposition directly contravened the spirit of the previous article in the Confederation. – That allowed the admission of foreign States, this did not. And moreover, it was equally opposed to the whole view and purpose of the people, in calling the Convention and demanding a new Constitution, which was to augment the powers, and enlarge the scope of the Federal Government. And what was the fate of this proposition? Did the Convention approve of and adopt it? No. It was voted down. But, further, in page 163, it would be found that, in the draught of a constitution by a committee of five, which was reported on the 6th of August, 1787, the 17th article declared that –

     “New States, lawfully constituted or established within the limits of the U. States, may be admitted by the Legislature into this Government,” &c.

     This, too, was voted down, and in its’ stead the existing provision of the Constitution was adopted by a vote of six States to five. Now, when gentlemen went to the root of the matter, they would perceive that the original article, which specifically provided for the addition of one foreign State and left an open door for the admission of others, was in the Constitution finally adopted, so enlarged […] to provide for the admission of new States generally. The phrase was indefinite, and who was he that had the authority to declare what were its limits? None could point them out; it had none but such as might be found in the good sense of the people, and in the guaranty, elsewhere given, that every new State should have a Republican form of Government. If this article was, as some gentlemen contended, confined to the reception of new States formed within the boundary of the Union, why was the proposition of Mr. Randolph voted down in the Convention? And why did that Convention adopt in its place a different article, more enlarged in its terms? Obviously it was intended that the power of congress to admit new States should be left an unlimited power.

     The proposition therefore, of the gentleman from Kentucky, came up, as he had said to the very letter, and, what was better, to the very spirit of the Constitution. This prevision was inserted as one great means of providing for the common defence and the general warfare. And Mr. Y. preferred the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, because on that plan we could get possession of Texas by Texas ceding to us territory, just as Virginia and many of the other States had ceded theirs. This resolution provided for her doing the same thing, and that strictly within the purview of the Constitution. Mr. Y. would say to the friends of the measure on that floor that, however their partialities might incline towards some other of the several projects which had been presented, and however well convinced some gentlemen might be that congress now possessed the power to receive foreign territory into the Union, (and Mr. Y. entertained no doubt that by a long process of reasoning that position might be logically established,) they had still better adopt this proposition, because it effected the same purpose in a more direct manner, and more in conformity with the letter of the constitution. Other plans might perhaps be plausibly objected to, but no man could so cut down the power contained in the words of the Constitution, that it would not apply to States lying confessedly without the existing boundaries of the Union.

     Considering the cultivated mind, clear understanding, and enlarged views of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Winthrop,) Mr. Y. had been astonished to hear him say that the constitution adopted by our patriot fathers was by them intended to apply only to the territory then within the United States. This, surely, was too narrow-minded a view of things to be worthy of the mind of any true friend of our American liberty. The Constitution applicable only to what were the bounds of the Union when it was framed? Why were, then, must Louisiana, and Arkansas, and Missouri stand? At the adoption of the constitution, these were not within the limits of the United States. And would the gentleman from Massachusetts maintain that these three States were now unconstitutionally within the limits of the United States? Had the people of Louisiana and the people of Arkansas and Missouri not share in the guarantees of the Constitution? Did they posses no rights by it and under it? The gentleman would not say so. Yet these were States which lay, without and beyond the territory of the United States when the article was framed which empowered Congress to receive new States into the Union. They had come into the Union – they had received a cheerful welcome. And what Republican freeman would close the doors of this, our fellowship of freedom, to any who in a proper spirit came and knocked for admission?

     It appeared very singular to Mr. Y. that there were only two instances in our history where treaties had been made by which foreign countries were allowed to diminish the extent of our territory. And the negotiators of both happened to come from the State of Massachusetts. Where ever our territory had been clipped, and privileges enjoyed by our citizens had been taken from them it had been done under the auspices of two gentlemen from Massachusetts. Why was this? – Was it that their hearts were so narrow, and their views so contracted, that their sympathies could not go an inch beyond that precise area of territory possessed by us at the framing of the Constitution? Or, did it not rather arise from the old Federal leaven which yet worked in the hearts of the children of that Commonwealth, and which, to this day, was ever ready and disposed to curtail the liberties of mankind? Which was ever prone to circumscribe them within as small a space as possible, and which seemed to have an inborn proclivity towards bestowing on a few the monopoly of rights and blessings which God had given alike to all?

     Mr. Y. should forbear dilating on the merits and bearings of the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky, but would leave them to be better said, and more clearly set forth by that gentleman himself.

     And now, to the second point. It would, he presumed, he admitted, whether the admission had an auspicious bearing on ourselves or not, that the honor of a nation was the brightest jewel it possessed, and that its character before the nations of the world should be guarded by its representatives with all that sensitive solicitude and watchfulness with which they would guard their own. Now, what were the facts in our relation to the people of Texas? Mr. Y. was not going to argue for re-annexation, for on that point doubts might be and were entertained; he was speaking to the proposition to annex Texas to the United States. By the treaty of 1819, if we had any right or power or claim over Texas, we ceded them all to the Government of Spain. - Whatever our title was we yielded it to her; but Spain had not perfected her title; she never had taken possession; the people of Texas resented and resisted our act; they rose in arms against it; they complained that their will and wishes had not been consulted in the matter, and indignantly denied that they could be ceded away like a herd of beasts. They complained that we had forgotten their rights - and they declared with one voice, that they would not abide by our act; and they accordingly resisted the power and possession of Spain till 1824, when they conformed themselves to the terms of a general confederacy, which ignited the Mexican States. - What was the condition of Texas under that confederated Government? Had they lost their rights? Surely not. Though our mouth after the treaty of 1819 was stopped, and we could no longer claim any tide to their territory or right over their persons, yet the rights of Texas were not estopped : they never had consented to our deed. The treaty of 1803 had secured their admission into our Union, and this act never had been annulled as it respected them. They held themselves still justly entitled to the rights that treaty had conferred. We ceded Texas it is true, but we ceded her when she was sovereign, and while she maintained her sovereignty. Our [ . . . ] gave no title to Spain, and Spain took none by it; but Texas was thrown back upon her original sovereignty, and she continued to maintain it. When she entered the Mexican confederation, under the treaty of 1824, no foreign State had any claim upon her, and when that confederation was dissolved she was remitted back to that sovereign she never had lost, and there she stood a sovereign State to this hour. We had given up our title by treaty; Spain had yielded her's by recognizing Mexican independence including that of Texas. Mexico had no claim upon her when she freely entered the confederation; Coahuila none. Texas agreed to become one member in a confederation States like our own - composed distinct sovereignties, meeting together secure certain definite objects for good all. 1834 history - country informed us military usurper dissolved force, drove Congress from their hall force arms, and violated trampled rights of people to revolution, establishing ruins central Government most despotic character. What did do? It been said raised rebellion with view annexation; but gave lie charge. met formed provisional under banner Constitution 1824, sent forth invitations sister [the rest is illegible].

[AMB]


Friday, January 17, 1845 RE41i81p3c7

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Statistics of Texas

            On the motion of Mr. PRATT, it was

            Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate to this House such information as he may possess, or may be able to procure, of the whole amount of the debt of Texas the amount for which bond or scrip has been issued:  and the present market value of subscript or bond in Texas, in the United States, as in Europe; the amount in value of the exports from, and the imports into, Texas, for the year 1813 and 1814, with the amount of revenue accruing and collected for the same years, with the expenditures for the same time; also, the present population of Texas, distinguishing in number between free and slaves; also, the quantity, acres of land, which it is supposed is covered by valid grants from the present and former Governments of that country; and the estimated quality in acres of good and arable land suitable for cultivation which remains ungranted with the undisputed and acknowledged limits of Texas as the same existed prior to the year 1831.

                        RE-ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS.

            Mr. HAMMETT moved that the rules be suspended, that the House might resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

            The motion was agreed to; and the House went into Committee of the Whole on the State the Union, (Mr. Hopkins in the Chair, ) and assumed the consideration of the resolutions to re-annex Texas to this Union.

            Mr. HOLMES, who had the floor from yesterday, commenced with some remarks on the importance of the question which now occupies the attention of the committee. He contends that this was not a sectional, but a great national question; and to this complexion it had […] [unreadable] last; annexation, or rejection now and forever. And on this he based the proposition, and calls to it the attention, not of a section, nor of a part but of every man who had in his heart the loved union and confederation, viz:  Annexation objection was salvation or destruction to the New Atlantic States, to New England and to the manufacturing community, and he admitted, […] [unreadable word] the inevitable destruction of the South, and he sustained his position by showing the deleterious effect which would be produced on the productivity and manufactures of the various sections of the country by Texas remaining independent and commercial league with England, and in possession of the guarantees promised to her by […] [unreadable word] Aberdeen on condition of her preserving her government separate from ours. Her treaty with Great Britain would preclude exportations […] [unreadable word] our country to that republic, and under the […tive] [unreadable word] policy our entire Union would be injured […] [unreadable word] degree now not to be determined.

            Mr. WM. J. BROWN was wedded to no particular plan. He was like the young man in his own native West, with stout arm and high principles, who, when he first sets out from the maternal home, gets himself a wife. When united to one whose smile serves the purpose of the rainbow of hope and promise, he begins to build his cabin, and lay out his fields, until his barn of plenty is filled to overflowing. Just so with him he was first for his country, and next for Texas and, having obtained her, all things else will be added thereto. Let us then have Texas […] [unreadable] and hereafter all the details could be settled At as this question was decided in the late election he called upon gentlemen to obey the will of the people.

            Mr. GARRET DAVIS would not be displeased; on the contrary, he would be glad if Texas could be annexed without a violation of our Constitution, and our neutral rights, and with the general assent of the people. It was with a view to the distant future that he should desire the consummation of this measure.   The natural […] [unreadable word] cities of Texas for the production of cotton and sugar, rendered it of immense importance to the inhabitants of the United States. But his wish to see Texas annexed was subordinate to other considerations. His attachment to the Union as it existed, rather than endanger its continuance led him, nevertheless, to oppose annexation in every possible form. He spoke of the question as one of power- contending that the legislature was not, by the Constitution, empowered to acquire foreign territory, &c.

            Mr. BOWLIN next obtained the floor; but

            The Committee rose, and reported progress; and

            The House then adjourned.

EXTRACT of a letter from Madison county, Jan.     

            “Mr. Goggin has declined becoming a candidate for re-election, as you have seen. The Whigs are AWFULLY troubled about it here. I do not think there is the least doubt about the election of a Democratic member of Congress from this district, unless there be some discord in the convention proposed to be held in Charlottesville to nominate a candidate.”

            [We will listen to no such apprehension.  We take it for granted, that the Convention will be well attended, as it ought to be- fairly organized as it ought also to be- and that its nominate will meet the immediate and cordial support of every Republican in the District.] – Enquirer.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82plc3

LATER FROM MEXICO

            By the arrival last evening of the steam ship New York, Capt. J. T. Wright, 42 hours from Galveston, we are in possession of later intelligence from Mexico. The progress of the revolution seems to be onward, and the star of Santa Anna appears to pale before his victorious foes. 

            We copy the following interesting particulars from the Galveston News, of the 7th inst.

            By the arrival on Saturday last of the sloop H. L. Kinney, Capt. Lewis, direct from Corpus Christi, through the politeness of her commander, we have been furnished with letters from which we have gleaned the following, later and important news, in relation to the movements among the revolutionists.

            From the latest official news at Matamoras, from the interior of Mexico, it appears that Gen. Paredes at the head of 8,000 men, marched against Santa Anna, who at that time had under his command 13,000 troops. On the approach of Paredes, Santa Anna immediately retired, great numbers of his soldiers deserting his cause. This retreat extended to the city of Puebla, where he was attacked by Paredes and defeated. 

            Gen. Santa Anna, who made his escape, was compelled to disguise himself and take conveyance in a common coach of the country. The particulars of this battle are not given, but we presume the victory was achieved by Gen. Paredes at great expense of life, as is usually the case in Mexican warfare.

            In Northern Mexico the revolution has been general throughout the country. At the last accounts, Gen. Canales in conjunction with Gen. Arista, were marching at the head of a large force against Gen. Wool, who still held out in favor of centralism.

            The revolution broke out in the city of Matamoras on the 19th ult. On the reception of the news in Matamoras, of the success of the Federal party, the citizens opposed to centralism and in favor of Federalism, assembled at the most public places and immediately denounced the Tyrant, and publicly proclaimed for the Federal cause. Great excitement prevailed in the city during the outbreak- Gen. Celia was seized, and imprisoned- the shout for liberty and down with centralism became general in all quarters, until the revolution became triumphant.

            In Monterey the same scenes were enacted as in other cities, but of a more sanguinary character. The particulars we have not received, further than an account of the death of Gen. Jose Maria Ortega, Governor of the city of Monterey, who was publicly butchered for his faithful adherence to the cause of Santa Anna.

            We are informed, says the same paper of the 7th inst., that on the 27th ult, upwards of fifty horses were stolen from Corpus Christi. It is not known by whom the theft was committed; but an expedition had been fitted out and sent in pursuit, who had not returned at last accounts. We also learn that the Caronkawa Indians have collected a large body and are committing depredations upon the property of the inhabitants surrounding Aransas Fay.

            When the H. L. Kinney left, trade was considered at Corpus Christi, brisk. Several Mexicans were in from Mexico, but there was a great scarcity of goods, not an assortment sufficient to meet their demands.

            From the seat of Government we received no papers, and the following from the News comprises all the information received:

            The steamer Dayton arrived on Monday the 6th inst., but brought no mail from Washington; this is more to be regretted on account of several rumors which have reached us in relation to the movements at the seat of government.

            The most important rumor afloat is in reference to Gen. Duff Green, the U. S. Consul at this place, who it is reported, has been harshly treated by the Executive. If so, Uncle Sam will have more difficulties to arrange besides those of a Mexican character.

            We know nothing of the particulars thereof and shall calmly wait for further developments.

            From what we can glean from private sources, we are led to believe that Dr. Jones is going to renounce Houstonism and come out strong in favor of western measures, provided the west will sustain him. The western people have never asked more than their rights – these have been denied them – protect them from the predatory incursion of Mexicans, and the repeated depredations of Indians – refit the navy and restore her noble commander, and Dr. Jones would soon become the most popular President in Western Texas.

            Capt. Jacques of the brig Rover, arrived at Galveston on the 3d inst.  From Havana, reported that when he sailed; a rumor had reached that city of the capture and imprisonment of Santa Ana at Vera Cruz.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p2c3

THE TEXAS QUESTION

            We trust that a majority of the House of Delegates will yet be found in favor of the Texas resolutions?   As a party, the Whigs in Virginia and in the South have a deep interest in its adjustment. They have more to lose by it than we have. Indeed, they must lose by its suspension. We must gain by it.  They lost by it considerably at the last Fall Election, and they will lose more by it in the Spring Elections.  It is impossible to exclude it from the canvass, if it still be kept open. It will, indeed, be the prominent issue in the canvass, and will override every other. Every Republican candidate will take it in his hand, and will appeal to the people of Virginia for their support. It is in vain to deny the fact – but many able and honest Whigs are in favor of annexation – and if they do not assist the Republican Party, they can lend but a feeble assistance to their own party on such a question.  Let us then unite, and strike it out at once from the party issues of the day. Every one for sees, that if the question be not settled at the present Congress, the question is only adjourned.  It must come up again, unless Texas should slam the door directly in our faces. It will continue to mingle in our political struggles – rising every day into more gigantic consequence, so long as any hope exists of its permanent adjustment. We will not abandon the scheme, unless Texas does. But it is obvious, that delay only increases the danger – that Great Britain will multiply her intrigues, present more and more seductive offers to obtain her independence, and form an advantageous commercial connection with our greatest commercial rival – and that there is a serious danger lest her people should become dissatisfied with our obstinate refusal, and turn to Great Britain for co-operation and succor. In that event, with Texas lost to us, except at a great sacrifice of blood and of treasure, whom will the Southern people hold responsible for its loss?   The bolt will fall upon the Whig Party, and it must inevitably strike them down in the South.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p2c4

EDITORIAL

            Will some member of Congress be kind enough to send us a copy of the map of Texas lately published?   We wish to see the boundaries of the territory, &c., &c.

            Meantime, we must frankly confess, that Mr. Haywood’s speech, ingenious as it is, has failed to convince us of the propriety of establishing the 34th degree of latitude as the new Compromise line between the slave and he non-slaveholding States.  The line of the Missouri Compromise was the 36 ½ degree.  Even that line, we recollect, was very seriously resisted by many of the Southern people. They contended that such a restriction was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution - which permitted States to come into the Union without any restriction relative to slavery.   They contend, too, that the line is unequal – because it allows the non-slaveholding States a much greater scope of territory, extending to the Pacific, and embracing Oregon, than what lays to the South of the line. It was also the established line of Texas at the time when the Florida Treaty was ratified, and when we exchanged that country for Florida.    We humbly conceive, therefore, that we have a right to call upon our Northern brethren, if we are to abide by the Missouri Compromise in all future time, to respect its boundaries now when we are attempting to regain the territory which we possessed at the time of the ratified cession.  For one, therefore, with all respect to the Senator from North Carolina, we object to his bill, because it relinquishes 2 ½ degrees of latitude which ought to belong to the weakest portion of the Union. We prefer Mr. Foster’s bill to Mr. Haywood’s which preserves the principle of the Missouri Compromise, which takes in Texas as a State without any delay – and which presents the proposition of annexation in a simpler form, and [stripped] of a variety of details which may perplex the judgment, distract the vote, and perhaps defeat the measure.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p2c4

EDITORIAL “ANNEXATION – MR. RIVES”

[from the Charlottesville Jeffersonian]

            The Richmond Whig thinks that Mr. Rives will still oppose the annexation of Texas; that it is not to be imagined, that he so lightly made up his mind six or eight months ago, as to be prepared to change it. Who doubts if the question was put directly to the people of this Commonwealth, that an overwhelming majority of them would be for immediate annexation?   Should not our Senators then vote for what they have every reason to believe the people of Virginia would instruct them to do?  

                                                                        Charlottesville Jeffersonian.

            There is great force in the remark of the Jeffersonian. Will the senator carry out the acknowledged will of the people of Virginia?   There was a majority of near 6,000, (and if the bona fide voters only had been counted, of at least 8,000, ) Republican voters in favor of Annexation. Will Virginia then, appeal to her Senator in vain?   Why does the Whig talk about Mr. Rives changing his mind?   He voted against the Treaty, it is true, and now the question will be about admitting a new State into the Union. He does not change his argument at all upon the general question of annexation. That argument still remains as a monument of his talents in favor of the Truth.   He ought never to vote against Texas, until he is prepared to answer his own argument.

            We cannot yet reconcile ourselves to the idea, that Mr. Rives will vote against the bill. We hope yet, that he will strike one blow for his country. He has complied with the supposed obligations of the letter in which he unfortunately pledged himself to go for H. Clay. He spoke and he voted for that candidate – and the deed is done. The scene has now shifted. Texas comes forward now under different auspices.   The voice of party ought to be hushed – that of the country alone should be heard.   Will Mr. Rives turn a deaf ear to her demands; and spurn Texas once more from that door, through which he has so irresistibly proved she ought to be admitted into the Union?   Far better be in honorable retirement at Castle Hill, than strike such a blow against his own country. But if his retirement should be turned into banishment, by the Whig party, what consolation will soothe an exile which is preceded by a vote fatal to the South, mischievous to Virginia, and injurious to the whole Union?      [ Enquirer.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p3c2 76 words

Marine Journal

The article reports the ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond, January 20th.

            High Water this day at 11 o’clock, P.M.

Arrived
Schr. H. W. Grandy, Egg Harbour, Ballast.
Schr. Maragaret Ann, Godfry, Egg Harbour, Ballast.
Schr. Whig, Scott, Philadelphia, sundries.

Newport, Jan. 14 – arrived, schr. Candace, Brightman, Fall River, from Richmond.

New York, Jan. 18 – Cleared, schr. Richard Thompson, Carson, Richmond.

Baltimore, Jan. 19 – Cleared, barque R. H. Douglass, Norville, Richmond.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p4c1

Congressional, Debate on the Annexation of Texas
      Speech of Mr. Bayly, of Virginia.

     (Concluded.)

      The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Winthrop) informs us that a hope is entertained by the Republican party, that the Northern Whigs would exhibit, on this occasion, their anti-slavery feelings to such an excess as to embarrass their Whig friends at the South in the coming elections; and from a remark he made at the opening of his speech, he seemed to think that such was my wish. I assure the honorable member, said Mr. B., that, as far as I am concerned, he is mistaken. But although he told us that such a hope would be disappointed, yet he could not refrain from saying that, upon the ground of slavery alone, he would oppose the admission of Texas now and always. It will remain to be seen whether the tender mercy shown for the Whig friends of the gentleman from the South – which is so great as to cause him at abstain from pressing a leading head of his argument, and the one which is known to constitute the principal objection to annexation with Northern men – will not be as injurious to those friends and allies, as if free vent had been given their anti-slavery feelings; whether the embrace of friendship will not be as fatal as the blows of hostility?

      The honorable gentleman informs us, that the South, before the Revolution, remonstrated against slavery being forced upon them by Great Britain, and he expressed his surprise that we should now complain that she should express a desire to see slavery abolished among us. Does not the honorable gentleman know that the very fact he mentions is, in part, the ground of our complaint? When we were colonies of England, and she had an interest in the matter, she forced slavery upon us; but now, when we are no longer so – when we are rival of hers, and she is interested in our downfall – according to her own official declaration, she is constantly exerting herself to destroy the very institution which her cupidity forced upon us. Is it possible that there could be a stronger ground of complaint?

     The honorable gentleman is mistaken in supposing, that Great Britain has gone no further than to express a wish “to see” slavery abolished in Texas. In the very despatch from which he quotes, Lord Aberdeen says: “It is well known, both to the United States and the whole world, that Great Britain desires, and the whole world, that Great Britain desires, and is constantly exerting herself to procure, the general abolition of slavery throughout the world; but the means which she has adopted, and will continue to adopt, for this humane and virtuous purpose, are open and undisguised. With regard to Texas, we avow that we wish to see slavery abolished there as elsewhere. But, although we earnestly desire, and feel it our duty to promote such a consummation, we shall not interfere unduly, or with an improper assumption of authority, with either party, in order to ensure the adoption of such a course.” Here is something more than the expression of a wish to see slavery abolished by the Government itself, that it is constantly exerting all of its tremendous power to compass this end.

     But gentleman answer, although she is thus exerting herself, she does not mean to interfere unduly and by an improper assumption of authority. Now, sir, the meaning of these words depends upon the character of the person by whom they are used. What one might consider very proper another would think very improper. Paul Clifford, designed as a sarcastic portraiture of a British statesman, drawn by one of themselves, thought it not improper to rob upon the highway, and doubtless would have assured, with cold impudence, an unfortunate traveller [sic], in the very act of rifling with him unduly or by an improper assumption of authority. The probability is, the traveller [sic] would have looked upon his conduct in a very different light. But we are not left to conjecture as to what England will regard as proper means to effect the end she has in view. She did not consider it an undue means of effecting a dissolution of this Union, an object which has ever been near her heart as the effectual means of destroying our prosperity and power, to burn, in a vandal-like spirit, the Capitol of this nation. The heathenish act was not understood at the accomplished by it, and the motive of it was not understood, until since the war. A publication made since, by an English officer engaged in the expedition, explains it.

     It was vainly hoped, at a moment when there was so much discontent between the different sections of the country, that, if the Capitol were destroyed, when the proposition was made to rebuild it, a movement would be set on foot to remove the seat of Government, and that, adding to the discontent already existing, would lead to a dissolution of the Union. We shall thereafter see that, for the purpose of abolishing the slave-trade, with motives of aggrandizement similar to those, which actuates her now, she did not hesitate to expend millions of money and cede away important colonies. She does not consider it as an improper means of effecting her object to invite the Abolitionists at the North to an agitation of the subject of slavery, with a view of its abolition here; nor in her World’s Convention, as it was ambitiously called, held in her metropolis, to lay down the plan for their operation. In 1832, prior to which time there was no agitation upon the subject of slavery in this Hall, no hue and cry about the right of petition, there was raised in the British Parliament a committee to Mr. Ogden, the American Consul at Liverpool:

     “To Mr. OGDEN: If you could suppose that the slaves of Louisiana were generally able to read, and that angry discussions perpetually took place in Congress on the subject of their liberation, which discussions, by means of reading, were made known to the slaves of Louisiana, do you think that with safety the state of slavery could endure there?”

     The result of the answer to this question was seen in the World’s Convention. The Benefits as they were pleased to call it, of the agitation of the subject of slavery on this floor, is thus explained:

     “The interest which they themselves will take in the discussion. In spite of all precautions, the slaves will become acquainted with what so deeply interests them; and so far as they do, self-respect will be generated – an excellent and profitable sentiment for a free laborer, but ruinous to the slave. It was the testimony of the planters of Jamaica before the British Parliament that their slaves became acquainted with all that passed in respect to them in the mother country, and were thereby too much excited to [ . . . ] the places of slaves with slavish obedience.”

   “The knowledge of the slave that a portion of the white are exerting themselves for his emancipation, upon the ground that he is illegally held in bondage, will make him, they say impatient in his servitude. It will make him sullen and moody. It will incite him to indulge dreams of freedom in another land which he can never enjoy in his own. He will be reduced to a condition in which his master cannot rely upon his labor. He will be disposed to run away, and at a time when his services can be least spared. – The master will be subjected to constant and heavy expense to re-capture him. He will thus become to his owner a source of vexation rather than comfort, of trouble and expense rather than profit.”

     Another means which England will not consider as undue to effect her object, is to take advantage of the present condition of the guaranty of her independence. At this time, when Texas is weak and threatened with invasion by inhuman barbarians. England does not hesitate to take advantage of this sort of duress to force Texas to consent to abolish slavery. As proof of this, I refer to a late article which I cut from a late article which I cut from a late number of the organ of the British Government, and to speak its sentiments. That article is in these words:

     “It is possible, that the intelligence of Mr. Polk’s election may suggest a more guarded course to the Mexican General; but on the other hand, the vehement threats of annexation with which the Democratic party have brought in their candidate, may induce the Mexicans to strike a blow in the next few months, before the new Government is installed at Washington.

     Under these critical circumstances, it is not unreasonable to contend, that the European powers which have recognized the independence of Texas, are bound in good policy, as well as in good faith, to demand of Mexico, as well as of every other Power, that this new State be acknowledged and unmolested. If we had a sufficient interest in this question to recognize Texas at all – if we, in common with other States of Europe, are prepared to resist the annexation of Texas to the United States as an act of rapine, calculated to deprive us of a useful ally, to perpetuate slavery, and to create a rival maritime Power in the Gulf of Mexico, it would appear to be no more than just to maintain the independence of Texas against Mexico itself, and, above all, by a declaration of the principal States of Europe to terminate this state of uncertainty and menace. Had Texas consented to abolish slavery, all her political difficulties would long since have been terminated; and, instead of being an object of mingled contempt and desire to the population of the U. S., she would have placed her whole social condition on a higher and more secure basis than theirs, and would be prepared to play a conspicuous part in the history of the new world.”

     Here it is distinctly enough admitted, that “had Texas consented to abolish slavery,” England would have guarantied her independence; for, how otherwise can we understand that that event would have terminated all of her political difficulties, and ‘placed her social condition on a higher and more secure basis than ours? And the zeal of England for the abolition of slavery in Texas so great, she is willing to risk to attain it as is shown by her insisting upon that condition, the loss of “a useful ally,” and the creation in the United States of “a rival maritime power in the Gulf of Mexico!” The country will judge who probably understands the purposes of the British Government best – the Whigs of this House, or the English Ministerial press.

     But the honorable gentleman’s own argument impliedly admits that the institution of slavery is in danger, from the machinations of the British Government. He assures us, it is true, in the teeth of the fact, as is shown by the agitation of the subject on this floor by Northern men, and by none more than by members from his own State – he assures us, that Northern Statesmen do not desire to interfere with this institution in the States as it is, and that we have nothing to fear from them. If this be the case, and foreign nations let us alone, slavery is secure; for I assure him it is in no danger from ourselves. How, then, will the annexation tend to perpetuate it? It can only be by securing us against Great Britain, the only one of all the foreign nations which is agitating this question.

     Having thus shown that England is exerting all her energies to abolish slavery in Texas, and  that she will stop at no means to accomplish it, let me ask what is her object? Lord Brongham, one of her leading statesman in the House of Lords answers the question:

     “The markets from whence they obtained their supply of slaves were Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia, which States constantly sent their slave population, which would otherwise be a burden to them, to the Texan market. No doubt it was true, as has been stated, that they treated their slaves tolerably well, because they knew that it was for their interest to rear them, as they had such a profitable market for them in Texas. This made him irresistibly anxious for the abolition of slavery in Texas; for it were abolished there, not only would that country be cultivated by free and white labor, but it would put a stop to the habit of breeding slaves for the Texan market. – The consequence would be, that they would solve this great question in the history of the United States, for it must ultimately end in the abolition of slavery throughout the whole of America.”

     And why does England desire the abolition of slavery in the United States? Sir, it is to cripple our prosperity; and the blow is aimed as much at the North as the South; as mush at that portion of the country which is her most formidable rival in commerce and manufactures, as at us, who are profitable consumers of her productions, and her rivals in but little.

     If there are any here, who may be deluded by the idea that England is actuated by philanthropic motives, if he will attend for a few moments. I will show him that, so far from that, her purposes are the most selfish and heartless. A short recital of authentic historical facts, will establish this position.

     We all know, that for more than two centuries, that African slave trade was carried on by the British nation under the patronage of the Government, and was protected by charters of monopoly and public treaties. Under the Stuart Kings, charters were granted endowed with exclusive privileges for carrying on the African slave trade, and they were sustained by all the power and patronage of the British Government.

     At the celebrated treaty of Utrecht, in1713, by which the Spanish succession war was terminated, the British nation obtained, by what was called the Asiento contract, the exclusive privilege of carrying on the slave trade for thirty years, at the rate of 4,800 slaves yearly; and Lord Brougham said in the House of Commons in 1815, the English nation had obtained “the whole price of the victories of Ramillies and Blenheim, in an additional share of the slave trade” and Mr. C. Grant, in 1818, informed us, that “she higgled at Aix la Chapelle for four years longer of this exclusive trade, and at the treaty of Madrid clung to the last remains of the Asiento contract.”

     In consequence of the activity of the marine of England, and her own colonies. Desiring the monopoly of the securing it, and to prevent the supply of labor for the Southern colonies of other nations, she commenced agitation in favor of the abolition of the African slave trade. But it was only the African slave trade. It was necessary that the subject of it should have a black skin and a wholly head to enlist English sympathies. It is notorious, that slave fairs are regularly held in the regencies of Tripoli and Morocco, and they are transported thence up the Levant, where they are again in exposed to sale like cattle in the market. But these people did not come into competition with English colonies in the production of the rest articles of commerce, and of course they do not enjoy her disinterested philanthropy, which had its beginning and end in the profits of trade.

      In the abortive attempt at negotiation for peace by Mr. Fox, in 1806, an effort was made to induce France to join in the abolition of the slave trade. The French Minister replied, “that England, with her colonies well stocked with negroes, and affording a large produce, might abolish the trade without inconvenience; but that France, with colonies ill stocked, and deficient in produce, could not abolish it without conceding to England the greatest advantages, and sustaining a proportionable loss.”

     Upon the restoration of Louis XVIII to the French throne, (who acknowledged that he owed it to Great Britain,) his gratitude was appealed to abolish the slave trade; and that being ineffectual offers of sums of money and the cession of a West India Island were made but without success; the same answer being given substantially which had been given before. In August, 1815, England restored to the Dutch Government their colonies, excepting the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana, in consideration of the entire abolition of the slave trade by the latter.

     During the negotiation of the treaty concluded at Madrid on the 5th of July, 1814, Great Britain attempted to prevail on Spain to prohibit to her subjects both the general slave trade and their importation into the Spanish colonies, and went so far as to offer to continue the pecuniary subsidies which the deplorable condition of the Spanish financiers made so necessary. But she failed, the Duke of San Carlos remarking that when the trade was abolished by Great Britain the proportion of negroes to the whites in the British colonies was as twenty to one, while in the Spanish colonies there were not more blacks than whites.” And he refused to take a step which “he considered would be fatal to the very existence of the colonies.”

     In January, 1815, Great Britain obtained from Portugal, for pecuniary equivalents, the prohibition to its subjects of the slave trade on the Western coast of Africa, North of the equator. Further than this Portugal would not go.

     The island of Guadeloupe , conquered from France, was ceded by Great Britain to the Swedish Crown, upon condition of abolishing the slave trade; and at the treaty of Madrid, of the 22d of September, 1817, she purchased from Spain the immediate abolition of the slave trade North of the equator, and a promise to abolish it altogether, after 1820, for the sum of $400,000.

     Up to this time, we had not heard a word about the abolition, of slavery. Indeed, as late as 1824, Mr. Canning said in the British Parliament, “that, if he were asked which he would prefer, permanent slavery to immediate emancipation =, the incapacity of the negro to enjoy, from the want of mental and moral cultivation, the sweets of liberty; and “his duty to guard the interests of those who, by no fault of their own – by inheritance – by accident – by encouragement of repeated acts of the legislature, find their property invested in a concern exposed to innumerable hazards and difficulties which do not belong to property of another character – such as, if they had their option, as their ancestors had, they doubtless would have preferred.”

     But, while these events were transpiring, a great change was taking place in the British empire . There was found in the counting house of the East India Company an obscure boy (afterwards Lord Clive) who turned out on of Britainnia’s gods of war. By the power of his genius, a small English trading post in India was expanded until it comprehended an empire of one hundred millions of souls.

     In the mean time, great changes were going on in England. From being an agricultural produce by the inventions of the power loom and spinning jenny, the improvements in science and the introduction of the steam engine, she was converted into a great manufacturing nation. To sustain her great manufactures, a secure market was necessary for the productions of them. The same causes which had stimulated manufactures in England had also done the same thing in the United States and upon the continent of Europe. Besides, those markets, even if they were open, were not within the exclusive control of Great Britain. This was indispensable, and the desideration was found in India, if her people could be raised up to the condition of consumers. To do this it was only necessary to destroy all her rivals in the productions of the growth of the tropics. These rivals were the United States, the West Indies and Brazil. The staples of each of these countries were cotton, rice, tobacco, sugar and coffee. These were the staples of British India. England had seen the island of San Domingo converted, by the single act of the negro emancipation, from the most flourishing of all the West India Islands into the most unproductive; and the culture of the indigo plant, which was its staple, transplanted to the banks of the Ganges and Barrampooter . And it was at once inferred, that if African slavery could be abolished, British India would possess a monopoly in the production of the plants of the tropics, and her prosperity be established upon a secure basis. – England considered the sacrifice of her West India colonies but a small price for so great a good. The $20,000,000 which was appropriated for the indemnity of the planters amounted to nothing, as scarcely a dollar of it left London, it being received by British mortgages of West India plantations. And an agitation was at once commenced, in the hypocritical name of philanthropy, in favor of the abolition of slavery. And as soon as it was accomplished in the West Indies, the theatre of operations was transferred to this country in the manner I have very briefly noticed. – The fact that philanthropy had nothing to do in the matter is shown, if other proof were wanting, by the emancipation act of the British Parliament itself. By the 44th section of that act, it is declared that “it shall not extend to any of the territory in the possession of the East India Company, or the Islands of Ceylon or St. Helena.” And yet this is precisely the country where slavery exists in its most horrid form, and where the British Government is itself the greatest slaveholder in the world, and hires out its slaves for profit.

     “GOVERNMENT OF SLAVES IN MALABAR. – We know that there is not a servant of Government in the South of India, who is not intimately acquainted with the alarming fact, that hundreds of hundreds of his fellow-creatures are fettered down for life to the degraded destiny of slavery. We know that these unfortunate beings are not, as in other countries, serfs of the soil, and incapable of being transferred, and the pleasure of their owners, from one estate to another. No; they are daily sold like cattle by one proprietor to another; the husband is separate from the wife, the parent from the child; they are loaded with every indignity; the utmost quantity of labor is exacted from them, and the most meager fare that human nature can possibly subsist on is doled out of them. The slave population is composed of a great variety of classes. The descendants of those who have been taken prisoners in time of war; persons who have been kidnapped from the neighboring states; people who have been born under such circumstances as that they are considered without the pale of ordinary castes; and others who have been smuggled in from the coast of Africa, torn from their country and their kindred; and destined to amore wretched lot, and; as will be seen, to a more enduring captivity than their brethren of the Western world. Will it be believed that Government itself participates in this description of property; that it actually holds possession of slaves, and lets them out for hire to the cultivators of the country, the rent of a whole family being two farms, or half a rupee, (about $3.50, the hire of a slave and his whole family) per annum?

     “But why dwell on these comparatively free slaves? The whole of Hindoston [sic], with the adjacent possessions, is one magnificent plantation, peopled by more than one hundred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of gentlemen in England, called the East India Company, whose power is far more unlimited and despotic than that of any Southern planter over his slaves; a power upheld by the sword and bayonet, exacting more and leaving less of the product of their labor to the subject race than is left under our own system, with much less regard to their comfort in sickness and age.”

     [Asiatic Journal for 1838, p.221.]

     As startling as these disclosures are, the whole story is not yet told. England has not only engaged in a hypocritical crusade against slavery at the time she is herself the greatest slaveholder in the world, but she has absolutely made the act of her Parliament for the abolition of the slave trade the means of converting her national navy into slaves, as I shall show. For the following facts I am indebted to an article on the Southern Literary Messenger, written by Lieut. Maury, of the U. States Navy:     

     “We have the authority of Mr. Barreyer, of he French Chamber, who stated it in a recent speech, that in June of last year, the British Government issued an ‘Order in Council’ to authorise [sic] the importation into Demarara of one hundred thousand hired negroes from Africa. And, in confirmation of this statement, late arrivals bring us in the ‘Semaphore de Marseilles,’ the report of the master of the French merchantman who, not four months ago, saw in the river Gambia an English vessel of 500 tons take in a cargo of 500 Africans for the English colonies. – These poor ignorant creatures engage for they know not what, and ship for they know not where. Charmed with a hawk’s bell, and dazzles with a string of glass beads, they are enticed sway beyond the seas; and the ties which bind them to kindred and to country are as effectually severed, though, perhaps, not as rudely broken, as if they had fallen in the hands of the kidnapper. Being ignorant of their rights in a civilized land, they are liable to the most cruel wrongs; as slaves, their owner would have the inducement to self-interest to preserve them, his property, from wanton injury; nay more, with the master, who, in his conduct to his slaves, is governed by no higher motive, there are inducements of a pecuniary nature to secure that consideration in the treatment of slaves which will preserve their health so as not to impair their efficiency as laborers. But as bondmen and apprentices, the object of such an one, and there are many such, obedient to the mercenary disposition of man, is to get out of them all he can. What then is the condition of the hired savage during his long and cruel apprenticeship, many times worse than that of the slave? And, when he has cancelled his indenture, wherein is he better off? He has then but just made the last payment for the privilege of being brought over for hire in a ship crowded to suffocation. Our laws will not allow a ship to bring into the country more passengers than two to every five tons of measurement. But the humane ‘Orders in Council’ can find in a vessel of 500 tons, with more than half her room monopolized by her officers and crew, ample accommodation for five hundred wild Africans who have never known restraint. Tell us not that it is ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ that moves that Government to action.

     “To show that the motives which operate with the officers are no better than those ascribed to their Government, we subjoin an extract from a paper published in the last Maryland Colonization Journal. It is from the pen of Dr. Hall, an eminent philanthropist, who has been much on the African coast in connexion [sic] with the business of the Colonization Societies of this country. He tells what he saw:

     “The late commandant of the station, Lord George Russell, was most of the time in a state of intoxication, consequently unfit for the transaction of any business; and with such a head it cannot be supposed that the under officers would deport themselves over correctly. The prize money received by the officers and crew, in case of a successful capture, operated as a strong inducement to seize whatever came in their way. The apparent object of all the officers of the squadron under Lord Russell was the making successful and rich captures, rather than suppression of the slave trade. An instance in proof came under our own observation. The commander of a cruiser (either the Forester or the Wanderer,) boarded a small schooner which lay at anchor near our vessel, and afterwards boarded us. He stated that the schooner had enough on board to condemn her, but she was old and would not pay him for taking her to Sierra Leone; he would wait and watch her until she had taken on board her slaves, which would much increase their prize money, and then capture her. She lay off for a day or two for that purpose, but in the night the schooner took on board her slaves, and went to sea. Our brig., the Trafalgar of this port, was boarded by a boat from the Forester, our papers examined, and a permit demanded for having on board oil casks. – We informed him, that our port regulations required no such permit. He disputed, and said, when the Forester came up, the brig. Should be captured and taken to Sierra Leone. It was thought best to leave the cruising ground of the Forester before she came up, and we accordingly put out. A few weeks after, on visiting that section of the coast again we discovered a vessel early in the morning, close in shore, getting under way. She soon made sail, headed for us and fired a gun. There being many vessels in sight, we were not sure the gun was for us, and being within three miles of our anchorage ground, and the light land breeze gradually dying away, thought best to keep under weigh, having hoisted our ensign. The vessel then passed an 18-pound shot directly under our main yard, within a few feet of the man at the helm. We then laid too until the officer boarded us. He again examined our papers, demanded the same permit for the casks which he had before informed him we were not required to obtain. He examined the hold, found one hundred bushels of rice, and declared the brig. a prize, the rice a sufficient evidence of her character as a slaver. The Forester came up, and the commander came on board, examined papers and hold likewise, and a council was held whether or not to declare the whole a prize. We stated to them the abundant evidence before them that we were the owners of the vessel, that we were well known as regular American trader, that we had been in an important public station on the coast to their knowledge, and they well knew from many sources other than the papers of the vessel that she was bonafide [sic] American property and engaged in lawful traffic. The answer was, we well know that; but the only question is, cannot we get her condemned on account of the rice?”

     Now, (said Mr. B.) I assert, with a perfect knowledge of the subject upon which I am speaking, that this species of the slave trade, introduced by the English Government, in the form of apprenticeship, is the more profitable to the master, and more galling to the slave, than any which can possibly be imagined. Let us look at the operation of it. It has been seen from the publication made by Dr. Hall, that the English, in carrying on their slave trade, do not purchase the negroes, as other slavers do, but they capture them. Under the English act abolishing the slave trade, $7 is given to the captors for every slave taken. They are taken in and condemned, and then carried to Brazil and the West Indies, and sold as apprentices, for a term of seven years. These poor creatures are taken to a country whose laws they do not understand, and whose language they do not speak, and for a long time will be incapable of learning. Who is to see, during their apprenticeship, that they are treated well, and care taken of them in sickness? The master has no interest in them, but for seven years, and his object will be to get as much out of them as possible, in the mean time, and incur as little expense as possible in taking care of them. And, when the apprenticeship expires, who is to identity them, and see that they are discharged? I may be told that a registry is provided for. But what registry can protect them? Let me illustrate: There is a plantation with one hundred of these wild Africans upon it. Who can distinguish one from another? They will be so much alike it will be impossible. A stranger had just as well undertake, after the lapse of seven years, to distinguish the different sheep in a large flock.

      Sir, this is not speculation. The impossibility of the thing has been tested in our own courts. – The following are the facts in the case of the Antelope: A privateer, called the Columbia off the coast of Africa, captured an American vessel, from Bristol, in Rhode Island, from which she took twenty-five Africans; she captured several Portuguese vessels, from which she also took Africans, and she captured a Spanish vessel called the Antelope, in which she also took a considerable number of Africans. All of the Africans captured were shipped on board the Antelope. Thus freighted, she was found hovering near the coast of the United States, was captured by the revenue cutter Dallas, and taken into Savannah for adjudication. The Africans, at the time of her capture, amounted to upwards of two hundred and eighty. Claims were set up to the Africans by the Spanish and Portuguese vice consuls respectively and by the United States. – The claim of the United States, under the law for the abolition of the slave trade, was sustained as to the portion taken from the American vessel. The residue were divided between the Spanish and Portuguese claimants. About one-third of the negroes had died. It was impossible to distinguish the several classes of Africans; and the court decided that the loss should be averaged among the three different classes, and that sixteen should be designated by lot from the whole number, and delivered over to the Marshal of the United States, as a fair proportion of the twenty-five proved to have been taken from the American vessel.

     Now, Sir, what will be the operation in practice? Whenever one of these apprentices shall become disabled, or die, they will be sure to make it out that he was one whose apprenticeship was expiring; whereas, the apprenticeship of such as shall continue valuable will never expire. The consequence will be the master will always hold the profitable, and get rid of such as may be otherwise. And, I repeat, it will be the most profitable slavery which has ever been introduced; and this British philanthropy. Here Mr. B. was cut short by the fall of the chairman’s hammer, and he concluded by saying that, at his leisure, he should make a full report of his argument.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 21, 1845 RE41i82p4c6

PLAN TO DEFEND TEXAS, AND TO DIVIDE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NEW YORK

            The election of two senators of the United States from the State of New York is to take place this day. The contest among the candidates produces great excitement at Albany. The result is everywhere anticipated with great anxiety. The fate of Texas materially, perhaps essentially, depends upon the selection.

            It is impossible to shut our eyes also to the fact, that the Whigs are busily engaged in an intrigue, to employ this question to divide the Republicans of New York. The following letter speaks for itself. We extract it from one of the rankest.  Federal papers in the Union – and the reader will see with what anxiety a Coalition is pressed between the Whigs of the New York Legislature, and a portion of the Democrats, (whom he calls by the cant term of barn burners,) for the purpose of electing “two Anti-Texas Loco” Senators. The objects of this movement are, 1st, to defeat Texas in the Senate altogether, by substituting two Anti-Texas Senators instead of two friends of Texas; 2d, to defeat Texas in the House, by encouraging the trimmers and Doctor Doubters in that body to go against it; and, 3d, and not the least desirable object to the Whigs, is to sow dissension and division in the Republican Party, and prepare the way for their defeat in New York – and next in the Union, and usher in the thrice defeated, but only “postponed,” Harry of the West, four years hence. But here is the significant letter – let it speak for itself:

[Correspondence of the New York American.]

                        “Washington, Jan. 11, 1845.

            “My dear Sir: -- I have seen no occasion thus far this winter to trouble you with any of my excogitations about Texas. All those channels of information are now open to you, and I know you think and write rightly on this subject.   My only purpose now is to throw out a few hints which I took the liberty to communicate to a friend, now a member of your House of Assembly, and which have occurred to me from observing what has passed here during two or three days.

            “We are now at the great crisis in this controversy. It is not enough that the Senate is sure to block any game of annexation that may be played in the House. That they are certain to do. But two things are necessary to ensure us a permanent triumph.

1st, the defeat of the measure in the present House; and 2d, the election of Young and Barker, or two men of kindred opinions, for Senators from your State. The first I am most happy to believe will be accomplished; and perhaps that will be enough. The Locofoco majority in the present House is said to be 65. I may over-estimate the moral effect of a victory of the right against such a party preponderance as this, but I cannot but believe its effect on the next Congress as well as on the party in the country will be tremendous,- most especially if the Legislature of your State shall throw its weight in the manner I have indicated. The conclusion from these suggestions is, that the whole matter now rests with New York. On her alone depends the great question of Texas or no Texas. Is it possible, that on a question of this magnitude, the mandate of a Legislature caucus is to be obeyed?   Look at it. Your House has 128 members, I believe. Thirty-five is a majority of the party in caucus.   These 35 nominate in caucus two Senators, and by the rule of that body they control the whole 128!   Can it be that Silas Wright will permit the Legislature of your State thus to speak on the Texas question, if he has the power to prevent it?

            “Is there no such thing as a coalition between the Whigs and Barn Burners, by which two anti-Texas Locos can be chosen?   If I were a member of the New York Legislature, it seems to me I would coalesce to elect the ---- himself, if he would go against annexation. The great thing is to cut the party cord which it has been feared would bind this issue to a Locofoco reign. The Locofocos from your State in the House are going to behave well with; at most I understand, some 5 or 6 exceptions – 18 at least are relied on. Will not this state of things here, when it comes to be understood at Albany; encourage the anti-Texas men of the party there, in standing out against the system of caucus dictation?    Can it be, that there is any question of State policy that can weigh a feather, with the Whigs, in deterring them from any sort of affiliation for the time being, which may have the effect to throw rightly the weight of New York on this great national issue?

            “I am uninstructed in regard to the state of feeling in your State, and these notions may seem very raw to you. Rely on it, however, that the crisis is at hand, and that New York is the great arbiter.”

            We shall not repeat the statements which are published in the New York Herald, in its letters from Albany. These too speak of intrigues which we cannot believe to exist. These profess to name distinguished men, who are to be open-mouthed in their hostility to the annexation of Texas, &c., &c., &c. We scout all such scandalous reports against some of the Democrats of New York. We will not believe that any of them will engage in any intrigues against Polk, or Texas, or the South. But that the Whigs are engaged in fanning the flame, as far as they are able, we have the evidence in the above letter from one of themselves at Washington, through one of their own accepted organs at New York.

            We will not believe either, that the annexation can fall through this Winter by any intrigue or disaffection at Washington. But if it should fail, with a Democratic majority of more than 60 in the House of Representatives, what can the Southern Democrats think of such desertion?   We have as much liberality for our brethren, as any man. We have as much confidence in the Northern Democrats, including those of New York, “the natural allies of the South,” according to Mr. Jefferson, as any one can have. But if the present Congress should dissolve in empty air, nothing done for the annexation of Texas, nothing done for the modification of the Tariff of ‘42 we shall look to the future with some fear and suspicion. The South will then be reluctantly called on to ask herself, Is there no efficient union, between the Democrats of the South and the North?   Have we nothing to expect from them at the next session?   Is it thus that the solemn pledges of the Baltimore Convention are to be rendered naught?   Are the grounds on which Mr. Polk was elected to be thus washed away by a halting and hesitating majority in Congress?   Have we nothing to expect from the majority of our brethren of the North?    For the Republicans around us, and for those South and Southwest, we speak confidently and boldly. They will carry out their principles as avowed during the canvass – and we will stand by the administration which carries them out. Virginia will never strike her flag – but with the energies which belong to her, she will uproar it in the face of the world. She never flinched in ‘98-‘99. Let what may betide others, “the unterrified Old Dominion” will do her duty again in ‘45.

[AMB]


Friday, January 24, 1845 RE41i83p4c4

Twenty-Eighth Congressional, Thursday, Jan. 16, 1845, In Senate

THE SENATE

            Mr. ALLEN presented resolutions from the General Assembly of Ohio, requesting the Government of the United States to take entire and immediate control over the territory of Oregon, and protesting against the surrender of any portion of that territory, by treaty or otherwise, to any foreign government; also one from the same body, against the annexation of Texas, which were read and ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

            The bill for improving the Cumberland road, in the State of Ohio, came up from a third reading, which, on its passage, the yeas and nays being called for, resulted as follows: yeas 25, nay 14.

            The bill making compensation to the State of Massachusetts for military services during the last war with Great Britain also passed: yeas 25, nays 18.

            The bill for the relief of Joshua Shaw, granting him $25,000 for certain improvements in percussion caps, came up for decision, and was advocated by Messrs.  CRITTENDEN and BUCHANANA, and opposed by Messrs.  HENDERSON, BAGBY, and TAPPAN.

            Mr. BAGBY moved that it be recommitted to the Committee on Patents, with instructions that they report it back reducing the sum from $25,000 to 10,000.

            The question was taken on referring it by ayes and nays, when it was decided in the negative by yeas 20, nays 23.

            The question then recurring on its final passage, the both by ayes and nays stood as follows:-ayes 26, nays 16.

            A message was received from the President of the United States by his private Secretary, John Tyler Jr., communicating certain information respecting the late treaty with China, and asking Congress for the adoption of such measures as may be calculated to cultivate future friendly relations between that country and the United States.

           SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

            The general orders were then taken up, the unfinished business of which was the further consideration of the bill for the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution.  The question was, whether the bill, as amended in Committee of the Whole, should be further amended, having been reported back to the Senate, and the committee’s amendments having been confirmed.

            Mr. TAPPAN submitted the following amendment; which was read and adopted:

            At the end of the 4th section to add.

            And all laws for the protection of public property in the city of Washington shall apply to, and be in force for, the protection of the lands, buildings and other property of said institution; and all prosecutions for trespass upon said property and all civil suits on behalf of said institution, shall be prosecuted in the name of the United States in any court having competent jurisdiction of the same.

            The bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

            Other business came up, after which, the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            Mr. WENTWORTH submitted the following resolution, which was laid upon the table:

            Resolved, That the Secretary of War furnish to this House the proceeding and opinion of a court of inquiry convened by direction of the Secretary of War, in March 1841, at Fort Gibson, to investigate the conduct and character of Surgeon P. Maxwell, upon charges and imputations made against him by the Surgeon General in certain official papers, and all the correspondence and papers connected therewith.

            Mr. DOUGLASS asked leave, in pursuance of notice given yesterday, to introduce a bill to establish a line of military posts through the territories of Nebraska and Oregon.

            At the request of Mr. Adams, the bill was read.  It authorizes the President of the United States to cause to be established such military posts in Nebraska and Oregon as shall be necessary to protect the commerce of the United States with New Mexico, and California, and afford protection to emigrants to Oregon from depredation; the troops of the United States to be employed wherever, in the opinion of the President, this can be done with a just regard to their other duties, and in such manner as he shall direct; one hundred thousand dollars are to be applied to accomplish the object of the bill.

            It was read a second time, ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

            TEXAS AGAIN

            Mr. ROBINSON asked leave to introduce a bill providing for the annexation of  Texas to the U. States.

            Mr. McCONNELL and Mr. PAYNE(as the reporter understood) objected to the reception of the bill.

            Mr. DROMGOOLE hoped the bill would be received, and to take the same course as other bills on this subject has taken-viz: to refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

            Mr. PRESTON KING moved a suspension of the rules, for the purpose of receiving and referring this bill.

            A BILL to provide for the annexation of Texas.

            to the United States

            Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America as Congress assembled, That so much of Texas as may be embraced in an area not exceeding that of the largest State in the Union, and as shall be described  in the Constitution to be adopted as hereinafter provided, shall, on the adoption of a Constitution by the people thereof as a State, is accordance with the Constitution of the United States and of the provisions of this act, and on the transmission of such constitution to the President of the United States, on or before the 4th day of July next, be and the same is hereby, upon the proclamation thereof, admitted as one of the States of this Union.

            Sec. 2. And be further enacted, That such Constitution shall contain a provision ceding to the United States, the jurisdiction of the reside of the Territory of Texas, in which slavery shall not exist, unless Congress shall hereafter so determine by law; and this act of admission shall not be construed to simply any assumption of or intention on the part of the United States to assume now or hereafter the debts or any portion thereof, of Texas, or to impair the right of said State to the soil of the territory so to be ceded, or he right of the State of Texas to determine whether slavery shall or shall not exist in said State.

            Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, Until the next appointment of representatives among the States, the said State of Texas shall be entitled to two Senators and two Representatives in Congress.

            Mr. STUART interposed his opposition.

            And, according to the 116th rule, in such cases, the question was, “Shall this bill be rejected?”

            A conversation ensued between Messrs DROMGOOLE and PAYNE, and the SPEAKER at the termination of which  

            Mr. GARRET DAVIS inquired whether it would be in order to introduce an amendment for the annexation of the United States to Texas?

            The SPEAKER informed the gentlemen that it would not.

            A motion was made to lay the bill on the table, but it was subsequently withdrawn.

            Mr. DROMGOOLE inquired if the bill be not rejected, would it not be in order to follow up the second reading with a motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union?

            The SPEAKER responded, that should the bill not be rejected, it would go to a second reading, and a motion would be in order.

            The question being on the rejection of the bill.

            Mr. HOUSTON expressed his opinion that the bill was wrong in its material provisions and important features.

            Mr. PAYNE coincided in the views expressed by his colleague; and he took the occasion to say that he was hot only opposed to this, but to any other similar bill for the annexation of Texas, and hoped that it might be rejected.  Nearly every proposition on this subject had for its object an interference with the institutions of the South-the direct abolition of slavery; and for that reason be objected to it.  Considering the quarter from which the motion came, he would consider the vote to be taken as a test question.

            Mr. SAUNDERS of North Carolina could not so regard it.  He was disposed to receive all propositions which may be presented, and refer them with those herefore submitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, that consultation might take place on their relative merits.

            Mr. DROMGOOLE said, that by voting against the rejection of the bill, he would by no means commit himself to the details of any one of the measures.  He would do so, because he wished them all examined, discussed and moulded to such shape as the majority of the friends of annexation should desire.

            Mr. STUART admitted that his object in opposing the bill, was to bring the House to vote on the question-and to see who were in favor, not of extending the cause of freedom, but slavery.

            Mr. SEYMOUR, in the course of his remarks, although he did not believe that Congress had the power, by legislative action, to acquire foreign territory, said that he was willing that the bill introduced by his colleague should take the usual course, by being referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

            Mr. PAYNE made a personal explanation in the regard to an observation which had been applied to him.  He said that the bill was designed to demolish the Texas question, and, being friendly to annexation, he opposed the proposition before them, coming as it did from an unfriendly quarter.  And he renewed the motion for the previous question (which had been withdrawn several times, to enable gentlemen to address the House.)

            Mr. ATKINSON thought that his was rather unkind, for it cut him off from making personal explanation; and he was proceeding with his remarks when

            Mr. PAYNE arose ,and made an inquiry whether the gentleman had made a speech with required explanation?

            Mr. ATKINSON said that he had made no speech, but it was important for to explain his views for the information of his constituents.

            The SPEAKER informed the gentleman that he was not in order, a motion having been made for the previous question.

            Mr. ATKINSON asked to be excused from voting.  [Several voices, “Now give your reasons.”]  And he was about to do so, but was prevented by

            The SPEAKER, who against reminded the gentleman that he could not, for the reason already stated.

            The question was taken on seconding the demand for the previous question, but it was not sustained-ayes 71, noes 91.

            Mr. ATKINSON now obtained the floor, and said that he was happy to find himself in possession of it by Parliamentary usage, without being indebted for it to the courtesy of any one man-He did not desire to inflict a speech on the House, but merely to set himself right before the people he had the honor to represent, respecting the question now pending.

            Mr. A. had not troubled the House on this subject; not because he did not feel as lively an interest in it as those who had spoken, but because he found here that those who were highest one particular, stood the best chance.  [A laugh.  A voice:  “What is the particular?”  Increased laughter.]  Mr. A. was poor at a scramble, especially at his time of life.  He was opposed to this and to all bills and resolutions which declared that Texas should not come into the Union (as he hoped she would do before the present Congressed adjourned) perfectly free as to her municipal regulations.  He did not desire that when the question of Oregon should be raised here, the question of slavery should be raised also as a bugbear; he was for admitting all new States, with perfect liberty to adopt slavery, or prefer white labor, just as they pleased.  He did live in a slaveholding State, but he should not raise the issue here whether slavery was a curse of a blessing: it was enough for him to know, that his people were guilty of no moral turpitude, or of any course which made slavery other than consistent with the happiness of the people; for them he should not argue the question here.

            But, while he was opposed to the bill of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Tobinson) because it proposed to restrict the admission of Texas, he would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Stuart) Temeo Danas, etdoma  ferentes: he should not seek or take advice from an enemy; if he took any, it must be from those entertaining the same general views with himself.  Now, suppose Mr. A. had been compelled to vote without any remarks in explanation?  What might have been said of his course in his own district?  If he voted for the rejection, he would be abused for refusing to the mover and friends of this bill the same courtesy which had been extended to her in the like circumstances; and if he voted against it, then he might be considered as in favor of imposing restrictions on Texas on the subject of slavery.  Hence it was that he had desired the floor.

            He agreed with his colleague (Mr. Dromgoole) in desiring that this proposition should have a fair opportunity of being made as acceptable as possible, and then he could judge whether he would go for or against it.  After some remarks on the constitutionality of admitting Texas and other foreign States, he concluded with saying that, if it should turn out that they could not get Texas in without some restrictions, he hoped they would be as few as possible.

            The bill was then read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

            TEXAS AND OREGON

            Mr. TILDEN presented the resolutions of the Legislature of Ohio, in opposition to the annexation of Texas, and in favor of the Territory of Oregon; which were referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

            TREATY BETWEEN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES

            A message was received from the President of the United States as follows;

            To the House of Representatives

            I communicate, herewith an abstract of the Treaty between the United States of America and the Chinese empire, concluded at Wang Hiya on the 3rd of July last and ratified by the Senate on the 10th instant; and which having also been ratified by the Emperor of China, now awaits only the exchange of ratifications in China; from which it will be seen that the special mission authorized by Congress for this purpose, has fully succeeded in the accomplishment, so far, of the great objects for which it was appointed, and in placing our relations with China on a new founding eminently favorable to the commerce and other interests of the United States.

            In view of the magnitude and importance of our national concerns, actual and prospective, in China, I submit to the consideration of Congress the expediency of providing for the preservation and cultivation of the subsisting relations of amity between the United States and the Chinese Government, either by means of a permanent Minister or Commissioner, with diplomatic functions as in the case of certain of the Mahomet an States.  It appears by one of the extracts annexed, that the establishment of the British Government in China, consists both of Plenipotentiary, and also of paid Consuls for all the five ports on of whom has the title and exercises and functions of Consul General; and France has also a salaried Consul General; and the interests of the some representative in China of a higher class than an ordinary commercial Consulate.

            I also submit to the consideration of Congress the expediency of making some special provision by law, for the security of the independent and honorable position, which the treaty of Wang Hiya confers on citizens of the U. States residing or doing business in China.  By the twenty first and twenty-fifth articles of the treaty(copies of which are subjoined in […]) citizens of the U. States in China are wholly exempted as well in criminal as in civil matters from the local jurisdiction of the Chinese Government, and made amenable to the laws and subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate authorities of the U.S. alone.  Some action on the part of Congress seems desirable, in order to give full effect to these important concessions of the Chinese Government.

            Washington, January 22, 1845

            ANNEXATION OF TEXAS

            The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union(Mr. Hopkins in the chair) and resumed the consideration of the joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas to the U.S.

            Messrs. RATHBUN and POLLOCK spoke in opposition to the measure, and Mr. COBB, in its favor.

            Mr. POLLOCK was the last to address the committee.  When he concluded-

            Mr. HARALSON was successful above many competitors in obtaining the floor; and, it being at a late hour, he moved that the committee rise.

            The question was taken, and the vote stood-ayes 25, noes 42; no quorum voting.

            Mr. ADAMS demanded that the committee rise and report hat fact to the House, which was accordingly done.

            Mr. VINTON moved that the House adjourn.

            Mr. D.L. SEYMOUR called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered.

            The question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative yeas 46, nays 41, So the House adjourned.

[AMB]


Friday, January 24, 1845 RE41i83p4c6

Texas

     Our latest date from New Orleans is Monday, the 13th, on which day the Legislature of Louisiana was to have taken up the Texas resolutions. Every press in the city seems to have its attention directed to the result of its proceedings. “The Tropic” (a decided Whig paper) deprecates any unnecessary discussion – says, that “every man has formed his opinion,” and comes out frankly with the declaration, that, “If the people of Louisiana are opposed to annexation, let the legislature say so without further ado, and reject the resolution of Mr. Gayarre; but if, on the contrary, they are, as we believe, in favor of annexation, whenever it can be brought about in a constitutional manner, and without injustice to any one, the sooner it is adopted, the better. It is very clear to our minds, that a large majority of the people are in favor of annexation in some form, provided the measure can be consummated ‘without dishonor,’ and we see no reason in any portion of the Legislature thwarting that wish. At all events, let what is to be done be done at once, without useless and unnecessary procrastination. Action, and not speech-making, is what the people want.”

     This is precisely the case with our own General Assembly – and we respectfully recommend the advice of the “Tropic” to their consideration. If there cannot be the slightest doubt, that “a large majority of the people of Virginia, are in favor of annexation,” why does not the House of Delegates declare it openly, frankly and promptly? Why all this idle delay – this “unnecessary procrastination.” “Again, we repeat with the Whig Tropic,” “Action, and not speech-making, is what the people want.”

     The “New Orleans Jeffersonian Republican” of Monday morning also calls for immediate action. It proclaims, that “The popular will has been sufficiently expressed. No man can mistake it. An overwhelming majority of the people, without distinction of party, demand from their Representatives an affirmative opinion in favor of immediate Annexation. (Just so in Virginia!) Our Senators in Congress expect it, and we feel satisfied they will act upon the expression of the opinion of the Legislature. (We understand that one, if not both the Senators of Virginia would act upon the instructions of our Legislature.) Such is the sentiment of many distinguished Whig gentlemen, with whom we have conversed. We repeat what we have heretofore urged, that there is no disposition to treat this any longer as a party question. Let both parties equally share the honor of accomplishing a measure essential to the whole Union, but especially to Louisiana. If these resolutions pass, our Senators will respect them, and their change of position will influence other Senators, and Texas will be annexed. But should be the Legislature of Louisiana refuse to act, the responsibility of the defeat of this great measure must rest here.”

     In the name of the people, therefore, we call upon the House of Delegates to act, and to act at once. We call upon the Republican members to move the measure without delay – and to call up the resolutions of the Senate. If they are laid upon the table, then originate a new and strong resolution, and put it at once to the lest – who goes for Annexation? Who goes for his own country against Great Britain? Who goes for re-annexing to our Union that extensive and beautiful territory, which was acquired by our illustrious Jefferson as a part of Louisiana – which was unwittingly ceded away to Spain, not Mexico, in 1819 – which H. Clay declared at the time could not be ceded away – which every President and secretary of State, as Mr. Haywood proves, has since attempted to re-acquire – which now offers to throw itself into our arms – which is almost as essential to our military defence and general welfare, as the possession of the mouth of the Mississippi once was – which opens a field for the manufactures and shipping of the North – a market for the iron and other fabrics of the Middle States – and which is intimately connected with our own peculiar institutions, without adding one more slave to the Union, and which gives us simply the same opportunity of removing them from the James River to the Sabine, according to the terms of the Missouri Compromise, as applied to Texas at the period of the ratification of the Treaty of Florida, whilst the immense area from the Mississippi to the Pacific is spread out to the “free States,” to be carved up into as many States as will secure their preponderance in the Government of the Republic? Whilst annexation thus presents so many advantages to every section of our Union, why do we hesitate to admit her into the Union, and spread out so extensive and noble a theatre for the expansion of our free institutions? Why should we pause on this subject? Why should not the Delegates in the General Assembly, be they Delegates or be they Whigs, come forward at once, and proclaim their determination to stand by their country, and instruct our Senators to vote for annexation? We trust in Heaven, that all party spirit may be exercised for once, and that all party distinctions. But if not; it the Whigs will sacrifice their country to faction, why, “let the responsibility of the defeat of the resolutions rest here” – here upon them- and let the people of Virginia know the men to whom they are to be indebted for this enormous sacrifice of their interests.

     But, as we trace these rapid remarks upon the paper, the Northern Mail arrives, and brings us the following cheering letters from Washington of Monday night – along with the newspapers, containing the interesting proceedings of that day in the House of Representatives. We congratulate the country on these signs, and trust that all will yet be well. But shall the other States act upon this great subject, and not we? Shall Virginia, the great Southern State, who is so deeply interested in this question, be found wanting in this crisis? Shall her Legislature now flinch, and dodge the question, because the Whigs have happened to carry a majority of the House of Delegates last Spring? – and now 6,000 majority declare in our favor!) – Shall Virginia, who has always been the first to speak out on all great questions, shrink from the office, which courts her responsibility? Shall she yield the palm to others? Shall she, who has hitherto yielded to none in firmness of purpose and integrity of principle, pause now – NOW, when the other States are coming forward to meet the question, with the dignity which suits the occasion? Pride – principle – patriotism – our ancient renown – every consideration of the most solemn and stirring character, alike forbid it!

[AMB]


Friday, January 24, 1845 RE41i83p2c1

Twenty-Eighth Congressional -2nd Ses. Wednesday, Jan. 22. In Senate.

     Mr. ALLEN presented resolutions from the General Assembly of Ohio, requesting the Government of the United States to take entire and immediate control over the territory of Oregon, and protesting against the surrender of any portion of that territory, by treaty or otherwise, to any foreign government; also one from the same body, against the annexation of Texas; which were read and ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

     The bill for improving the Cumberland road, in the State of Ohio, came up for a third reading, which, on its passage, the yeas and nays being called for, resulted as follows: yeas 25, nays 14.

     The bill making compensation to the State of Massachusetts for military services during the last war with Great Britain also passed: yeas 25, nays 18.

     The bill for the relief of Joshua Shaw, granting him $25,000 for certain improvements, in percussion caps, came up for decision, and was advocated by Messrs. CRITTENDEN and BUCHANAN, and opposed by Messrs. HENDERSON, BAGBY and TAPPAN.

     Mr. BAGBY moved that it be recommitted to the Committee on Patents, with instructions that they report it back reducing the sum from $25,000 to 10,000.

     The question was then taken on referring it by ayes and nays, when it was decided in the negative by yeas 20, nays 23.

      The question then recurring on its final passage, the vote by ayes and nays stood follows – ayes 26, nays 16.

     A message was received from the President of the United States by his private Secretary, John Tyler Jr., communicating certain information respecting the late treaty with China, and asking Congress for the adoption of such measures as may be calculated to cultivate future friendly relations between that country and the United States.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

     The general orders were then taken up the unfinished business of which was the further consideration of the bill for the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. The question was, whether the bill, as amended in Committee of the Whole should be further amended, having been reported back to the Senate, and the committee’s amendments having been confirmed.

     Mr. TAPPAN submitted the following amendment; which was read and adopted:

     At the end of the 4th section to add,

     And all laws for the protection of public property in the city of Washington shall apply to, and be in force for, the protection of the lands, building and other property of said institution; and all prosecutions for trespass upon said property, and all civil suits on behalf of said institution, shall be prosecuted in the name of the United States in any court having competent jurisdiction of the same.

     The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.

     Other business came up, after which, the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SURGEON P. MAXWELL.

     Mr. WENTWORTH submitted the following resolution, which was laid upon the table:

     Resolved, That the Secretary of War furnish to this House the proceeding and opinion of a court of inquiry convened by direction of the Secretary of War, in March, 1841, at Fort Gibson , to investigate the conduct and character of Surgeon P. Maxwell, upon charges and imputations made against him by the Surgeon General in certain official papers, and all the correspondence and papers connected therewith.

NEBRASKA AND OREGON.

      Mr. DOUGLASS asked leave, in pursuance of notice given yesterday, to introduce a bill to establish a line of military posts through the territories of Nebraska and Oregon.

     At the request of Mr. Adams, the bill was read. It authorizes the President of the United States to cause to be established such military posts in Nebraska and Oregon as shall be necessary to protect the commerce of the United States with New Mexico and California, and afford protection to emigrants to Oregon, from depredation; the troops of the United States to be employed wherever, in the opinion of the President, this can be done with a just regard to their other duties, and in such manner as he shall direct; one hundred thousand dollars are to be applied to accomplish the object of the bill.

     It was read a second time, ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

TEXAS AGAIN.

     Mr. ROBINSON asked leave to introduce a bill providing for the annexation of Texas to the U. States.

     Mr. McCONNELL and Mr. PAYNE (as the reporter understood) objected to the reception of the bill.

     Mr. DROMGOOLE hoped the bill would be received, and to take the same course as other bills on this subject has taken – viz: to refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

     Mr. PRESTON KING moved a suspension of the rules, for the purpose of receiving and referring this bill.

     The bill was read for information, as follows:

A BILL to provide for the annexation of Texas to the United States.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That so much of Texas as may be embraced in an area not exceeding that of the largest State in the Union, and as shall be described in the Constitution to be adopted as hereinafter provided, shall, on the adoption of a Constitution by the people thereof as a State, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and of the provisions of this act, and on the transmission of such constitution to the President of the United States, on or before the 4th day of July next, be and the same is hereby, upon the proclamation thereof, admitted as one of the States of this Union.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That such Constitution shall contain a provision ceding to the United States, the jurisdiction of the residue of the territory of Texas, in which slavery shall not exist, unless Congress shall hereafter so determine by law; and this act of admission shall not be construed to imply any assumption of or intention of the part of the United States to assume now or hereafter the debts, or any portion thereof, of Texas, or to impair the right of said State to the soil of the territory so to be ceded, for the right of the State of Texas, or to impair the right of said State to the soil of the territory so to be ceded, for the right of the State of Texas to determine whether slavery shall or shall not exist in said State.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, Until the next apportionment representatives among the States, the said State of Texas shall be entitled to two Senators, the said State of Texas shall be entitled to two Senators and two Representatives in Congress.

     Mr. STUART interposed his opposition:
     And, according to the 116th rule, in such cases, the question was, “Shall this bill be rejected?”

     A conversation ensued between Messrs. DROMGOOLE and PAYNE, and the SPEAKER: at the termination of which

     Mr. GARRET DAVIS inquired whether it would be in order to introduce an amendment for the annexation of the United States to Texas?

     The SPEAKER informed the gentleman that [ . . . ]  would not.

     A motion was made to lay the bill on the table, but it was subsequently withdrawn.

     Mr. DROMGOOLE inquired if the bill be not rejected, would it not be in order to follow up the second reading with a motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union?

     The Speaker responded, that should the bill not be rejected, it would go to a second reading, and a motion would be in order.

     The question being on the rejection of the bill,

     Mr. HOUSTON expressed his opinion that the bill was wrong in its material provisions and important features.

     Mr. PAYNE coincided in the views expressed by his colleague and he took the occasion to say that he was not only opposed to this, but to any other similar bill for annexation of Texas, and hoped that it might be rejected. Nearly every proposition on this subject had for its object an interference with the institutions of the South – the direct abolition of slavery; and for that reason the objected to it. Considering the quarter from which the motion came, he would consider the vote to be taken as a test question.

     Mr. SAUNDERS of North Carolina could not so regard it. He was disposed to receive all propositions which may be presented, and refer them with those heretofore submitted to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, that consultation might take place on their relative merits.

     Mr. DROMGOOLE said, that by voting against the rejection of the bill, he would by no means commit himself to the details of any one of the measures. He would do so, because he wished them all examined, discussed and moulded to such shape as the majority of the friends of annexation should desire.

     Mr. STUART admitted that his object in opposing the bill, was to bring the House to vote on the question – and to see who were in favor, not of extending the cause of freedom, but slavery.

     Mr. SEYMOUR, in the course of his remarks, although he did not believe that Congress had the although he did not believe that Congress had the power, by legislature action, to acquire foreign territory, said that he was willing that the bill introduced by his colleague should take the usual course, by being referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

     Mr. PAYNE made a personal explanation in regard to an observation which had been applied to him. He said that the bill was designed to demolish the Texas question, and being friendly to annexation, he opposed the proposition before them, coming as it did from an unfriendly quarter. And he renewed the motion for the previous question, (which had been withdrawn several times, to enable gentlemen to address the House.)

     Mr. ATKINSON thought that this was rather unkind for it cut him off from making a personal explanation; and he was proceeding with his remarks, when

     Mr. PAYNE arose, and made an inquiry, whether the gentleman had made a speech which required explanation?

     Mr. ATKINSON said that he had made no speech, but it was important for him to explain his views for the information of his constituents.

      The SPEAKER informed the gentleman that he was not in order, a motion having been made for the previous question.

      Mr. ATKINSON asked to be excused from voting. [Several voices, “Now give your reasons.”] And he was about to do so, but was prevented by

     The SPEAKER, who again reminded the gentleman that he could not for the reason already stated.

     The question was taken on seconding the demand for the previous question, but it was not sustain – ayes 71, noes 91.

     Mr. ATKINSON now obtained the floor, and said that he was happy to find himself in possession of it by Parliamentary usage, without being indebted for it to the courtesy of any one man. – He did not desire to inflict a speech or the House, but merely to set himself right before the people he had the honor to represent, respecting the question now pending.

     Mr. A. had not troubled the House on this subject not because he did not feel as lively an interest in it as those who had spoken, but because he found here that those who were lightest in one particular, stood the best chance. [A laugh. A voice: “What is the particular?” Increased laughter.] Mr. A. was poor at a scramble, especially at his time of life. He was opposed to this, and to all bills and resolutions which declared that Texas should not come into the Union (as he hoped she would do before the present Congress adjourned) perfectly free as to her municipal regulations. H e did not desire that when the question of Oregon should be raised here the question of Oregon should be raised here the question of slavery should be raised also as a bugbear; he was for admitting all new States, with perfect liberty to adopt slavery, or prefer white labor, just as the pleased. He did live in a slaveholding State, but he should not raise the issue here whether slavery was a curse or a blessing; it was enough for him to know that his people were guilty of no moral turpitude, or of any course which made slavery other than consistent with the happiness of the people; for them he should not argue the question here.

      But, while he was opposed to the bill of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Robinson) because, it proposed to restrict the admission of Texas, he would sat to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Stuart) Times Danaus, et dona fetentes [ . . . ] he should not seek or take advice from an enemy, if he took any, it must be from those entertaining the same general views with himself. Now, suppose Mr. A. had been compelled to vote without any remarks in explanation? What might have been said of his course in his own district? If he voted for the rejection he would be abused for refusing to the mover and friends of this bill the same courtesy which had been extended to others in the like circumstances; and if he voted against it, then he might be considered as in favor of imposing restrictions on Texas on the subject of slavery. Hence it was that he had desired the floor.

     He agreed with his colleague (Mr. Dromgoole) in desiring that this proposition should have a fair opportunity of being made as acceptable as possible, and then he could judge whether he would go for or against it. After some remarks on the constitutionality of admitting Texas and other foreign States, he concluded with saying that, if it should turn out that they could no get Texas in without some restrictions, he hoped they would be as few as possible.

     The bill was then read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

TEXAS AND OREGON.

     Mr. TILDEN presented the resolutions of the Legislature of Ohio, in opposition to the annexation of Texas, and in favor of the Territory of Oregon; which were referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

TREATY BETWEEN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES.

     A message was received from the President of the United States as follows,

To the House of Representatives:

     I communicate, herewith, an abstract of the Treaty between the United States of America and the Chinese Empire, concluded at Wang Hiya on the 3d of July last, and ratified by the Senate on the 10th instant; and which having also been ratified by the Emperor of China, now awaits, only the exchange of ratifications in China; from which it will be seen that the special mission authorized by Congress for this purpose, has fully succeeded in the accomplishment, so far, of the great objects for which it was appointed, and in placing our relations with China on a new footing eminently favorable to the commerce and other interests of the United States.

     In view of the magnitude and importance of our national concerns, actual and prospective, in China, I submit to the consideration of Congress the expediency of providing for the preservation and cultivation of the subsisting relations of amity between the United States  and the Chinese Government, either by means of a permanent Minister or commissioner, with diplomatic functions as in the case of certain of the Mahometan States. It appears by one of the extracts annexed, that the establishment of the British Government in China, consists both of a Plenipotentiary, and also a paid Consuls for all the five ports one of which has the title and exercises the functions of Consul General; and France has also a salaried Consul General; and the interests of the United States, seem, in like manner, to call for some representative in China of a higher class than an ordinary commercial Consulate.

     I also submit to the consideration of Congress, the expediency of making some special provision by law, for the security of the independent and honorable position, which the treaty of Wang-hiya confers on citizens of the U. States residing or doing business in China. By the twenty first and twenty-fifth articles of the treaty (copies of which are subjoined in extenso) citizens of the U. States in China are wholly exempted as well in criminal as in civil matters from the local jurisdiction of the Chinese Government, and made amenable to the laws and subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate authorities of the U. S. alone. Some action on the part of Congress seems desirable, in order to give full effect to see important concessions of the Chinese Government.

JOHN TYLER.

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

     The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Hopkins in the chair,) and, resumed the consideration of the joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas to the U.S.

     Messrs. RATHBUN and POLLOCK spoke in opposition to the measure, and Mr. COBB in its favor.

     Mr. POLLOCK was the last to address the committee. When he concluded –

     Mr. HARALSON was successful above many competitors in obtaining the floor; and, it being at a late hour, he moved that the committee rise.

     The question was taken, and the vote stood – ayes 25, noes 42; no quorum voting,

     Mr. ADAMS demanded that the committee rise and report that fact to the House; which was accordingly done.

     Mr. VINTON moved that the House adjourn.

     Mr. D. L. SEYMOUR called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered. The question was then taken and decided in the affirmative, yeas 46, nays 44. So

     The House adjourned.

[AMB]


Friday, January 24, 1845 RE41i83p2c3

Yesterday's Proceedings on Texas

     Yesterday’s vote in the House of Delegates was a close one.  The resolutions on Texas were laid on the table by a majority of three only-This is no test of the final decision of the House.  For some of the members said they wanted time for examination.  Some declared that they would take them up before the end of the session.  For our own part, we cannot see why they should be delayed one moment.  To get some light […] Washington, as our friends Strother says.  Mr. Bowden truly replied, that it was our duty to send light to Washington, and communicate our wishes to the Senators of Virginia.  How long would Mr. Strother delay action?  The bill may be acted on at Washington before we can speak at all-and then the Whigs will say, […] speak at all?  Then, let us speak now-act NOW.  Now is the accepted time-now is the only time to speak out if we wish to instruct our agents about the wishes of Virginia.

            Two other Whigs took a still more extraordinary position-one, that he was opposed to instructing our Senators on Federal questions-the other made a still more sweeping declaration, that the House had no right to meddle with Federal politics.  These are strange doctrines.  It is contrary to the whole practice of Virginia, as well as to the course of many of the States on this very question.  It conflicts, too, with the true theory of the rights of the State Legislatures-“The Federalist” holds, that “the State Governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the Federal Government,” and even maintains that, in some case, the State Legislature may not only be the voice of the people, but “the arm of the public discontent.”-When a question of transcendant importance to the whole Union, and especially to the South, comes up, the State Legislatures are bound to speak.  On this very question, Massachusetts and Connecticut have spoken.  They threaten dissolution, if the Federal Government acts in behalf of great national interests.  Their resolutions are before the House.  The Governor has placed them there officially.  The Legislature is bound to notice their contents and to repel their threats.

            We are happy to see the friends of this great question yesterday voting to take up the Resolutions in order to act upon them.  We cannot doubt that the House will yet act upon them, and pass them.  If they do not, the friends of Texas and the Resolutions must appeal to the People.

[AMB]


Friday, January 24, 1845 RE41i83p2c5

Letter to the Editor, Washington City, Jan. 20, 1845 

            The Senate were engaged to-day in the transaction of business uninteresting to your readers.  In the House, ere the Texas question was taken up in Committee, Mr. Douglass of Illinois introduced his bill to establish military posts in Nebraska and Oregon.  It directs the President to cause to be established such military posts as shall be necessary to protect our commerce with New Mexico and California, and the trade and immigration to Oregon.  It further provides for the appropriation of $100,000 for the object, the work to be done by the United States soldiers, as in other cases.

            Mr. Robinson of New York next introduced a series of resolutions relative to there-annexation of Texas.  They provide, that she shall be admitted as a slave-holding or non-slave-holding State, as the inhabitants thereof may choose with prescribed limits, (not to exceed the State of New York in dimensions)-that her public domain shall remain her own property, as a fund for paying her debts-that the rest of the territory shall be divided into States, of convenient size; and admitted into the Union, with or without slaves, as Congress may determine, whenever they shall have the requisite population to entitle them to admission.

            The reception and reference of these resolutions were immediately objected to by Mr. A. Stewart, of Pennsylvania, and other ultra Federalists, avowedly with the purpose of distracting the friends of the measure, on the one hand; and on the other by Mr. Payne of Alabama, and other of our friends, who felt indignant, that a proposition so utterly inadmissible should originate with any portion of Democratic party.  It created great confusing, and an hour’s debate-in which Messrs. Stewart of Pennsylvania, Payne of Alabama,  Saunders of North Carolina, Garret Davis of Kentucky, Dromgoole of Virginia, Hopkins of Virginia, and Atkinson of Virginia took part.  Finally upon Mr. Dromgoole’s suggestion-that though so exceedingly objectionable, no true friend of re-annexation could vote for it, yet it was no less the duty of the House to treat it with the respect accorded to all other propositions on the subject, by a reference to the Committee of the Whole.  It was referred by a vote of 119 to 63.  By reference to the list of yeas and nays on the question, you will perceive that it was no test vote-some of the friends and opponents of the annexation voting on either side.

            Immediately on deciding this question, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, and Mr. Rathbun spoke his hour in steady opposition to Texas.  He devoted the greater part of his time to an attempt to prove it unconstitutional to acquire Texas in any other manner than by treaty; yet, singularly enough, expressed his perfect readiness to swallow his long array of constitutional objections, provided Mr. Robinson’s project, which goes to divide the territory into one slaveholding and four or five non-slaveholding States, be accepted.  In the course of his remarks, he stepped, as it appeared to me, rather out of his way, to administer you a rap or two over the knuckles, for the manner in which you have commented on the position and prospects  of those Democratic members who refuse to sustain the party on the question.  Nothing but the peculiar turn of the gentleman’s mind could have induced him to torture your comments into a threat about spoils, &c., as he did.  His speech was a queer one, and will be read, as though the gentleman regarded the patronage to be distributed by Mr. Polk as the end and aim of the Democratic party in the contest.

            Mr. Rathbun was followed by Mr. Cobb of Georgia, in favor of re-annexation; and the later, by Mr. Pollock of Pennsylvania, against it.

            Yours, &c.

[AMB]


Friday, January 24, 1845 RE41i83p1c4

Letter to the Editor, Washington City, Jan. 18, 1845

     Dear Sirs: “One more blow for Texas in the Enquirer,” say its friends, and with your good leave, and with all my heart, one more blow say I; but God bless the Whigs! A heap of their rubbish so cumbereth my way, that I fear it will take days of initiative toil, before I can lay the main subject bear to the axe’s edge. – Without farther ceremony, then, I shall at once grapple with two of the most notable bugbears of the Federalists, with which they essay to enlist men’s sympathies or arouse their alarm at every angle of the debate now in progress in the House of Representatives. Be their removal, therefore, my task for to-day – They are, the one, Mr. Jefferson’s opinions upon the constitutional power to acquire foreign territory – the other, whether the “consent of Mexico” be needed as a condition of annexation.

1.     The Federalists in the present debate seem to deem it quite a poser, and altogether the thing, in this debate, to confront the Democracy with the private doubts of Mr. Jefferson upon the constitutional power of acquiring Louisiana. It is altogether refreshing, I own, to find in these our days the very “kith and kin” of those who reviled Mr. Jefferson through life for his imputed errors of judgment upon notable points of constitutional law, now opposing the weight of his single name, against the mightiest mass of authority, that ever was arrayed in support of any one controverted point in the Constitution. – Whatever may be the motive of this distinguished compliment, of this just mortem praise, I acknowledge at once, that there is none among the living or the dead, whose single authority, when he was possessed of all the opportunities to guide him to right judgment, is entitled to more weight than that of Mr. Jefferson.

2.     In the present case, however, there are several things to be said: 1st. We have Mr. Jefferson’s act of acquisition, standing out in opposition to his private doubts about his authority to make it. 2d. We have his example of acquiring territory, to justify its acquisition subsequently, in a similar emergency. 3d. Mr. Jefferson was never so persuaded of his want of authority, as to give his doubts the form of official notice, and recommending to Congress to take initiative measures for amending the Constitution and conferring the power. 4th. Mr. Jefferson’s absence as Minister to France, from 1785 until 1789 [when he was recalled by President Washington to preside over the Department of State,] deprived him of all that personal, practical knowledge of circumstances precedent, attendant upon, and subsequent to, the adoption of important clauses of the Constitution – so useful as a help to just judgment, and which the general knowledge, which usually survives interesting events, but rarely and then very imperfectly supplies. 5th. There is no trace of any proofs, that Mr. Jefferson’s scruples about the constitutional power, out-lived the year 1803 – his last letter mentioning the subject being that to W.C. Nicholas, (dated 17th September, 1803) – and it surely is not too strained an inference to conclude, that those discussions which wrought so through a conviction upon the national mind in admiration of the power of acquisition, was not without its effect upon the mind of great author who originated that measure. And 6th and lastly: Mr. Jefferson had not seen that graphic and secret history of the clause in relation to the admission of “New States” – so luminously set forth in the pages of the Madison Papers, and so plenary of the proofs of the purpose to confer the power in question, that one would think that even skepticism itself might be proselytized by that alone. That Mr. Jefferson knew of the existence of Mr. Madison’s “Notes of the Debates of the Convention,” I am aware, for he mentions them in one of his letters to Mr. John Adams; but, then, we know that Mr. Madison was so scrupulously nice of observance of his original purpose of never revealing those Debates to any one, (taken in Convention, while all its members were under injunctions of secrecy,) during his life-time, that we can hardly believe that Mr. Jefferson ever saw the MS., for, even in his great speech against the constitutionality of a Bank of the United States, during the administration of General Washington, he refrained altogether from a reference to his own racy sketch of the debates upon the subject, and purported to give mere traces of a recollection he had, that application had been made for such a power, and had been rejected by the Convention. So much for Mr. Jefferson’s opinions. The full answer to his early objections belongs to another stage of the discussion, under my arrangement of the topics.

Let us now then proceed to the other bugbear of the Federalists.

2nd. Croakers there are yet remaining in the House, who, with their Crocodile lamentations, and in histrionic seeming, bewail this projected junction of these nations, without our first procuring the “consent of Mexico.” But since the flood of light, which investigation in the course of the last 12 months has cast upon the nature of the connection and relations between Mexico and Texas, these objections are now urged but by few. “Consent of Mexico” indeed! Why, since the facts have been fully elicited, we all see, that Mexico has no more to do with it, and has no more right to be consulted, than has the Kingdom of Brazil, the Republic of Venezuela, or any other of the revolutionized Spanish-American Colonies. That the negotiations with Mexico for the acquisition of Texas, originating with Mr. Adams’ administration, and followed up through that and the succeeding administration of Gen. Jackson, took their rise in true patriotism, and without a purpose or an expectation of giving umbrage to any other nation, cannot be doubted; but I do implicitly believe that the fact, that both administrations should have opened negotiations with a power who had never acquired the least title to Texas, will be regarded hereafter [ . . . ] one of the most remarkable events chronicled in the archives of diplomacy. In making this statement, so sure am I of my facts, and of their potency to silence, for aye, all this senseless jargon and factitious clam or about “national honor” and the “faith of treaties,” that I have been tempted to marshal and epitomize them now; and so, without more ado, here they are:

1.     In all time, Mexico and Texas were never under the dominion of the same European Government, for more than thirty-eight years. The Government referred to, was Old Spain – but she acquired those provinces or colonies by very different titles, to wit: Mexico by discovery and conquest – and Texas from France, by the Secret Treaty of Fontainebleau , on the 3rd of November, 1762. So distinctive were the limits of each, both before and after that treaty, that they preserved throughout the last century those descriptive designations which pointed to the sources of their original titles – the one being called a part of New Spain, the other of New France. Spain sundered her joint dominion of them, by ceding Texas as part of Louisiana, (or New France,) to France, in 1800 – nor have they ever been united since, except by a Federation which I shall presently refer to.

2.     Some date the Revolution of Mexico as far as 1810. Little was done, however, in the way of accomplishment, earlier than 1816 - when [the rest is illegible].

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p1c2

U.S. Senators [from the Albany Argus of Monday.]

            On Saturday, pursuant to concurrent resolution, the Legislature of this State, in their respective branches and finally in joint Convention, appointed John A. Dix of the city of Albany and Daniel S. Dickinson of the county of Broome, U.S. Senators, to supply the vacancies occasioned by the resignations of Silas Wright and Nathaniel P. Tallmadge.

            Gen. Dix is an able and clear-headed politician, and an accomplished and estimable citizen.  He has been long known to the Democracy of the State, and has held various and high offices under the State government, the duties of which he has discharged with equal ability and approval.  He takes the place filled so long and with such eminent distinction by Gov. Wright, and temporarily by one so well fitted for it, by high abilities and legislative experience, as Mr. Foster.

            Lieutenant Governor Dickinson is not less, no less favorably known to the Democracy than his colleague.  In his Senatorial character, as a Representative of the Sixth Senate District, and in the discharge of the duties of the second office under the State Government, he obtained a deserving eminence as an able Legislator, a courteous and impartial presiding officer, and as an inflexible and ready champion of the Democratic interests.  Springing from the people, his sympathies and feelings are with the masses, and they have nowhere a truer friend or a more efficient advocate.  As a leading member in the Baltimore Convention, he performed his duty to his State and its candidate with approved fidelity and effective zeal; and as a State Elector, he was not less prominent in the discharge of his duty to the Democracy of the Union.  Indeed, in all the labors of the recent great campaign, he as well as Messrs. Foster and Dix, was among the foremost in valuable service.

            Upon all the questions of national and public importance, which divide the Democracy from the Federalism of the day, the views of both are no doubt identical.  Mr. Dickinson’s views of Annexation are before the public, and are explicitly in favor of the measure, and in accordance with those of the President Elect.  The distinctive opinions of General Dix upon this question, have not as yet, we believe, been publicly avowed.-[Albany Argus]

            (We understand, through a letter from a distinguished and respected source in New York, that Mr. Dix goes for Texas-[Enquirer].

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p1c3

Editorial   

The Washington Correspondent of the Baltimore American notices Col. Benton’s remarks in the Senate on Monday-and says that he “disappointed all who heard it, on account of its brevity.” We confess, too, we are agreeably disappointed, by the tone of them-if we may trust the sketches in the National Intelligencer and Madisonian.-They are calm, unimpassioned, conciliatory –what they ought to have been.  We regard them too as decided in their character-going for annexation, in a spirit of compromise, which must ensure it success in the Senate-not “carefully non-committal,”(as the Baltimore Correspondent intimates,) though they may “prove much more perplexing to his enemies than his friends.”-This, of course, is no objection to us-and we say once for all, that, though we did not approve Col. B.’s bill, nor the character of his speeches, yet, if he will carry out he calm and compromising spirit of his last Monday’s speech, and assist to secure us Texas, we will be the first to honor him.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p1c3

Texas as a State of the Union

     Be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress doth consent that the Territory rightfully included within the limits of Texas 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 Texas, with the consent of the existing Government, upon the following conditions and guaranties, which, when adopted as aforesaid, shall be obligatory as well upon the people of Texas as upon the United States.

     First. That said State be formed, subject to the adjustment by the Government of the United States of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments.

     Second. That the Constitution of said State of Texas, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people thereof, be transmitted to the President of the United States, that the same may be laid before Congress at its next session.

     Third. That Texas shall retain her public lands and other public property, and remain, as at present, responsible for her debts.

     Fourth. That it, hereafter, with the consent of the Legislature of the State now proposed to be admitted, new States be formed within the jurisdiction of said State, said new States shall not exceed three in number, in addition to the said State; and such new States shall be admitted into the Union with or without the institution of slavery, as the people, in each one of said States respectively may, at the time of their application to Congress for admission determine.

     Mr. DANIEL made a constitutional argument in favor of the power of Congress to annex.

     Mr. STONE of Ohio, made a speech in favor of free trade and in strenuous opposition to a protective Tariff, which he considered as the root of all the opposition to Texas annexation.

     Mr. MORSE of Maine, spoke in opposition both to the power and the expediency, and replied to several assaults which had been made on the character of New England.

     Mr. ELLIS read a very finished speech on the policy of annexation generally, which he advocated with great warmth.

      Mr. NORRIS next took the floor, and made a speech in favor of annexation. Mr. N. having concluded, the floor was assigned to

     Mr. STEPHENS, but not being prepared to go on at this late hour, (half-past 7 o’clock.)       A motion was made that the committee rise – which the Committee refused to do.

     Mr. STEPHENS then yielded the floor, as he was unable to make his speech to-night .

     Mr. DARRAGH obtained the floor, and spoke until 20 minutes past eight in opposition to annexation. When he concluded and took his seat,

      Mr. STEPHENS again took the floor.

     A motion was made that the committee rise; on this question a quorum did not vote. Whereupon

     The committee rose and reported that fact.

      And the House adjourned until to-morrow at 11 o’clock.

[Our own excellent correspondent gives us a sketch of Gen. Dromgoole’s argument, which will be found very clear and interesting.]

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p1c6

Glorious Result! The Annexation Resolutions passed the House of Representatives!   

            The simple annunciation of this fact alone, thrills through every American heart, like the sound of the trumpet.  Adams opposed it.  Giddings opposed it.  All the abolition members opposed it.  Most of the Whigs opposed it.  But several of them rose superior to party, and united with the large body of Democrats, to carry this most important measure.  We have not time to analyze in detail the composition of the ayes and noes-but such is the general complexion of the vote.  We have not even time or room to pour forth the gushing effusions of a grateful heart, upon the occasion.  We rejoice for our country-for every section of it, upon the prospect of Texas, originally acquired by the illustrious Jefferson in 1803, and ceded away in 1819, being about to re-enter once more the American Union.  We trust that many days will not clapse[sic] before the “Lone Star” shall cease to twinkle in solitude, and that she will burst forth into full luster as a brilliant star of the American Constellation.  We rejoice for the sake of New England, whose manufactures and whose shipping will receive a new impulse from the markets of Texas.  We rejoice for the sake of New York and Pennsylvania, whose fabrics and whose commerce will be expanded by the noble acquisition.  We rejoice for the sake of West.  We rejoice especially for the South.  We rejoice for the Old Dominion, whose heart warmed to the Texians the very first moment they stuck for their Independence, and whose sympathies have been employed, to win back our arms the beautiful territory, whom her own son acquired for the whole Union in 1803: Joy, joy, then, in Virginia now.  And now we demand, will an infatuated Senate dare to deny us the benefits of a measure, which a majority of 22 of the Representatives of the People have so emphatically pronounced to be essential to the interests of the country?  Will the Senators of Virginia venture to resist the proud torrent of the popular sentiment which irresistibly sweeps onward?  Can the House of Delegates shiver any longer on the brink, and refuse, in the name of the people, to declare boldly , trumpet-tongued, in favor of Annexation?  We appeal to the Whigs of the House-to the high-minded, and patriotic Whigs, who, towering above all the little cabals of party, all the puny considerations which would shamelessly sacrifice their country o the impulses of faction-to them we appeal to show their independent spirit, and to strike one blow for the Old Dominion?  Can the appeal be made in vain?  We would even invoke them in the name of their highest party interests, if we were not afraid to be told that Cassandra may prophecy in vain.  But who can believe, if Texas and they lost to us, by the obstinacy of our Senators, and they lost to us by the dogged refusal of the Whigs in the H. of Delegates to pronounce the wishes of the State, that a storm will not gather around their heads to sweep them into the retirement, which an enlightened people will pronounce to be their just reward?  But we forbear for the present.  The general results of this measure are forcibly explained in the following article from the Saturday’s Globe.-Yet we are almost tempted to strike out the second paragraph of the article.  We regret that our friend of the Globe had not himself stricken it out of his brilliant article.  We cannot sympathize with the positions which it takes.  Our soul is too full of joy to indulge in censure or rebuke upon any one.  But, called up, as we feel ourselves, by the republication of this paragraph, we feel bound to express our thanks to John Tyler, for the vigorous efforts he has made to secure the great object which he has so anxiously sought.  His setting sun is about to sink beneath the horizon, amid the brightness which such a measure is calculated to she around it:

            “Vote Reannexing Texas as a State-The vote in the House of Representatives to-day, providing for the re-admission of Texas into the Union, is a preliminary step of vat importance to the Union.  It is an extinguisher of agitation, and establishes peace and good will between the different sections of our Union o firmly to be shaken by religious fanaticism or political phrenzy [sic].  It is the potent voice of the people calling in a new people to give additional strength to the will of the existing confederacy to sustain.  And it is thus that the expansion of the Union will ever contribute to its power and perpetuity.  The greater the number of States embraced in it, the greater will be interests staked on the inviolability of its peace and security and the greater the mess of influence embodied to looked own pretty sectional attempts to destroy the fraternal ties that hold it together as a nation.  The spasmodic affections which may sometimes seize upon a particular State, will no more disturb the great body politic than the turbulence of a little rill, swollen by a sudden gust, the great ocean into whose bosom it falls.

            “The joint resolution which passed, is the legislative action which we suggested in the first article we wrote upon the subject of Texas before the Treaty was submitted to the Senate.  If this measure had been carried at the last session of Congress, Texas would have been prepared at this time to enter the Union with Iowa.  Mr. Walker, on of the most zealous and efficient advocates of re-annexation, urged the propriety of making it the work of the open and entire legislative councils of the country, instead of a hugger-mugger executive act, taking its complexion, from the motives and its fate from the management, of those who were supposed to have personal views associated with the policy which they held in their own hand.  Rejection was its fate at the last session and at this; but in spite of the disadvantage which resulted from this twice-condemned course of management, the force of the question has borne it along and will secure for it a much higher sanction than that of diplomats and executives-the sanction of the people and their Representatives, the States and their delegations in the Senate of the United States.  Texas will have something more than the faith of executive promises to rely upon.  It will have the act of a representative body; which can grind the power of the Government and all its constituents to make it good.

            “The act authorizes Texas to come in as a State, and this realizes at once the stipulations of the treaty of 1803, which bound the United States by France to perform this very act.  The resolution of this day is, in fact, nothing more than the execution of Mr. Jefferson’s treaty, by which the territory of Texas was acquired.  Mr. Adams’s treaty of 1819 was an abortion.  It ceded the country and the people we were bound by solemn covenants to bring into the Union to the despotism of Spain.  But the people of Texas instantly put in a protest against this breach of faith, proclaimed their freedom, and, having maintained their independence against both Spain and Mexico, now come back o the United States, asking the redemption of the pledge in the treaty under which the country was first settled by our citizens when all the world must admit the abrogation of the treaty through which intriguing diplomacy sought to exonerate the nation from its honest obligations, revives them in full force.

            “There is nothing, in our opinion, to object to in the proposal voted by the House to-day, except that it is loaded with conditions which may form an obstacle to the acceptance of the overture by Texas.  But this can, and we trust will be obviated by future legislation.  If Texas come prepared to enter the Union, the next Congress will be just, and more than just to her.  Wronged at first by a heartless repudiation, she will find that the injustice will be redeemed by generosity, and the kindness, hitherto withheld be paid with usury.

            “The vote on the resolution carried to-day does not show the strength of the question of re-annexation.  There is, we have no doubt, a majority of fifty in the House in favor of restoring Texas to the Union.  Many members thought that the territory ought to be equally divided to provide for the introduction of two slave and two no-slaveholding States.  This, we have little doubt, will be the effect of the act as it passed.-More than half the country is mountainous, or at least elevated, cold, and of a pastoral character.-If this country is ever to be settled, it must be by a white population exclusively.  It will be the interest of the earlier admitted State to make it so; and it is left to the election of the States which hare to grow up in this high grain growing and grazing region to decide, on presenting themselves for admission, whether they will prohibit slavery or not.  As this will be in the choice of the majority, who can doubt as to the result?-North of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes slavery is absolutely prohibited.

            “Upon the whole, we congratulate the Democracy on the vote of the popular branch of Congress. It is auspicious to the peace, prosperity and happiness of the whole continent.”

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p2c1

To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 24, 1845

Dear Sirs:  On yesterday my attention was called to the speech of Mr. Kennedy of Maryland in the Intelligencer, which I had not read before, and finding that he too has striven to cumber our journey’s way, and clog our progress with some apt and ingenious sophistries, all manliness prompts that I should cast them out of our path if I can, rather than to make a fresh path around them, and thus increase the length of travel for those, who may come after us.  His most imposing objection, relates to the qualification of terms of nine and seven years of American citizenship, prescribed by the Constitution for the Senators and Representatives in Congress &c.  But I shall let Mr. Kennedy state his objection in his own way, and keep my skirts clear of all imputation of robbing the objection of one atom of its strength, if it has any, by any dexterous abbreviations of mine.  He thus puts forth his objection:

            “The Constitution requires of every member of the House of Representatives, that he shall have been seven years a citizen of the United States, and of every Senator to have been nine years a citizen.  It is manifest, that these conditions cannot exist amongst the inhabitants of a Foreign State.  Every citizen of Texas is at this moment a foreigner to the United States, even although he may have recently emigrated from this country.  We avow the right of expatriation.  Our citizens lose their citizenship when they change their allegiance.  This is one of our cardinal principles.  Now, it is true, that an act of Congress may convert the inhabitants of Texas into citizens of the United States, but it cannot make them citizens of seven and nine years standing.  In contemplations of law, there can be no persons in Texas having these qualifications, &c.  The deduction from this is, that Congress cannot make a new State from a foreign nation, without first acquiring the territory of the foreign nation, and holding it long enough for its citizens to become endowed with the requisites to make them a State-that is to say, with qualifications essential to give them a representation of Congress.  This shows conclusively, if other arguments were wanting that the two powers of acquiring territory, and admitting a State, are separate and distinct.”

            This solemn gravity of style, which so strongly contrasts with other parts of the speech, indicates the author’s estimate of the important aid he had thus contributed against the cause of annexation, and it is said, that his manner in its delivery very solemnly indicated that the annunciation of such a point was fully worthy of one of those “sensations,” with which the French Chamber of Deputies sometimes reward commanding novelties and brilliant sentiment.  Be this as it may, the expected “sensation,” if it existed actually, only existed in the mind, and was altogether too shy and prudish to display itself in the manner; and though I may not commend this dogged discourtesy in the House, still the ungracious task devolves upon me to show, if I can, that its application, yet, that after all, “there was nothing in it.”  This reminds me of a band once occurring between Lord Avorimore and Mr. Curran.  Lord A.’s only infirmity as a Judge was a provoking anticipation of what counsel meant to say, and “giving item” of its effect upon him.  This annoyed Curran very much; and on one occasion, when addressing a jury before his Lordship, perceived that his Lordship attracted the jury’s attention, by shaking his head in dissent, he gave him a ken home thrust of sudden, which his Lordship never forgot, by simply observing to this jury, “Don’t be at all concerned, gentlemen, at what his Lordship had done.  I know him much better than you do, and you may rest quite assured, that when his Lordship shakes his head , there’s nothing in it.”

            Federal scepticism itself will hardly dispute but that the term “United States”, wherever it occurs in the Federal Constitution, refers especially and exclusively to those States and those States only, who became and were united by that very Constitution into one and the same federative Government at the time it was ratified, with a capacity besides to be applied to any other States which should become united with them, under the same Constitution.  The terms, as there used, apply to this Union and to none other, not to any Union that either preceded this Union, , nor to any Union which may be formed hereafter.  When we speak therefore of a “a citizen of the United States,” we have exclusive reference to the States thus united under that Constitution; and a fortiori, that Constitution itself, in using the terms “a citizen of the United States” must mean these United States, thus federated into one for National purposes, by that very fact of Union.  The Constitution was formed in 1787, ratified in 1788, and went into full operation on the 4th day of March 1789, by the assembling of the President and both Houses of Congress on that day at the city of New York, their taking the oaths prescribed and entering upon their several duties.

            Be our thanks evermore then, the dues of Providence, that Mr. Kennedy’s manhood and destinies were not cast with our fathers of that day and generation!  What incalculable mischiefs, embarrassments, anarchies, (it may be) revolutions and civil wars, have we not thereby been spared!  How so?  How can this be?  How can it be?-why, if Mr. Kennedy’s position be good […], it was always good, and of consequence was good, when the first Congress was assembled-What a bomb-shell then would have been this of Mr. Kennedy, to have been cast and exploded in their midst, scattering the Congress, bowing the Government to atoms, and as the Confederation had been dissolved, leaving the States without any common government to prosper, bind or protect them-leaving a perfect Constitution and a perfect Union, but without a man in States or Union, qualified for its administration!  The convention who framed the constitution, and the States who ratified it, idiots that they were!  Disfranchised and incapacitated themselves and every one from putting it in operation during the nocum prematur in annum.  But could this have been so?  I tell you it was inevitable; provided, mind ye, provided  Mr. Kennedy is right-for, if the terms “a citizen of the U. States” applies exclusively to these United States formed by the Constitution under which we now live-and the term “citizen” there applies to equally to those who are native and to those who are adopted-what other possible consequence could have resulted?  Not Senator or Representative in the first Congress could have had the constitutional qualifications, under this construction.  Not one of hem.  Not one!-for none of hem had been citizens of these United States either nine years or seven years, and for the very plain and irrefutable reason, that these United States themselves were not that old; nay, were in the very first year of their federative birth!  No, no, Mr. Kennedy-this won’t do.  The Constitution was established in perpetuem.  It was made for the unborn as well as for he living-and generations, rather than mere frail man or his fleeting measures, are profoundly interested in its meaning.  Interpretations of it, that are true, are true in all times-in its infancy, its manhood, and its old age-and circumstances must be fashioned for it, and not it for circumstances.  An interpretation, therefore, which borne back to its early years, would have disfranchised from all functions of administration every one of those it was framed for, during nine long years, we know cannot be true; because we know, from the Constitution itself, that it was impossible that such could have been the intention.

            For the want of a patriotic observance of this safe and golden rule of interpretation, behold what meddling, fanatic Massachusetts is attempting at this very moment : to disturb the domestic tranquility of South Carolina and Louisiana, by foisting her colored inhabitants into their midst-and, under the pretence that they are citizens of Massachusetts, and as such “entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”-to coerce them to submit to this revolting and revolutionizing admixture!  Massachusetts well knows-none knew better-that at the time the Constitution was formed, there was no, (nor for 50 years afterwards, not do I know that there is none,) in any one State in the Union, a single inhabitant of the African race who was, in any just sense of the word, a citizen.  By citizen, I mean one who is capacitated in exercise and enjoy all the rights and privileges of which all other citizens in the same community exercise and enjoy; to have the right to choose and be chosen to any office; of intermarriage; sueing [sic] and being sued; witnesses for and against the other races, &c., &c.  What then?  Is it to be said, in this our day, that a class of persons, why, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, could not procure citizenship in any one State in the Union-who were a degraded caste, and inferior race in all white men’s appreciation, in all the States-who, for a century before, and from the first moment they and their ancestor set foot any where upon these shores, had been laboring under fixed and degrading disabilities; and when there was not one of the States whose laws did not only tolerate the slavery of that race, but held them as slaves-what I are these the persons on whom the Convention designed to confer those full rights of citizenship, which would make them the white man’s equal in all the States?  There is not one man in the nation who believes it.  There is not a State in the Union who either had the desire, or could have summoned the effrontery to desire, or could have summoned the effrontery, to make such a proposal to the Convention.  Not a Southern Representative would have wished or dared to have remarked an hour there, after such a proposal had been received.  There would have been no Constitution-there could have been none-at least none that was common to the States who made and adopted it. No, sirs, no!  The Constitution then made, was the type of the sentiments common to all the States at that day-and under their sovereign behests, the African race was then and there and evermore exorcised from all the rights and privileges it conferred and secured.  We intend to stand for aye, by that citizenship which was privileged by the Constitution, and for no broader or other citizenship.  It is not given to Massachusetts alone nor conjointly, with other, in this mode, to change either the Constitution or terms or their meaning.  We insist upon the Constitution then, as it is written-as it was understood by those who framed it-those who adopted it-and by those who administrated it in its earlier days, ere fanaticism had tarnished it, with its vile characters abominations.  But I forget-I keep Mr. Kennedy waiting;-so a truce with episodes and “once more unto the breach,”-if, as yet, there be a breach!

            It must be more gratefully remembered by every American, that persons of foreign birth largely contributed to the success of our great struggle for liberty and independence throughout the Revolution.  Our gratitude was manifested in various ways in the early times.  The power to pass uniform laws of naturalization was made one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution; and it Gen. Washington’s time, only two years residence was required to admit foreigners to citizenship.  The Constitution threw wide open to them all the offices of the Government, says only that of President, and even the President to all such as had become citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; afterwards, an amendment placed the constitutional eligibility of the Vice President upon the same footing with that of the President.  The Judiciary, the Cabinet, all the departments of diplomacy, both Houses of Congress, and, in fine, all offices, with the exceptions referred to, were made accessible to the naturalized citizens by the Constitution, with probations of 9 and 7 years citizenship, however, to acquire eligibility to the Senate and House of Representatives.

            These marked favors would never have been bestowed, had we been left alone and unaided in our struggle, to fall or triumph as our fortunes should betide.  In that case, it is quite probably, that all the higher offices would have been closed against adopted citizens-and then instead of the clauses of 9 and 7 years citizenship, as they now stand, we should have had a clause to this effect; “None but native-born citizens shall be eligible to membership in either House of Congress.”  If none but natives were eligible, it would have been quite preposterous to have assigned the 9 and 7 years limits to them-and most surely it would not have been done.  Hence, the inference is irresistible, that the limitations referred to were intended to apply, and are to be applied exclusively, to the adopted citizens.  There was no necessity for it-nor has it any fitness of application to natives, who in the eye of the Constitution, are not merely citizens for 9 and 7 years, but citizens all their lives.  I think Mr. Kennedy might have spared himself considerable pains, as I should have been spared this presented reply, if he would have given but a slight attention to this distinction; and the pages of either Judge Story or the Federalist, if consulted, would have afforded him quite a quite a clear conception of the occasion of introducing that clause into the Constitution in the guise we find them.  They were designed for cases of adoption, not for cases of nativity.

            In the 52nd No. of the Federalist, Mr. Madison, speaking of the “Senatorial Trust,” says that:

            “Participating immediately in transactions of Foreign nations, it ought to be exercised by none, who are not thoroughly waned from the prepossessions and habits incident to Foreign birth and education.  The firm of nine years seems to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for Foreign influence on the National Councils.”

            It is thus evident, that he did not consider the clause, any more than the objections, applicable at all to Natives.  He does not even mention them or allude to them.  What “prepossessions and habits incident to Foreign birth” could operate upon Natives?-or, how could they be supposed to “create a channel for Foreign influence on the National Councils?”

            And Judge Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution takes precisely the same view of the object and application of the clause.  He says:

            Section 728-“The propriety of some limitations upon admission to office, after naturalization, cannot well be doubted.  The Senate is to participate, largely in transactions with Foreign Governments, and it seems indispensable, that time should have adapted sufficient to wear a Senator from all prejudices, resentments and partialities, in relation to the land of his nativity, before he should be entrusted with such high and delicate functions.  Besides, it can scarcely be presumed that any foreigner can have acquired a thorough knowledge of the institutions and interests of a country, until he has been permanently […] into its society, and has acquired by the habits and intercourse of life, the feelings and duties of a citizen.

            Not the first reference, nor an allusion is made to native citizens; but this matter in truth has been long ago, and repeatedly adjudicated by Congress.  In my last Epistle, I think I made it pretty plain, that Rhode Island, North Carolina, &c., were Foreign States to the Union, until they were incorporated therein; for, if these were not-neither were England, France, India nor China.  Neither the Constitution, nor any one of the laws of the Federal Government, had any force or authority in either of those States-not did any one of its officers exercise any functions, Executive, Legislative or Judicial thither; the shipments of either into any of the ports of the United States were subject to the like imposts and rates of duties, as the shipments of other Foreign nations, were subject to.  The Act of Congress of the 31st July, 1789, expressly provided.

            1.Story’s Laws U.S., p. 30, Sec. 30:  “That all goods, wares &c., which shall be imported from either of the said two States of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, or N. Carolina, into any other port or place, within the limits of the U. States, &c., shall be subject to the like duties, seizures and forfeitures, as goods, wares, &c.  imported from any state or country without,” &c.,-placing those States on precisely the same footing with other Foreign Nations.  Well, again on the 16th of September 1789, an act of Congress of that date, expressly provided, (lb. p. 50)

            “Sec. 3: That all rum, loaf of sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the States of North Carolina or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to the subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, Kingdom or county are made subject to.”

            With acts of Congress like these staring us in the face, how is it possible for us to doubt, but that these States thus treated as Foreign States, were in fact Foreign States?  If they were not, how dare the Congress of the United States, to withhold from them the protection vouchsafed in the 9th section of the 1st Article of the Constitution, which provides:

            That “No tax or duty shall be […] on articles exported from any State.  No preference shall be given by an regulations of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels round to or from the State be obligated to enter, clear or pay duties in another.”

            Surely the State or country which is out of the protection of the Constitution of another-out of its jurisdiction-exempt from is laws within its own jurisdiction-subject to its imposts at the ports of the other-its citizens not sharing in or subject to the administration of the other-and its citizens exempt from all allegiance thereto-with a perfect freedom to wage war or make peace, without and against the consent of the other-must be, to all intents and purposes, Foreign to each other.  The man who would deny that is not to be reasoned with; he must be regarded as gone “clean daft,” and the best that can be done for him is, to turn him over, forthwith, to “the tender mercies” of Mr. John Randolph’s prescription:  “A strait jacked, close confinement, water fuel and depletion.”

            Well, these Foreign States of North Carolina and Rhode Island, with all their Foreign citizens, afterwards entered the Union-the former in November, 1780, and the latter in May 1790-and their citizens thus, and then, became citizens of these United State for the first time; and according to Mr. Kennedy’s argument, neither of hem could have had citizens then qualified to represent them either in the Senate or the House of Representatives!  It so happened, nevertheless, that Congress thought otherwise-and deemed the chosen citizens from otherwise-and deemed the chosen citizens from both States as amply qualified for the functions they were called to.

            Surely, then, Texas cannot be more foreign than were those States; and, besides, these United States, as such, once owned every foot of the soil of Texas, and forty-nine fiftieths of her citizens “have been” citizens of the United States for more than nine years; and be it specially noted that the very language of the qualification clause refers in terms to those who “have been”-without a word in relation to when they were so.  And be it specially noted also, that in the early times of the Constitution, we had not emerged from the thralldom of English jurisprudence and principles (nor have we yet)and that one of the principles that Government has ever maintained, and does yet, is, that the allegiance of its subjects is inalienable; and that too, has been the doctrine of some of our most eminent jurists-such as Judge Story, Chancellor Kent, &c.; though, (if I might say so) with Mr. Kennedy, I protest; that I do not all concur with them.  But, then, the Convention most probably maintained the English doctrine of once a citizen, always a citizen, and in that event, it must have considered that native citizens once qualified by citizenship for Senatorial and Representative  function, they could never destroy the qualification by voluntary expatriation, the abjuration of alliance to the U. States, and the plighting of fealty and allegiance to any other Government.

            A number of additional answers to Mr. Kennedy’s argument on this point, throng upon me here; but this Epistle has already so far exceeded the hounds I had prescribed to it, that I must bring it rapidly to a close, and take but a passing glance at a few of them.

            1st  His objection does not extend at all to the acquiring of foreign territory, for the distinctly admits, that the territory can be acquired, and when held “long enough,” may be admitted into a State, &c.

            2nd  his objection don’t apply to the admission of a new State-Not at all.  But the apprehends that when admitted, she will be puzzled to find qualified citizens to represent her in Congress.-Don’t be at all alarmed; Mr. Kennedy, just bring her into the Union, and I’ll guarantee that Texas finds citizens to represent her, just as well qualified as you are to represent the Baltimore District.

            3rd  Congress may “admit new States.”  When?  Nothing informs us.  Is Congress bound to wait nine years?  The Constitution does not say so.  The power is unlimited.  Discretion alone is the boundary of its exercise.  When the State is admitted, for which the authority is undoubted, the Constitution further provides what the new State is further to do, to send Senators and Representatives , &c.  She must be a State, and in the Union, before she can choose her Senators and Representatives.

            4th  Then, the power to admit being undoubted, and being admitted, the obligation to be represented being equally undoubted , supposed that she has no citizens of the requisite qualifications.-Here is a conflict.  Which is to prevail in such a conjuncture?  If the clause that exacts the full citizenship-then, is Texas to be bound by laws which she has no share in making, and, in despite of the great principle which originated the Revolution, be taxed without representation; but if the clause that exacts representation prevails, no inconvenience whatever arises, for Texas will take good care to send natives of the United States in whom she can confide, &c.

            5th  But there is no conflict, nor need be any.  Citizens of the United States residing abroad do not change their citizenship without adjuring their allegiance.  There are thousands of our citizens residing in Texas in this predicament-inhabitants certainly, but not citizens of Texas.  If Texas is admitted, what forbids any of hem from representing her in Congress?  There are but three qualifications for a Representative in Congress.  1st. He shall be “25 years of age.”  2nd. “Have been 7 years a citizen of the U. States.”  And 3rd. He shall be “when elected and inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”  Why these are a thousand American citizens who are inhabitants of Texas, who are fully eligible; for when Texas is admitted as a State, they will be inhabitants of the State in which they are chosen.  But all her citizens are eligible, who, in the language of the clause, are 25 years of age-“Have been seven years citizens of the United States, and are inhabitants” of the State of Texas.  So […] Senators.

            6th  Why Mr. Kennedy himself could be qualified in a few weeks for that matter-He’s of age-being seven years a citizen of the United States-and could in a week’s time (for no residence is presorted) by his presence there […]-or claiming his domicile, become-if not a citizen of Texas-Its inhabitant, and that is all which is required.  Neither the citizenship of the State-nor even residence, beyond what is needed for inhabitancy-which implies domiciled rather than residence.  The President is the only officer of worth residence is exacted, and even there it refers to the past; “he shall have been 14 years a resident within the United States.”

            But […] - I’ve scrawled you this harem sacrum epistle; written literally current calamo [sic] leisure nor patience-Besides, old Time with his noiseless tread has stolen a march on me and the I’ve not read it over-nor shall I-I’ve neither brought on his “small hours,” and never was I better inclined than now, to yawn out, with Sancho Panza-“Blessed be the man who first invented sleep!  It covereth one all over like a dunk.” 

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p2c5

All Aback!  

            The anti-Texas Whigs have been terribly dumbfounded by the majority of 22 in the House of Representatives.  They had indulged the flattering hope, that the Whigs and the doe-face Democrats would constitute a decided majority in the House ,and give the coup de grace to the measure.  The Washington correspondent of the Baltimore Patriot denied, on Thursday last, that the Texas men could come up to their count, viz:-“105 out and out for the measure and then upon some 13 who will be somewhere in the skirmish.”  But, instead of 118, the resolutions passed with 120.  The Richmond Whig is quite chap fallen upon the matter-seeing how its confident calculations of defeat have been blown to the winds by the votes of the House, precisely as its certainty of Mr. Clays election was blown sky high by the voice of the people.

            But of all the presses which are thrown most aback, is the National Intelligencer.  In its yesterday’s No., it give us its usual chapter  on the transactions of the preceding week-this last gloomy chapter being on “The eighth week of the session.”  It dwells on the vote of Saturday in the most melancholy style-objects to the acquisition of Texas, except by the forms of a Treaty-urges a new constitutional objection, “that Congress cannot make a contract with a foreign nation-that the legislative power never can do that which can be done by Treaty-and that what ever requires the consent of another nation, belongs to the Treaty power, and can only be regulated by it.”-It then appeals to the Senate for protection against this gross outrage-tells “that august body, which has so often thrown its shield over the Constitution of the country, that to them is now presented the issue, whether they will give their consent to do that, by legislation, which can only be done by Treaty, and which they themselves have declared to be unwise and inadmissible in that more solemn form?  Whether they will permit their constitutional rights to be stricken down, the public peace and the public faith to be compromised and the Union itself-this happy Union of the Old Thirteen, and their legitimate offspring-ultimately and surely, though it may be distant, rent asunder and those who are now brothers and members of the same glorious family, to become aliens and strangers by this ill starred vote of the Representatives of the People”-and winds up its melancholy diatribe by canting about war, and descanting on the ruin of the Union, “cemented by the blood of the Revolution”-and finally throws down its disconsolate pen with the piteous ejaculation, “We have not the heart  at present to go any further into the particulars of last week’s doings.”  “Death’s doings” they may be to the late sanguine hopes of the National Intelligencer!

            It is strange, but yet most amusing, that like the poor Irishman’s back, you can never whip these men to their own satisfaction.  Now they cry out for a Treaty.  It can only the done by treaty.  Like the currier, leather is now the only thing that is good for fortification-the Intelligencer, well knowing of course, that it has been tried, and cannot be acquired by Treaty-and that, according to his advice, of course, Texas would be forever lost to us.  But it is most amusing to see, that in 1803, when Mr. Jefferson obtained Louisiana, the Federalists, and Mr. Ross at their head, maintained that the territory could be acquired by Legislative action alone-and not by treaty.  Now, the wind blows the other way.  Thus, the Federalists are consistent only in their inconsistency, by recommending that mode precisely which would not fail to defeat the great object in view.  Surely the Intelligencer cannot have forgotten, that the Federal party tried to exclude Louisiana, by all the means in their power.  They denied the power to admit her, and even threatened force to prevent it.  They too, talked just as glibly of dissolution then, and war and blood, as the more modern disciples of the Federal School can do at the present time about Texas.

            The N. Intelligencer, however, is so much occupied by its own notions about treaties, compacts, and “the joint action of the Senate with the Executive power,” to the exclusion of the power of the House of Representatives, that it entirely strikes out of the Constitution  the clause which says that “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union”-(not by the joint action of the Senate with the Executive power,” mark ye!  But by “the Congress”-Does the Intelligencer deny, that it does not require and understanding a contract, call it what you will, between the United States and the new States, before it is admitted?  Why, that proposition would be absurd.  Does it contend that none but “New States” can be admitted, which are carved out of the then existing territory of the U. States?  Then, we ask the Intelligencer what becomes of that remarkable opinion of Mr. Madison (in the 14th No. of “The Federalist?”)  “A second objection to be made is (on the objections drawn from the extent of country)that the immediate object of the Federal Constitution is to secure the Union of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be practical; and to add to them such states as may arise in their […] bosoms, or in their neighborhoods which we cannot doubt to be equally practical.”  And what becomes too, of the precedents of the news States of Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas, West of the Mississippi, which have been carved out of newly acquired territory, not then in “our own bosoms, but lying in our “neighborhood?”

            Pshaw!  The argument cannot hold water.  The whole article  of the Intelligencer is a last and desperate effort to prevail upon the Senate to trample the interest of the whole Union under their feet, and lay the interest, the rights and he feeling of the South at the feet of the abolition spirit.  If the Senate should be now so infatuated as to despise the will of the people and disregard the majority of 22 of their Representatives, God save the Whig party, say we!

[AMB]


Tuesday January 28, 1845 RE41i84p2c6

Another Example 

            Resolutions in favor of the annexation of Texas have passed the House of Representatives of Louisiana, by a vote of 38 to 16. They will probably pass the Senate. Thus, Louisiana can act upon the question of Texas. She can meddle with our Federal Relations. She can express her wishes to her Senators – but Virginia cannot, ought not. So say the Federal Whig Orators of our House of Delegates. Louisiana can freely express her wishes – but Virginia, the great Southern State, who has always spoken her wishes and declared her principles, must be tabooed – shorn of a portion of her sovereign power – because Mr. H. Clay was once infatuated enough to write very absurd letter at Raleigh. Freemen of Virginia, what do you think of the position, to which some of your Whig Representatives would degrace [sic] this “unterrified Old Dominion?”

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p2c6

A Feather in their Caps

     We have always contended, that Texas should never have become a party question. It is really an issue between the U. States and Great Britain, much more than between the North and the South, (for, both an interested in it) – or between the Whigs and the Democrats, (for, both these parties are also deeply interested in the result.) We carried this feeling so far, that when it was proposed during the last Summer in the Shockoe Association to call a general meeting of the citizens friendly to Texas, we objected to it, lest it might be supposed to assume a party tinge, from the source from which it emanated. In the course of the campaign indeed, did become involved in the general melts. The Whigs, with some splendid exceptions, generally opposed it. The Democrats advocated it. But the campaign is over – the result known – and Texas, like Hope, remains at the bottom of Pandora’s cup.

     Can we not, then return to the position which this question should have originally assumed? Let the Whigs rest assured, that as this issue contributed more to their defeat than any other, so will it still shed its malign influence over their political prospects. If they do not bury the dispute about Texas, Texas will bury them, beyond the possibility of redemption. The issue will be again made before the people, under circumstances of more tremendous import against the Whigs. – The indignation of an insulted people will carry the measure and overwhelm its opponents.

     But we are proud to see that some of the Southern Whigs are alive to the interests of the Union. With them, it is country first, and party afterwards. We are indebted to a Whig (Milton Brown) for the resolutions which have passed the House of Representatives of Congress. We are indebted to another Whig (Campbell) for the resolutions which have passed the House of Representatives of Louisiana. We are confident, from what we understand, that there are Browns and Campbells in the House of Delegates. Let them only come forth and take the lead as patriots superior to their party. If they will not, the Democrats must do their duty – call the question every day – appeal to the Legislature, and appeal to the people. This great question cannot, must not, will not, sleep.

     We would address one word respectfully to the Senate of the United States. Let not the opponents of Texas, deceive themselves. Let not Crittenden play too deep. He knows the indomitable spirit of the Southern men – and he must know if he has the sagacity which usually marks his character (certainly not always) that if they reject the resolution of Milton Brown, or rather of 120 Representatives of the People, the question is not dead. It is of a character to stir up the feelings of every Southern and Western man, and it will rise like Artaeus from its temporary fall with renovated power. The whole Southern country will soon be in a flame, and the conflagration will spread over the prairies of the West. Reject it, and we return with fresh vigor to the charge – overturning all enemies, despising all obstacles. The spirit is irresistible. It will fill the North and the South, and it will upset the political demagogues and fanatical abolitionists who oppose its progress. The only danger is from the delay – lest Texas herself should become wearied and sick and disgusted with our equivocation and suspense – and yielding to the insidious and seductive overtures of our greatest commercial rival, seek out her own destination, and part with us, perhaps, forever.

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p3c3 65 words

Marine Journal

The article reports that ships that sailed from and arrived at the Port of Richmond.

            High Water this day at 7 ½ o’clock, A.M.

Arrived

Schr. Meridan, White, Portsmouth, (N.H) sundries, to Rankin & Whitlock.
Schr. Richard Thompson, Carson, New York, sundries.
Schr. Highlander, Prine, Egg Harbour, ballast.

Sailed

Schr. Commonwealth, Trefethorn, Boston.
Schr. Velasco, Barnes, New York.
Schr. H. W. Gandy, Grandy, Fall River. 

[AMB]


Tuesday, January 28, 1845 RE41i84p4c1

Editorial

    

The Madisonian quotes a very strong article in favor of annexation from the “New Orleans Commercial Bulletin,” a Whig Paper, and does justice to the ability and principles of that paper. The Bulletin appeals to the Legislature of Louisiana for the immediate passage of decided resolutions in favor of Texas. It tells them that the fate of the measure in Congress “depends on the course which may be taken by the Senators from Louisiana. With their suffrages in its behalf there is scarce a doubt that the measure will succeed; with their voices against it, there is as little doubt that it will be definitely, irretrievably lost.”

     The Madisonian says that, “with the two Whig Senators from Louisiana in its favor, there can be no doubt of the success of the measure during the present session.”

     The fate of the measure will equally depend upon the two Senators from Virginia. Will the Legislature of Virginia refuse to instruct them? We trust there will be no evasion, no dodging, no laying upon the table; but that the issue may be met directly, and that we may know who is for Texas, and who against – who is, to all intents and purposes, (in effect we mean, not in design,) for Great Britain, and who for his own country.

     Mr. Rowden pledged himself to call up the Texas Resolutions every morning, and why not ACT upon them, while the House have so little business upon their tables – and, in fact, when this question may be decided without interfering with any other business, and without wasting any portion of the time of the House. Surely no subject is so important as this – none so pressing – none, on which the voice of Virginia is more anxiously expected – none, on which the People themselves more imperatively demand the action of their servants – none, on which the public time and public treasure could be more usefully employed. Let us have Action, then, Action.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p1c1

Twenty-Eighth Congress-2d Ses. Monday, Jan. 20, 1845, In Senate.

     Mr. EVANS presented the credentials of the Hon. John Fairfield, elected a Senator from the State of Maine for six years from the fourth of March next.

     Mr. BENTON presented a series of resolutions from the Legislature of Missouri, in favor of the annexation of Texas.

     In presenting these resolutions, Mr. BENTON remarked, that no State in the Union was more interested in the question of annexation than was the State of Missouri; and that interest was both special and general. It was undoubtedly the wish of that State, and of its Legislature, that Texas should be admitted Constitutionally, and upon such principles as should conduce to the peace and harmony of the Union. He hoped that, to accomplish this desirable object, all parties would unite in a spirit which was recommended by General Washington at the close of his public career, and which had conduced so much to the promotion of all the best interests of the country. In December, 1836, when the Texan Revolution was young, he (Mr. B.) had noted the causes which led to that event, and he had found that they ran a close parallel with those which induced our own. There was a similar long endurance of oppression; a similar indifference to remonstrance; a similar refusal of redress; and there was fortunately, a similar establishment of independence.

     The sentiments expressed in these resolutions were not merely those of a large majority, but expressed the opinion of nearly all the people of Missouri. The sentiments, properly founded, and strongly felt ought to be successful in the result which they desired to accomplish. He concurred most fully in the desire expressed in the resolutions, that their object should be accomplished as soon as practicable. The General Assembly of Missouri (said he) view this question in its most enlarged aspect. It is regarded as a great, a most important national question; and he (Mr. B.) had no doubt that through the operation of a spirit of compromise and mutual concession, the great object could not only be accomplished, but Accomplished most auspiciously.

     Mr. ATCHISON acknowledged, to the fullest extent, the right of the constituent to instruct, and the duty of the representative to obey. He admitted the great necessity for the exercise of a spirit of compromise, and agreed with the views expressed by his honorable colleague. The fourth resolution declared that no power on earth had a right to control, no power on earth had a right to be consulted on this question, except the Government of Texas and that of the United States. The sixth resolution states that the question of slavery need not now be stirred, but that it had better be left for settlement and adjustment when the different portions of the territory to be annexed applied for admission as independent States. He would leave this question to be settled in that spirit of compromise which he trusted would then, as well as now, govern the councils of the General Legislature of the Union. He concurred most fully in the spirit and the object of all the resolutions.

     The resolutions were then referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

MEMORIALS AND PETITIONS.

     The following were presented and referred, viz:

     By Mr. BERRIEN: A memorial from the Chamber of Commerce of Savannah, asking all appropriation for the erection of a custom-house.

     By Mr. UPHAM: A memorial from Vermont, numerously signed, remonstrating against the annexation of Texas.

     By Mr. STURGEON: A petition from Pennsylvania, for a reduction of postage.

     By Mr. BUCHANAN: A memorial from citizens of Spring Garden, Philadelphia, asking for a change in the naturalization laws, and praying that twenty-one years may be the time of residence for foreigners to be entitled to the rights of citizenship.

      By Mr. CHOATE: A memorial from Middlesex, Massachusetts, remonstrating against the annexation of Texas.

     By Mr. EVANS: A memorial from Windham, in the State of Maine, protesting against the annexation of Texas.

     By Mr. ARCHER: A petition from citizens of Pennsylvania for a change in the naturalization laws.

     By Mr. PORTER: Two memorials from Bedford, Ohio, remonstrating against the annexation of Texas.

     By Mr. ALLEN: A memorial from the inhabitants of Pickaway and Ross counties, Ohio, for the immediate organization of the Oregon Territory.

     On Presenting this petition, Mr. ALLEN observed that much of the phraseology of this was nearly the same as that of the petition from Fairfield county, which he had the honor of presenting a few days ago. This petition was signed by some hundreds of citizens, the greater part of whom were farmers but the desire expressed by [the rest is illegible]. [AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c3

The Empire Club of New York 

During a meeting of the Empire Club, Mr. Rynders read General Jackson's letter declaring that U.S. should annex Texas as soon as possible.

      A great meeting of the Club took place on Thursday evening last, 16th  instant. Mr. Rynders in Chair. He introduced the Annexation of Texas as the subject for their consideration. He read to the meeting the last letter of Gen Jackson,(to Mr. Blair,) and declared, that “The great anxiety expressed in his letter, written, as it were, on the very verge of the grave, by this great unerring friend of our country, is evidence that annexation is a subject of vital importance to the interest of our country. General Jackson recommends immediate Annexation, ere it is too late, and the United States lose the opportunity, of making a valuable and important acquisition to the land of Freedom. By annexing Texas, we gain a territory of rich, fertile, and productive soil-a country of abundant and almost inexhaustible resources, It is of immense importance, as a suitable and necessary location for a military or naval depot, which, if properly established, would have naturally the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico, our Southwestern Cost and Frontier, affording a constant and mercantile interests of our country. We shall extend the bounds of freedom, and add one more State to the Union, wherein the oppressed of all lands may fined a home, and a country, the Native American doctrine to the contrary not withstanding; and I regret exceedingly that the people find it necessary to give another expression to their will upon the subject of re-annexation, which was so clearly and unequivocally decided by the election of James K. Polk, who was the strenuous advocate of annexation, over H. Clay, who was said to be opposed to it. The question of annexation was one of the most important and legitimate issues in the late Presidential election. Jas. K. Polk was emphatically the Texas candidate, H. Clay its opponent. On that ground we battled with the Whig party for supremacy; with Texas for our rallying word, we raised an enthusiasm which very materially assisted us in achieving a great political triumph in the state of New York. Our friends in the South joined with us on the annexation question in the late bitter political contest. They have proved true to their professions and faith; they have done as we  expected, and are justly entitled to their full proportion, of influence in our nation’s councils; and shall the Democracy of the North prove recreant to our friends of the South? Shall we prove false to the confidence and trust reposed in us? I trust in God, that when properly weighed in the balance we shall not be found wanting. In the name of truth, justice and honor, let us prove true to the cause we so warmly advocated, and to which may be mainly attributed our success in the late political struggle; for, it was well known, that there was not a political meeting or gathering during the Fall electioneering campaign, but what the lone star of Texas was the prominent feature either displayed as a banner or among the principal devices. Not a speech was made, but the annexation of Texas was the most effectual appeal that could be made to the feelings of the people. I am astonished that there should be found one Democratic member of Congress from this State who would oppose the re-annexation of Texas, after such decided expression of the will of the people of this State in favor of that measure. The people of the United States have decided in favor of annexation, by giving a large and decisive majority of their electoral votes to James K. Polk, the avowed Texas candidate-and, since the people are in favor of annexation, I really trust that one members of Congress will speedily conform to the wishes of their constituents.’’

      The resolutions reported by a select committee and unanimously adopted by the Club, are of the strongest character. Among them are the following:

       “1. Resolved, That the Empire Club, on its first Existence, and previous to the recent election, pledged itself to forward in every manner, honorably, the proposition for the immediate annexation or Texas; that it was advocated in the Democratic journals of the city, and deemed by this Club to have been the essential test question in the recent election; that the issue was fairly placed before the people, and the result of their verdict was in favor of immediate annexation; and that, if any doubt yet remain, it is the duty of the people to avail themselves of every opportunity again to repeat their opinion in favor of the measure.

        “2. That in the opinion of the Empire Club, the immediate annexation of Texas is essentially necessary to the interests of the country, and all portions of it, not only to preserve the States from British aggression, but also to protect a most important portion of our common country; that to pause in the course of demanding annexation, would be to break a solemn and well understood contract with the South-would be the violation of a pledge, and the abandonment of a principle, for which we strenuously contended.

         “3. That in the opinion of this Club, the question of slavery ought to have no consideration in the question of the annexation of Texas; that, when admitted in the Union, her internal regulations should be guarantied all the rights of Government and policy now enjoyed by the sovereign States.

         “4. That the interests of the South imperatively demand, not only the measure itself, but its immediate passage; the people having voted for it, there can be no doubt of the duty of our Representatives at once to express the wish of their constituents; and this Club will endeavor still, as they have done all along, to obtain the immediate passage of a bill for the union of Texas with these States.”

            The Club adjourned over till next Friday evening, then to unite with the Democracy of New York at Tammany Hall, in a full and bold expression of their sentiments in favor of annexation.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c4

Letter to the Editor, A Warning to the Whig Party! 

      Our intelligent Correspondent (Agricola) writes from the North of Germany , four weeks ago, precisely as if he were at this moment at our elbow, with the yesterday’s proceedings of the House of Delegates, and Saturday’s proceedings of the H. of Representatives immediately under his eye. – Never was coincidence more striking – Never, was a solemn lesson more appropriately addressed to the Whigs. Hear him:

     “Partisan feeling, which I entertained to a limited extent at home, has utterly expired in my bosom; and I no longer look upon “every difference of opinion” as ‘a difference of principle.’ – We must save the United States. This is a duty – an imperative duty – one above all others; - and closely identified with it, in fact having an immediate bearing upon the result, stands the annexation of Texas. If ever there was a question which should be decided purely upon its own merits, it assuredly is this. In its adjustment, a party voice should not be raised, nor a party vote recorded. – The Treaty should be regarded, as I am sure it will prove, if ratified, as one making the American Republic the most independent and permanent of all the States and nations on the face of the globe.”

     For “Treaty” read the resolutions of Congress, (and “Randolph of Roanoke” dissipates in this day’s paper all the trashy and hair-breadth stuff about treaties, compacts, &c.,) and the lesson which “Agricola” reads in our ears is deeply impressive. But we beg the Whigs (at Washington and in Richmond) to read his whole letter in this morning’s Enquirer.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c3

(Correspondence) Huntington, Suffolk Co. 21st Jan. 1845

      Gentlemen: - I have your esteemed letter, inviting me to attend a meeting of our Democratic friends at Tammany Hall on the 24th inst., to promote the annexation of Texas. Concurring as I do in the object of his meeting, it would give me great pleasure to be with you; but an indispensable engagement will prevent my leaving home at that time.

     I consider the annexation of Texas, in its permanent effects upon our national destiny, as the most important question which has been discussed since the adoption of our constitutional Union in 1787. Independent of the immense advantages of unrestricted commerce between the two countries, their political union is necessary for the common defence of our liberal institutions and to preserve the international peace of the continent. The existence of two rival republics would not only be injurious to both but dangerous to popular government. Frequent wars would check their growth and prosperity, and bring upon both countries the evils of monarchy. Had the Union of the old thirteen States been resisted upon the ground of the local institutions of some, our confederacy would never have been formed; and by this time we should have been a divided and powerless people. Our ancestors, actuated by a spirit of patriotism, and with a wise foresight, determined not to sacrifice the permanent interests of the whole, and formed our constitutional confederacy upon the basis of a compromise, which it is to be hoped will remain undisturbed. May those who represent us be animated with the spirit of the framers of the Constitution in 1788; for the same motives which induced them to bind the old thirteen States in one confederacy, should actuate us in extending our bond of Union to embrace our countrymen in Texas.

      I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

C. C. CAMBRELING.

Messrs. John D. Kellogg, Robert H. MacLay, Andrew Carrigan, Wm. H. Cornell, John S. Gilbert, Wm. A. Walker, David Vandervoort, and Elijah F. Purdy.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c4

Editorial

     There was a long debate yesterday in the House of Delegates on the Texas Resolutions, for which see our necessarily meagre sketch. We presume the whole subject will be decided to-day , and we have strong hopes that a majority of the House of Delegates will be found expressing the voice of Virginia in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas. We sincerely trust, that the Whigs will not stave off a direct vote upon the question, by clogging it with useless amendments. Let us have a direct vote upon Mr. Bowden’s proposition, and let the people know, that if the measure be now defeated, in the language of the Democratic speakers on yesterday, the responsibility will rest upon the House of Delegates.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c4

Editorial

     What the New York Plebeian states as the report in New York, is the report here, as brought to us from Washington – that an influence was exerted from Albany to defeat the annexation of Texas. But with the Plebeian we trust believe that the report is exaggerated – perhaps altogether unfounded. It will be recollected, that Mr. Robinson of New York submitted resolutions to the House of Representatives altogether repulsive to the South. The report now runs, that this Mr. Robinson wrote on to Albany, that unless they sent entire anti-Texas men to the Senate of the United States, Texas would be annexed, and its enemies defeated. Other reports are in Washington, in political connection with this movement, bearing upon Mr. Polk which are too extravagant to be believed. True or not, Mr. Polk knows what is due to himself – and so does the South know what is due to herself. If Mr. Robinson has written any such letters, and his advice should gain credence, no good can come of it. The friends of Texas are not thus to be it. The friends of Texas are not thus to baffled; nor do we believe that Mr. Dix or any of his friends can be made an instrument to baffle the South, and to defeat a great national measure. He is a Republican of too lofty a character, to countenance any intrigues which may be set on foot at Washington or elsewhere. The times never did require more harmony and union among all the friends of the country – than now. The country have uniformly looked to J. A. Dix with confidence – and they look to him NOW.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p4c3

The Texas Resolutions in the House of Representatives

     We have stated, that the Resolutions adopted by the House of Representatives, on Saturday, were proposed by Mr. Milton Brown, a Whig member from Tennessee. They are precisely the same with those which had been on a former day submitted to the Senate by Mr. Foster, one of the Whig Senators from Tennessee. The whole representation from Tennessee voted for them in the House, and, we trust, both the Senators from Tennessee (Messrs, Jarnagin and Foster) will vote for them in the Senate. This would be a feather in the cap of Tennessee, which would gracefully adorn her brow.

     We have republished the jubilant article of the Globe upon the passage of the Resolutions. – We subjoin the following extracts from the long article of the Madisonian on the same subject:

     “But we bail with an unspeakable pleasure, the passage through the House of Representatives, for the annexation of Texas to the Union, by the commanding majority of 22, of a measure the terms of which we hope will be entirely acceptable to our sister Republic. It is none the less acceptable to us, because the ground-work of the measure has been proposed by Mr. Milton Brown, a firm and determined Whig from the State of Tennessee. He and those of his party who have acted with him, entitle themselves to the proud appellation of patriots. They have on a great national question risen superior to the low and petty restraints of party, and have with eyes of statesmen, looked to the lasting and enduring honor and glory of the American name. – There are some questions which are too high and too noble and too lofty for party; or if there be a party in connection, it should be the American party – the party of the whole country. We cannot but rejoice, however, in the fact, that a majority of the Democratic party, maugre [sic] the sickly whinnings of a small minority, have come up nobly to the task, and responded heartily to the universal call of the country. For our own part, we repeat, while we have deemed it best in every point of view, that the resolutions of annexation should have passed in the very words of the Treaty, yet we respond heartily to the language employed by the President in his message to the House of Representatives at the close of the last session. We care not for the words or the form of the thing – give us the substance – annexation now, upon terms that will be acceptable to the United States and Texas, and we are content.

     “’What will the Senate now do?’ is on the lips of all. We answer that they will follow the example of the House. The conscript fathers of the land – the Representatives of the Sovereign States, will add another bright and glorious star to the galaxy. ‘When was it since the great flood’ that the Senate would lend itself for any length of time to faction? When was it that Senators would long continue blind to the interests of America, or could fail to raise themselves on tiptoe to espy in the future the great glory of the country? Let our fellow countrymen, then, prepare to rejoice. They have already spoken forth in a voice of thunder from Tammany Hall, and the echoes will be caught up by every hill and valley, until one universal shout of Welcome to Texas will resound over the land.”  

     The Madisonian has some fear that Texas may not accept the terms, because not so favorable to her as the treaty was; but in one respect, we regard it as more favorable. She pays her own debts, it is true, and thus removes the scruples of some of our own politicians; but she keeps her lands, and at the additional valuation which they will acquire by the annexation, she will have more than enough to pay her debt, and she will be able to devote a large surplus, probably, to her own uses, to her schools, internal improvements, &c. &c. We know this was an object, which her citizens had much at heart. The Madisonian, however, is “willing to run the risk, with others, of her acquiescence in the terms thus tendered her, since it is apparent that those mutually agreed upon cannot be ratified.” And so are we.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p4c4

Editorial

     We hail with great pleasure the following from yesterday’s Compiler, (Whig.) We are sorry that we cannot give the whole article. – It ridicules the idea of the annexation of Texas producing war with Great Britain, or Mexico, or tending to the dissolution of the Union. We do not agree with the Compiler’s view of the “injury” to ensure to the South. It is a matter of vital importance to the safety of the South, that we should have Texas. But we sincerely commend the spirit of its article:

     “The Texas Question. – On this question we see land, and we are glad of it. We have scarcely a doubt, but the Senate will act this session, and admit Texas. The signs and the most reliable rumors justify this conclusion. There are questions of military connected with it which give rise to a great contrariety of opinion. We have often expressed our’s . We think the admission of Texas will confer benefits on every session of the Union, while it will only do injury to the South. The North will derive nothing but benefit from it. The South will derive some political advantages, but her general prosperity will for some time certainly be seriously marred by it.

     “We think that after annexation takes place, as we believe it will, there will be such a calm on the subject as to leave no trace of the excitement it has occasioned. Having, of course, our notions of the way the thing should be done, we shall, nevertheless, be glad when it is effected. – Such a result would be well for the country, now so much excited, and enable us to return to a discussion of our domestic concerns with a better prospect of a patient and dispassionate hearing, and a deliberate judgment by the people.”

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p4c5

To the Editors of the Enquirer, Washington City, Jan. 27, 1845

     In the Senate to-day , Mr. Woodbury presented a petition in favor of the re-annexation of Texas from the town in which Hale of New Hampshire resides. It is signed by almost every Democrat in that place, more especially by those heretofore his active friends. Ninety-four of the State Central Committee have signed a call for a meeting of the late Democratic Nominating Convention, to consider the propriety of erasing his name from the list of candidates for Congress, which will doubtless end in the selection of some one to be run in his place.

     Immediately after the House met, they went into Committee of the Whole, and took up the proposition to furnish each member, at the expense of the Treasury, with a copy of Greenhow’s work on Oregon. This gave rise to a debate taking a wide range, in which Ca[ . . . ] Johnson, as usual, distinguished himself, by earnest opposition to any appropriation not absolutely required by the necessities of the Government.

     I have to inform you, that the fate of the Texas question depends alone on the action of the Virginia Legislature. This is, beyond a doubt, the case; and it remains to be seen, whether there are not Whigs enough in the House of Delegates sufficiently alive to the paramount importance of the measure to Southern interests, to cast behind them the trammels of party, and carry out the professions of good will to annexation, made by almost every Whig paper and Speaker in the State during the late canvass. It will be recollected by all, that the only ground of semi-opposition advanced against the acquisition of Texas in Virginia, was on account of the debt. That has been most effectually disposed of; and it is now time for those who told who told the people that Mr. Clay, if elected, would assuredly acquire Texas as soon as possible, to prove, by acting as Virginians and Patriots on the instructions, that their professions were put forth in good faith. Give the South Texas, and though it does not throw the balance of power in our hands, yet if forever prevents the success of those nefarious abolition schemes to violate the guarantees of the Constitution, which, even in this early stage of the agitation of this accursed question, are boldly advanced, both in and out of Congress, by some of the ablest men of the Union. John Q. Adams and his tail, (a long and fearfully strong one,) avow their determination to stop short of nothing less than a change of the Constitution, which shall deprive the South of the present system of representation in the House of Representatives, shall abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, indeed, destroy each and every obstacle to the abolition of slavery in the South, whenever a controlling majority of the people of the North are ready to carry out that object.

     In 1810, the Abolitionists voted 2,000 strong – in ’44, 61,000 – aye, with double that number of sympathizers, too, who voted for either candidate of the two great parties. We see, then, with what rapid strides the spirit of abolition is becoming the paramount influence at the North. – Indeed, the result of the late election teaches us that great State of New York, in Vermont, Connecticut and Ohio, and that in two or three short years they will be in the same position in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Massachusetts and Maine. – Is it not time, then, for the majority of the House of Delegates to act on this question, as the Whig members of Congress from Georgia and Tennessee have unanimously acted on it? To strike for, the preservation of the constitutional rights of the South, which every man in his senses must acknowledge are in imminent danger, unless we are prepared to offer new Southern States for admission into the Union, as new Northern States apply?

     I cannot and will not treat this as a party question. In the House of Representatives it has not been so considered, as is proved by the fact that forty Northern Democrats voted against it, while three-fourths of the Southern Whigs voted for it. It therefore appeals to the House of Delegates as an issue, in which the peace, prosperity and constitutional rights of the South are directly involved. Nor do I doubt but that the Whig majority of that body will so consider it, and act accordingly, when they maturely reflect on the circumstances which have attended its agitation at the North, and its passage through the House of Representatives on the day before yesterday.

Yours truly,

[?]

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p3c1 77 words

Marine Journal

            High Water this day at 91/4 o’clock A.M.

Sailed, Schr. Tuscarora, Smack, New York.
Schr. James, Barrow, Charleston, S.C.
Schr. Condolence, Fall River.
Steamer Pocahontas, Hollingshead, Baltimore.

Boston, January 25 – Arrived, Schr. Narragansett, Baker, Richmond.
   Cleared, Schr. Mariner, Kaowles, Norfolk, City Point, and Richmond.

New York, Jan. 27 – Cleared, Schr. Nassan Chester, Richmond.

Philadelphia, January 27 –, Arrived, Schr. Cora, Groves, Richmond.

[AMB]


Thursday, January 30, 1845 RE41i85p2c6

Santa Anna a Prisoner.

     The reader will perceive from the accounts which we have extracted from the New Orleans Tropic, of the 20th inst., that Santa Anna has been defeated, in a pitched battle, by Paredes and Bravo, and is a second time a prisoner in the hands of his enemies. He will be fortunate indeed, to escape from the resentments of the wronged and invaded Texans.

[AMB]


February


March

Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p1c4 802 words

Joy! Joy! The Last Stroke Struck!

The die is cast—The House of Representatives have passed the resolutions, as amended by the Senate, by a majority of 56—and President Tyler has promptly signed them.  Thanks be to him and his Administration for the services they have rendered to his country on this glorious event.—It shall never be said, that on this, the last day of his power, there was “none so poor” as to pay him respect.  His Administration will hereafter be associated—his name and Calhoun’s , and the memories of Upshur and of Gilmer, with the brilliant name of the no longer “Lone Star!” Let others censure and abuse Mr. Tyler as they may.  We will never refuse him this honorable but humble tribute—an in our “flowing cups” let “Texas and Tyler be freshly remembered.” Errors he has committed—gross errors perhaps—but, to say nothing of his vetoes, this is an act for which he deserves the gratitude of all his countrymen.

Is it not melancholy to reflect upon the cursed consequences of this party spirit?  Wonderful to tell there was but one Whig who voted in favor of the amended resolutions, (Dellett of Ala..) whilst six of the others (Stephens of Georgia not in the House) who originally voted for Brown’s resolutions in the House, were mad enough, party-mad to vote against them in their amended form—a form, certainly, which neither affected their constitutional nor practical character.  And among these six who ultimately turned their backs upon these six who ultimately turned their backs upon Texas, were Milton Brown himself! Of Tennessee, Gen. Clinch of Georgia, and Willoughby Newton of Virginia.  They voted against it, and three others.  Newton!  Aye, our old friend Newton, whose forcible letter was, but the other day, so much admired by the Democrats, and condemned by the Whigs.  These men, it appears, could not withstand the screws of party operation, or the lash of the Whig press; and after a brilliant effort, they have returned to the vile affinities of party spirit.

But in spite of them, Texas is ours—with all its beauties—with all the glories of the achievement—with its new and splendid area spread open for the reception of our noble civil institutions.  But we must forbear.  We have no space this morning to devote to Editorial effusions.  We have given this morning’s paper to the details of the measure, as they are exhibited in the proceedings of Congress, and in our very interesting letters.  We will find room, however, for the following jubilant article, which we copy form the last Madisonian—as much for the admirable sentiments which it conveys, as in compliment to a journal which has done so much for Texas!

“TEXAS ANNEXED—The glorious victory in the House may be regarded as the consummation of this great measure, so far as the United States are concerned.  We now see that the Democracy were in earnest in placing it on their banner in the late election; that consequently the charge of its being a humbug was equally futile and ungenerous.  It, indeed, it were a humbug its adversaries acted with a Quixotic aberration of intellect in waging against it so fierce and persevering a war.  Yet as such the Intelligencer treated it during the election; and even after it, exclaimed that it “had exploded and injured nobody but Mr. Van Buren.”  A measure exploded, which has passed the Senate, after the most untiring efforts to defeat it, and the House of Representatives by a majority of 56!  This ever memorable vote stood—132 to 76.  This vote is not greater, it so great, as the proportion of numerical support among the people.

“The United States have now obtained a boundary suited to their position and interests; the country a great security which it did not possess before; our commerce safety form machinations which might have very seriously injured it; our manufactures a market which, under the fostering operation of this act, will prove a very important addition to the great marts already accessible; the agriculture and cotton-growing, and sugar-raising Sates, extensive benefits.

“The idea that our possessing it will be severely adverse to British interests, is fallacious.  It may serve, and will serve, as a new guarantee of peace with Great Britain; which can be no disservice to her, but precisely the reverse.  It will extend our commerce with her; and it we be but true to ourselves, and exert ourselves to pay our debts to the extent of our means, it will invite additional capital from her to our shores.  Her interests and ours are so entirely coincident, if each country views the matter rationally, that nothing as, between the two, can result form annexation but an augmentation of benefits to both. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p1c4 155 words

THE INAUGURATION

We hear, that thousands of people are flocking to Washington, to witness the august ceremonies of the 4th March.  If as many persons, in proportion, are pouring in from all the other points of the Compass, to the great Focus, as are setting in through our city, the multitude must amount to as great, if not a greater number, than has been collected at any previous celebration.—For several mornings past, the crowd in our cars has been very great.  Yesterday morning, they were compelled to start two engines, with three crowded cars and a baggage car to each engine.  There were about 450 in them—and a few were left behind for want of accommodation.  Joy with them!  How many spare pillows there will be in the District to repose upon, after the multitudinous heads have been accommodated, is beyond our ken to conjecture.  Very low, certainly, in the city of Washington. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p1c4 449 words

To the Editors of the Enquirer

WASHINGTON CITY, February 28, 1845

You may fire the big guns.  At quarter before nine to night, the Senate passed the House Resolutions, with the addition of Benton’s bill, leaving the option with the President to present either to Texas.  The contest was a desperate and tremendous one—every possible sort of amendment being offered by the whigs to embarrass the question.  Every Democrat voted as true as steel on every question, as did Merrick and Henderson.—Johnson occasionally faltered—Foster bolted at the start, and could never be got into the track—disappointed in getting the whole credit, he turned against the whole scheme, as shown by every act, while he professed to be for it.  The intense interest you may well imagine, when it was obvious Johnson’s vote was to decide the question, and he voted sometimes one way, and sometimes another.  Such deep anxiety I never saw in the Senate Chamber—such almost infinite variety of forms the objections and impediments were made to assume, I never witnessed—nor such ardent appeals as were made to get back the straying members of the flock.  It seemed as if the very existence of the Whigs depended on defeating the measure;  and most ably, and adroitly, and skillfully, did they conduct the fight.  But all would not do—the ominous 27 still appeared whenever a vital question was made; and after numberless yeas and nays were taken, up to the engrossment, Mr. Crittenden appealed to his friends, and said, they had fought nobly; but it was evident the measure was to be carried, and further resistance was useless; whereupon, the vote on the passage of the joint resolution was taken, and proclaimed without the ayes and noes.

The crowd was immense—I never saw the like—yet not a whisper was heard—breathless silence prevailed throughout—and the remarks of Mr. Crittenden had such an effect, that not a feeling of triumph was evinced, nor word spoken aloud altho’nine-tenths of the spectators seemed to be delighted at the result.  The amendments are all improvements to the House Resolution, provided they be concurred in; and the universal impression is, that no difficulty will be presented in the House.

Bagby excused himself by saying, the Joint Resolutions presented a constitutional mode of acquiring Texas.  If it should be adopted, he would confirm the act; but if an unconstitutional mode should be adopted, he would oppose the confirmation hereafter.  Of course, he will be required to give way to a less scrupulous man, if it be necessary hereafter.

The cannon from Capitol Hill is pealing its notes of rejoicing, and the streaming banners and merry music of the streets proclaim the cheering news throughout the city. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845  RE45i97p1c7 171 words

High Authority

In Thursday’s Whig there appears a letter from Il Secretario, the accredited organ of that anti-Texas paper, in which he describes the Annexation of Texas as an “infamous foundling of Tylerism, and bantling of Polkism appointed with public perfidity, private corruption, fraud, cowardice, shame, assumption, repudiation, the scorn of all policy, the abrogation of all law!”—The Whigs of the last Legislature were bound to adult that a large majority of the people of Virginia were in favor of this measure.  On this fact, the Richmond Whig joins issue with his Federal friends in the General Assembly, and produces the high-toned and reliable Il Secretario, to aid that anti-Virginia paper in damning this vital and popular measure.  The People of Virginia will see from the above extract in what light the great question of Annexation, admitted by all but the genius of the Whig to be an object of affection with a large majority of this State is treated by the especial organ of the Virginia Whig Party in this City. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p1c4 72 words

Twenty-seven Guns were fired on Friday (by Whigs and Democrats) in this City, upon the tidings being received from Washington of the Annexation Resolutions having passed the Senate.  It is a great national question—and its friends thought it was due to its importance to celebrate it in this manner.  The twenty-seventh gun was a compliment to the sister Star, which, it is to be hoped, is about to enter the Union. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p2c2

Twenty-Eighth Congress—2d Ses.

See Congressional Globe.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=015/llcg015.db&recNum=398  p383

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=015/llcg015.db&recNum=399 p384


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p2c3 1123 words

The Past And The Present

With all his sagacity, the ablest man is a very blind animal.  “Lands he can measure—terms and tides presage”—but in most other respects, he is as blind as a mole.  He can calculate the motions of the largest bodies in the Heavens. He can foresee Eclipses of the Sun and Moon.  He can even sometimes prognosticate the courses of the erratic Comet—but he cannot foresee the political movements of his own species in most of their most important elements.  Upon the results of the late election, for instance, the wisest of us has been unable to see scarce beyond his nose.

View the landscape, as it appears this time twelve months ago.  The Whigs were sure of the election of Mr. Clay.  He had just been to New Orleans where he had addressed his sanguine followers, and assured them that the signs were bright and almost decisive in every quarter of the Heavens.  He was about to commence his grand Southern electioneering tour, to make assurance doubly sure.  All his friends sympathized with his feelings.  They believed the election was decided, and that he only wanted the forms of the Constitution, to declare him the President of the United States.  On the other side of the picture, behold the Democrats divided among various candidates.—Buchanan, Cass, Johnson, all had warm decided friends.  In Virginia, the struggle was going on with great spirit between the friends of Van Buren and Calhoun.  But look aloft, and you see a little “Lone Star” glimmering feebly on the verge of the horizon.  Many regard it—but no one is able to estimate the irresistible influence, which, as it wheels on its solitary course, it is destined to exert upon the election, and, in fact, almost to control it.

Trace Mr. Clay on his mad and electioneering career.  He arrives at Raleigh in April.  He has reached an important point in his journey, which, as Rousseau says of Pyrrhus, was only conducting him to that unfortunate tile, which destroyed his life.  Beware, Sir, of that ill-starred question, which is to be your ruin.  Take not the advice of the unfortunate councilors, who are thronging around you from Virginia and Washington.  He listens not to the warning of truth! He writes that ominous letter, which is to prove his ruin.  He has, in an evil hour, and contrary to his own solemn professions in his speech of 1820, touched the spring, which puts into motion the tremendous machinery, that is to crush all his prospects.  The mercury, (Green,) bears his celebrated anti-Texas Raleigh letter to his anxious friends at Washington.  They, as blind as himself, send it forth, and it returns, like curses, upon his own devoted head.  In vain, he struggles against it. In vain, he has sought to propitiate the Abolition vote.  In vain, does he then write letter after letter, first to remove the impressions in the South, and then to revive them in the North—the mischief is done—and the rising hurricane drives his barque to pieces upon the shores of Texas.

            On the other hand, a far more eminent and cooler statesman writes one of the ablest documents of the age.  He demonstrates in letters of light the constitutionality of the acquisition of Texas; but unfortunately hesitates about the practicability of its immediate annexation.  The same irresistible influence operates upon his destiny—and at Baltimore, where Mr. Clay was but a few days before taken up amid the acclamations of the Whig Convention as their candidate, only to be defeated—he, (Mr. Van Buren,) worthy of a better fate is superseded by another individual, taken up without his knowledge, without even expecting it, and as it were, from the bosom of the people.  We shall not paint the violent struggles which ensued; and the shock of the extending hosts—We shall not describe the blindness, and idolatry, and infatuation of the Whigs, who had not the courage to change their leader, but followed him like a Will-o-the-Wisp, through all his blunders.  We shall not pursue them through all their arts, through all their follies, through all their humbugs-through all the infamous tricks, and amid all the thick darkness which obscured their vision.  Nor shall we describe the glorious struggles of the Republican party-their attachment to principle, their contempt of humbugs, and their unflinching devotion to the fortunes of the Lone Star.

The results of the last twelve months’ events are written in the proceedings of this day.  Who could have foreseen them twelve months ago?—Who among he sons of men was so highly gifted as a prophet, as to predict on the 4th March, 1844, what should take place on this 4th day of March, 1845; and who is this day to be honored by the first office in the world?  Memorable day! Shift the scene to Washington on this remarkable occasion.  What do we see?—Only on Friday last, the “Lone Star” of Texas has ascended to the zenith, and unites in all her glory with the American constellation.  On the very next day, (Saturday, the 1st of March,) two other new States, Iowa and Florida, rise, like twin sisters, to the rank and dignity of full members of this glorious confederacy of twenty-nine states.  And now, on this day, behold the further consequences of the powerful will of a free people.  Behold that immense multitude who are crowding the area in front of the Eastern Portico of the Capitol of the Union.  Behold that brilliant procession which fills the Avenue, bearing to the platform of the Capitol the modest, unassuming and able man, whom the people have drawn from his retirement to place at the head of the nation.  No one now asks, “Who is James K. Polk?” The oaths of office he is now taking from the lips of the Chief Justice of the United States declare him to be the President.  His tried and colleague at his side is just installed the Vice President of the U. States.

Behold, then, the sublime lesion, which is thus taught by a free government, and an enlightened people.  “If you wish to be happy, be a free people.  Repudiate all hereditary, pampered monarchs, whose majesty, when stripped of lis externals, is but “a jest”—and choose your own rulers for yourselves.  Let that choice be determined by principle, and reason; not by humbugs and appeals to the senses—and let the events of this day, which consign one distinguished citizen to the retirement of Ashland, and raise another (but modest fellow citizen) to the White House at Washington, teach all future aspirants, that noble ends are only to be achieved by noble means.” [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845  RE45i97p2c 1477 words

The Annexation of Texas

“They constitute, in my opinion, a sacred inheritance of posterity, which we ought to preserve unimpaired.”—H. Clay’s Speech in 1820.

Events of the greatest importance are crowding upon us.  On Friday, Texas, with her other five States in embryo, was annexed to the Union.  On Saturday, two more states were added to the Union.  Iowa and Florida were elevated from their territorial position to the dignified rank of States.  We congratulate our whole country, but especially the Republican party, on these great transactions.—Texas, Iowa, and Florida, will increase the number of stars on our “star-spangled banner” to twenty-nine.

We are happy to see Mr. Tyler’s Administration go out in a blaze of glory.  Erroneous as his policy may have been in several particulars, yet it will be brilliant in some interesting events.—Posterity at least will do him justice, in these respects; if the present age denies it.

But of all the transactions of his nearly four years’ administration, Texas is, after all, the most conspicuous and the most memorable.—When the passions of the moment shall have subsided, the world will regard with a species of indignant astonishment, that any great party should have opposed it—and still more, that Henry Clay should have periled all his fortunes in opposition to a measure which no man, with the text floating at the head of this article before him, could have believed it possible for him not to support, with all his enthusiasm, and all his power.—What! Mr. Clay, who declared in 1820 that Texas should be regarded as “a sacred inheritance of posterity, which we ought to preserve unimpaired,” should, notwithstanding, when we could have obtained her, without paying a cent for her, with her own full and free consent, when there was not a nation upon the face of the globe, who had a right to gainsay it—and when the fell Abolitionists in our own bosom were the most active in resisting the measure.  Wonderful blindness! Cursed infatuation! Which would have struck Mr. Clay at once from the highest roll of American statesmen, if he had ever filled that distinguished position. 

It is too true, that Mr. Clay was once the ardent and eloquent friend of Texas.  We must again refresh the memories of our readers, since the great work is accomplished—and accomplished, too, not only without, but against this wishes, and those of his followers.  It was in his celebrated speech of April 3d, 1820, on the Spanish, or Florida Treaty, that he submitted the following resolution to the House of Representatives:

“Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress the power to dispose of the territory belonging to them, and that no treaty, purporting to alternation say portion thereof, is valid, without the concurrence of Congress.

Resolved, That the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to the United States, in the treaty concluded between them on the 22nd of February, 1812, for that part of Louisiana lying West of the Sabine, was inadequate; and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof to any foreign power, or to renew the aforesaid treaty”

We pass over what Mr. Clay then says are about our right of Boundary, extending to the Rio Bravo del Norte, that we may come to what he says of the value of the acquisition, and the solemn obligation which was imposed upon us of transmitting it as “a sacred inheritance to our posterity.”  Hear, then, the orator of 1820, in the best and palmist days of his art:

“All the accounts concur in representing Texas to be extremely valuable.  Its superficial extent is three or four times greater than that of Florida.  The climate is delicious; the soil fertile; the margin of the rivers abounding in live oak; and the country admitting of easy settlement.  It possesses, moreover, if I am not misinformed, one of the finest ports of the Gulf of Mexico.  The productions of which it is capable, are suited to our wants.  The unfortunate captive of St. Helena wished for ships, commerce and colonies.  We have them all; if we don not want only throw them away.  The colonies of other countries are separated form them by vast seas, requiring great expenses to protect them, and are held subject to a constant risk of their being torn from their grasp.  Our colonies, on the contrary, are united to and form a part of our continent; and the same Mississippi, form whose rich deposits, the best of them, (Louisiana,) has been formed, will transport on her bosom the brave, the patriotic men form her tributary streams, to defend and preserve the next most valuable, the province of Texas.

“The first proposition contained in the second resolution is thus, I think, fully sustained.  The next is that it is inexpedient to cede Texas to any foreign power.  They constitute, in my opinion, a sacred inheritance of posterity, which we ought to preserve unimpaired.  I wish it was, if it is not, a fundamental and inviolable law of the land, that they should be inalienable to any foreign power.  It is quite evident that it is in the order of Providence; that it is an inevitable result of the principle of population, that the whole of this continent, including Texas, is to be peopled in process of time.  The question is, by whose race shall it be peopled?  Is our hands it will be peopled by freemen and the sons of freemen, carrying with them our language, our laws, and our liberties; establishing on the prairies of Texas temples dedicated to the simple and devout modes of worship of God incident to our religion, and temples dedicated to that freedom which we adore next to Him.  In the hands of others it may become the habitation of despotism and of slaves, subject to the dominion of the Inquisition and of superstition.  I know that there are honest and enlightened men who fear that our Confederacy is already too large, and that there is danger of disruption, arising out of want of reciprocal adherence between its several parts.  I hope and believe that the principle of representation, and the formation of States, will preserve us as a united people.  But if Texas, being peopled by us, and grappling with us, should at some distant day break off, she will carry along with her a noble crew consisting of our children’s children.  The difference between those who may be disinclined to its annexation to our confederacy, and me, is, that their system begins where mine may, possibly at some distant future day, terminate; and their’s begins with a foreign race, aliens to every thing we hold dear, and mine ends with race partaking of all our qualities.

And now, we repeat, when Texas would come back to us, with her valuable and fertile soil, her delicious climate, her harbors and her productions, her sacred temples, and hear independent people—now, when she would come back of her own free accord, with as full a right to contract alliances, as we or any independent nation can possibly possess—when she would bring back into our bosom her “noble crew, consisting of our children, and our children’s children,” we were to be churlishly told by this same Mr. Clay, and by his now deluded followers, “No, you shall not have it, She is not worth the having.  And as for you, Southrons, you shall not have it, although the abolitionists would triumph over you, and the Federalists would triumph over you, and the Federalists who attempted to intimidate you about Louisiana, are now seeking to drive you from your purpose, by idle threats of dissolution.”

People of Virginia!  We call upon you to read these past records.  Read the signs of the present times.  Look to the future, and then ct like men, like freemen, and like patriots.  Stand up like the sons of the “unterrified Old Dominion,” despite of the fanatic abolitionists and the deluded Whigs.

But, all is well.  The friends of Texas have adhered to their deliberate purpose.  We have battled the fanatic Abolitionists, beaten the deluded Whig, (with some honorable exceptions in their ranks,) and Texas is ours.  And now what confident can we place in Mr. Clay or his followers, who would have stript us of Texas—although, in 1820, he had proclaimed a resolution to stand by “Louisiana unimpaired?” Now we have re-acquired it in spite of him—and now let us swear, and let us keep the vow sacred, to “preserve this sacred inheritance of posterity unimpaired.”  Thanks be to Tyler—thanks to Upshur and Gilmer—thanks to Calhoun—thanks to her friends in both Houses of Congress—thanks to her friends every where—we have recovered our “sacred inheritance”—and let us now faithfully “preserve” it. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845  RE45i97p2c5 242 words

Will the Whigs keep their word to-day?

“Explanation.—The Whigs of Howard Grove, near Richmond, Virginia, held a meeting before the late election, and having deluded themselves into the belief that Henry Clay would be chosen President, adjourned to meet in Washington on the fourth of March.  Since then, we believe, they have explained their meaning to have been something like that of Mr. Webster, when in ‘an after dinner speech.’ He recommended the occupation of the disputed North-East Territory on the fourth of July.  He said he did not mean any particular forth of July; and they do not mean any particular fourth of March.”—N.Y. Morning News.

Such is the effect of “counting your chickens before they are hatched”—or, to use another adage, of “Counting without their host.”  We remember this Howard Grove ceremony well.—We remember the live coon that we meant—and the multitude who assembled in that beautiful grove in the vicinity of our city—and the bold and arrogant tone of Mr. Rives, of which we heard—and the other humbug paraphernalia of the “swelling scene.”  Where now is it all?  Where are the living emblems of their idolatry?  Where the boasting orator?  Where the arrogant Idol of their faith?  Where the adjourned meeting which the Convention was this day to have held in Washington?  All gone—all vanished before the fiat of a free People—all, all dissolved—

“And like the baseless fabric of a vision, Left not a wreck behind.” [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p2c4 1375 words

Clinging to the Last Straw!

We beg the Baltimore American to put itself entirely at ease.  Texas will be satisfied with the terms of the Resolutions, and the whole work will be accomplished.

When the amended Resolutions passed the Senate on Thursday night, the National Intelligencer caught at a straw.  It indulged a visionary hope, that the Whigs of the House of Representatives might still defeat the measure—that some rule of the House might cut them off from consideration—or, if they were taken up, that the Whigs might send them to a committee, where they might be smothered—or that outspeaking time in the Committee of the Whole, or by piling motion upon motion, and ayes and noes without end upon each other, they might contrive to vast the time and wear out the patience of the House.  Unfortunate Whigs!  Scarcely had the House met on Friday, when the Resolutions were taken up, all the maneuvers of the Whigs were defeated, every scheme was baffled, and the Resolutions were triumphantly passed by a thundering majority of 56.

The poor Whigs have still another straw to clutch at, in order to keep themselves from drowning.  The “Baltimore American” catches up “one further contingency.” It is possible that Texas may decline the proffered annexation.”  Yes, and we are sometimes told, that “the skies may fall,” and then, you know, according to the proverb, “we may catch larks.”  “The bill as it passed the Senate (says the ‘American’) leaves the terms and conditions of annexation to be settled hereafter—that is to say, commissioners on both sides are to agree upon the terms of admission and cession which agreement is to be afterwards submitted to the Senate in the form of a treaty, or to both Houses of Congress in the shape of Articles of Agreement.  In the former case, the sanction of two-thirds of the Senators will be necessary to perfect the arrangement; in the latter, it may be confirmed by joint resolution, requiring a majority of each House.  It is left to the President to determine which of the two modes of confirmation shall be adopted.  This is the first time, we believe, that the President assumed to himself to enforce the Constitution as he understood it.—There is a possibility that the terms of agreement fixed upon by the commissioners may not receive the sanction of the Senate, or of the Congress, as the case may be.  This, however, is a contingency upon which but little stress is to be laid.”

We beg the Baltimore American not to flatter itself with any hope from having so many strings to its bow.  The terms and conditions of annexation are already settled by the resolutions.  The House Resolutions have settled that question—for, as Col. Benton’s bill as a proviso, and proposed for the sake of compromise by Mr. Walker, it will be all surplusage.  There will be no necessity at this time for all the complicated machinery, which the American has so ingeniously contrived to produce delay, and endanger the ultimate fate of the measure.  We shall scarcely require any Commissioners to agree upon the terms.  The President will hardly be caught in the cloven stick of the treaty power, and the legislative power.  The responsibility which the “B. American” vibrates over his head, will be dissipated at once by the concurrence of Texas in the Resolutions of Mr. Milton Brown, (So unfortunately repudiated at last by their own father.)  These Resolutions would have settled, and will now settle every thing, so far as relates to the admission of Texas as a new State “Into the Union.”  We understood, on Saturday, by a gentleman recently from Nashville, who saw Maj. Donaldson immediately on his return from Texas, that he had sounded the Government of Texas upon the terms of resolutions, and that they would prove satisfactory to the great body of the People.—So the “American” may dismiss his visionary apprehensions. The creditors for Texas would, of course, have preferred, that the United States should have assumed the immediate payment of their debts—but the creditors do not constitute the majority of her people, who are anxious for annexation.  And besides, the creditors themselves may see from such a rapid increase of emigration into the country; from such a demand for the public lands, and an augmentation of their value, that the scrip which they may receive from the State of Texas, with the interest secured, and also with the alternative, perhaps, of being receivable in the payment of the public lands, will soon be worth par, or even above it—and they will soon become content with the contemplated arrangement.  No man can doubt, that their lands will appreciate from emigration; and that this emigration will rapidly increase.  We understood, indeed, on Saturday, by an intelligent gentleman just from Alabama, that he knew several of his wealthy neighbors, who were preparing to remove with their slaves and their property to Texas, as soon as the annexation was completed.

If the Resolution of the House do not cover every “further contingency,” why, these new cases may hereafter become the subjects of negotiation and of compact between the State of Texas and the United States.  Say, that some provision is found necessary for the government of the Indians—Say, that some measures may be required for running the boundary liens of the New State, and for the allotment of her residuary territory among the other four States, which are to run South of 36 ½ degrees of latitude, nothing can be simpler than the usual process in such cases.  Commissioners may then be appointed—compacts may then be formed.  Our archives furnish innumerable cases of this species of amicable adjustment between the States and the U. States.  We beg the “Baltimore American,” therefore, to be comforted.  Mr. Polk is a cool, discreet man.  He has the confidence of Texas—for, he was elected as her friend.  She will be very apt to take the “terms and conditions” of the Resolutions, as the basis of her action—and he has rather too much sagacity to throw a new compact before the public councils—to provoke the same battle fought over again, during the next session, as we have recently witnessed—to see the agitating struggle repeated between the Abolitionists and the Southrons—to see the same discussion renewed between the Little Indians and the Big Endians—the champions of the Treaty making power, and those of the Legislative power—or rather those like Mr. Archer and his versatile, mysterious sect, who are all things by turns, and nothing long”—now, against the Treaty power, and for the Legislative power, when a Treaty is presented for their ratification—and then, for the Treaty, and against the Legislative power, when the compact will be submitted “to both Houses of Congress in the shape of articles of agreement.”  Let the “American” be assured, that Mr. Polk is too wise a man to play this game with the Whigs—and too little disposed to extend his own power, by making himself “the judge of a constitutional question” so unnecessarily mooted and so easily avoided.  Again, we beg the “American” to be comforted.  It ill lose its last straw; and the whole question will be settled.  Then, the “American,” and its great Idol, and its whole infatuated and obsequious party, who have followed so absurdly in the wake of their intriguing leader, may take what comfort they can for the egregious blunder that they have all committed, in suffering the Republican party to reap almost all the glory of acquiring one of the most magnificent region, which Providence has bestowed upon man; whilst they, the foolish and impassioned Whigs, have brought down upon their own heads, first the edium of attempting to defeat.  These are the political chronicles of Texas—whose destiny is now placed beyond the idle evils and shameless opposition of the Whigs—beyond the miserable clamors of Mexico—and above the insidious intrigues of Britain, and the infatuated fanaticism of the Abolitionists.  The Democrats have battled against them all.  They have gloriously succeeded—and nothing is now left to the Whigs, but defeat and disgrace, sackcloth and ashes. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p1c4 179 words

Mr. Merrick meets with no mercy or charity from the dis-contenteded, dis-appointed, dis-confited, (another epithet might send them to the region of Dis) Whigs.  He has saved the magnificent territory of Texas, “with her fertile soil and delicious climate” (as Mr. Clay says,) from the death-struggle of party spirit—and if the Whigs curse him, why we must thank him.  But I was reserved fro the most illiberal of the Whiggish clan to suspect his motives.  That most worthy and dignified scribbler, the “Il Secretario” of the North American, says of him: “In the Senate, we have lost Merrick, whom all set down as simply bought, either with Texas scrip or with the promise of office.”  Does Il Secretario draw from his own conscience?  Does he suspect Mr. M. of doing what he would have done in a similar situation?  Will Mr. Cost Johnson also coming for a share of Mr. Merrick’s honors?  Such are the beautiful ethics of the Whig school.  Go for your country, and you are bribed.  Go against your patriotism, and you are a patriot. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845  RE45i97p2c5 755 words

Extract of a letter from a young and ardent friend.

No tongue can tell, no pen describe the excitement and the elation which pervade the minds and hearts of our friends in this city, at the prenon on Capitol Hill have announced it.  The glad faces of every Democrat announce it.  The pens of hundreds of men are now announcing it to all portions of the Union—among them, I announce it to you.  Two nights since, at this moment, every mind was anxious and fearful for the success of the measure; and the meandering speech of Mr. Bagby was listened to with more attention, than the ablest man of the nation could have commanded at the moment.  Last night, the scene in the Senate was worth a visit to Washington.  It required the intervention of the President to check the applause that was ready to burst out at Col. Benton’s declaration against the enemies of Texas.  To-day, the scenes in the House were marked with a degree of interest rarely known.  But how glorious the finale!—139 to 76.  If you do not carry Virginia in April, after this, you had better surrender at discretion.

You will see the yeas and nays in the papers, or I would send you a copy.  I have not time to write you more.  Many inquiries are made after you, and surprise expressed about your not coming on.*

But I must conclude.  No leakings out about the Cabinet.  It is said the names will go into the Senate in a sealed paper, and not known till it is opened.

Even as I write, I fancy I hear the Texas guns going off in Richmond.

*We ought to be thankful to any of our friends for thinking of us, amid the very interesting scenes—the “high matters” (as Edward Burke would call them) by which they are surrounded.  But as we wrote to Washington on Saturday, “It is no great matter whether I go or not.  You will have great men enough—(we are sure enough, our good natured readers will excuse the jocular tone of the expression.)—to grace the ceremonial—much greater than I can pretend to be, men who have much served the causes and the country more efficiently, certainly not more zealously, perhaps not more honestly than I have done.—Be their’s the pleasure—their’s the pride.  I will be content to send two—who naturally have some curiosity to witness the splendid scene, “ &c., &c.  But this is drawing the curtain too much of domestic life—and to use a favorite, diplomatic epithet of our late Whig friends of the Virginia Legislature, we “forbear.”  One suggestion we beg leave most respectfully to submit to our friends in Washington, in this form, instead of presenting it in person;--The agitating question of Texas now settled, we have only one other great difficulty in our way.  Of course, we mean the Tariff—and upon that great question the South will never “forbear”—never flinch—never desert the duty she owes to herself and to her country.  Upon that question, we hope Mr. Polk will be true to the pledges, under which he was elected—pledges, as solemnly made at the Baltimore Convention, as they were made in regard to Texas.  On this subject, we renew now, at this most important and accepted time, the pledge, and in the same spirit which was breathed in the sixth resolution of the Legislative Convention, “to raise the consecrated banner, and battle under it until we succeed.”  “Texas and the Tariff well settled—(to go on with expressions of our Washington letter)—with an honest and virtuous and able Statesman at the head of our affairs—surrounded by an accomplished Cabinet—who will not burn incense to the vanity of the office, but will boldly tell him the truth, and we shall have smooth seas for two years or more to come, until at least the question of the succession may come up.  For one, I solemnly vow, that I will keep aloof from it as long as I can—as I earnestly advise you to do.  Our country calls upon us to serve her now—not mere men.”  These are the truths, the only truths which we would have expressed to our friends in Washington, if we were there, and if we could have ventured to interweave such grave reflections with the gay spectacle which is now exhibited among the thousands who throng the Capitol.

THE SENIOR EDITOR

[MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p2c6 542 words

To the Editors of the Enquirer

I write you this evening from within a few feet of the Hall of the House of Representatives, where the scene I anticipated in my letter of last evening is going on.

When the Senate re-assembled last night, they immediately took up the Texas Resolutions as amended, and the minority tried all possible plans to defeat them by motions for adjournment—yeas and noes on frivolous amendments, &c.

Among others, Mr. Miller of New Jersey proposed Mr. Benton’s bill, by itself, as a substitute; when Mr. B. asked him “if he fancied he was out catching snow birds?”  Mr. Miller then made a pathetic appeal to the Senator from Missouri not to kill his own child.  Whereupon Mr. Benton with great warmth exclaimed aye, that “I will—kill it stone dead!—stone dead!”

The Federalists, seeing the futility of further attempts to defeat the wish of the majority, then submitted, and the Texas resolutions were carried by a majority of two votes.  Every Republican, and three Whigs voting in favor of the measure.

In the House, when the morning hour had expired, all sorts of subterfuges were resorted to by our opponents to prevent action on this question, but without avail.  It was taken up in spite of them; and for the last two hours, Messrs.  Barnard and Winthrop, backed by the elegant Mr. Washington Hunt of New York, and his “babashilie” Schenk of Ohio, are moving heaven and earth to stave off action on the question.  Appeals from the decision of the Chair—motions to adjourn and calls of the House, on all of which yeas and nays are demanded, are the weapons applied by Federalism to defeat the will of the people on the question of annexation.  I feel well satisfied that by midnight the resolutions as amended will have passed the House; for, at every succeeding call, the factionists are losing strength.

Our Democratic friends, to a man, are voting together.  The are no divisions now.  The party stand, as they should, shoulder to shoulder, under the broad banner of annexation.  What a blow is this re-union to the hopes of Federalism!—“Like the last rose of summer,” there prospects of breaking down Col. Polk’s administration “are faded and gone;” for they based those prospects on the probability of a split in our ranks.

HALF-PAST 6, P.M.

The Resolutions, as amended, have passed by fifty-six majority. What think you of that?—“Dick” Davis and Mr. Hale were the only men elected as Democrats who voted against them.—Davis is the person whose barber shop prophecies last winter (that Col. Polk could not get the vote of New York,) made such a noise.  He has been consistently against us ever since.  Mr. Hale has made so much noise in the House that all the world knows who he is.  The Whigs voting with us on Brown’s Resolutions alone flew the track.  Stephens of Georgia, however, was absent.  Federalism had too strong a hold on them.

Guns are firing—Republicans are rejoicing—and those who secretly wished Britain success during the last war—who now would rather see her institutions than our’s the law of this land—alone mourn the consummation of annexation.  Yours truly.  –

[MLD]


Tuesday, March 4, 1845 RE45i97p2c6 1591 words

Washington City, March 1st

To the Editors of the Enquirer

I wrote you last night in a very hurried manner, giving a brief account of the proceeding son the Texas question up to the final triumph of the Republican party on its great measure of state—the House sat very late and passed the naval appropriation bill, on feature of which gives great offence to the very many junior officers of that branch of the service, who are daily to be found in the lobbies of Congress.  It provides, that no promotion shall be made to the rank of Commodore, until the number in service shall be reduced to sixty-five—they now number ninety-five—and the candidates fear that twenty years will elapse ere the overplus die off.  The House also worked half way through the army appropriation bill.  The Senate sat late and were principally engaged on House bills.  They concurred in the amendments made by the House to the Post Office bill.  I have paid very little attention to-day to the proceedings of either branch of Congress, as, with the exception of a bill in the Senate “in regard to the claims of American citizens on Mexico,” little was done of interest to your readers.

The President of the United States has, in all probability, already signed the joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas; and, if Almonte has not asked his passports, it is generally believed he will do so on Monday.  Where will he go?  Not to Mexico, you may rest assured; for, the party in power there would ask no better fun than to put their hands on him.  He is as odious at home as Rejon himself; for Santa Anna had no more reliable man than Senor Almonte.  If he stays in Washington until after the 4th, and then travels that road, he will have to be the bearer of news to his Government even more unpalatable than those announcing the consummation of annexation; I mean of the passage of the bill before the Senate, to which I refer above; or of another, to the same effect, more prompt in its requirements, and decided in its character, if possible.  This bill, after setting forth the delays and subterfuges to which Mexico has resorted to avoid paying claims acknowledged as just, demands that she shall at once come to a settlement as per her former agreement; and provides, that if she delays, the President of the United States shall appoint a Board of three Commissioners, to hold their sessions in Washington, for the adjudication of the claims; and then our Government hall forthwith proceed to force payment.

Both parties in the Senate will stand up to this bill, which the conduct of Mexico renders so necessary; you have doubtless seen a paragraph going the rounds of the Whig papers, upon the subject of payment of the last enstalment ($275,000) due from Mexico to our Government.—They say, that it was repaid to Santa Anna by our agent, as a bribe form this Government, to smother his opposition to annexation!  Even the Intelligencer, with all its claims to propriety, truthfulness and fair dealing, copied it in such a manner as to impress its readers with a belief of the truth of the statement.  Mind ye this was to work as spoke in Federalism’s wheel of opposition to Texas.  The Editors of the Intelligencer can plead no fair excuse for their semi-endorsement of this their last, slander upon the Government of the United States; for in five minutes they could have obtained any information upon the subject form the State department, necessary to refute this story.

Here are the circumstances of the case, as they were told me to-day, by a gentleman upon whom I can rely.  The firm of Harzons & Co., in Vera Cruz and New York, and Vosa & Co., in Mexico, are agents of our Government for receiving the money already stipulated to be paid by Mexico to the United States.  Trigoeros, Santa Anna’s late Secretary of the Treasury, is a principal partner of these firms.  With one hand, as Santa Anna’s fiscal agent he paid the last installment ($275,000) into the other, with which he wrote the receipt as agent of the U.S. Government.  The money found its way into his own pocket, and he has absquatulated along with the rest of his master’s Ministers, whose heads are not safe on their own shoulders if caught within the Republic of Mexico.  Santa Anna’s robberies of the Treasury of his own Government, furnished him with an illustrious precedent for this robbery of ours.  Our Treasury suffers by this financial “operation” for you will remember he was sufficiently patriotic to give his own Government a receipt for the money as U.S. agent.  This Congress will be forced to appropriate the sum stolen, the United States being responsible for it to the claimants.

The Federalists stared aghast, at the late vote, in both branches of Congress, on the Texas question.  Notwithstanding the failure of all their previous attempts to produce disunion in the Republican ranks, they had fondly hoped that those who differed somewhat from the main body of the party, (as to the best terms for annexation,) would stand off, and become permanently estranged from their old political friends.  They had hoped to profit by the “split,” to every great extent; and at this moment are not half so much distressed at the passage of the resolutions as at the “re-union,” which permits the President elect to begin the exercise of his functions with a party to sustain him, who stand most firmly knit together by a common devotion to the great principles inscribed on the banner of Democracy.  At no time during the administration of Jefferson and Jackson were their supporters more of one mind on each and every important measure of State in issue between the parties—Nor were they ever more keenly alive to the importance of presenting an unbroken front to the enemies of the cause of liberal principles.  This the Federalists here, see, know, and feel most deeply; for, they may be heard, in all public places about town, cursing roundly at the adhesiveness so natural to those who fight for great principles, and for these alone.

It is but due to Judge Bayly of Virginia to say, that to no man more than to himself, belongs the credit of having carried through this important measure in such a manner as not only to harmonize all bitterness and jealousy among our friends, but at the same time to guard and protect the momentous interests fo the South therein.  His bearing during the entire time the question was before Congress, now that it is so happily settled, receives much praise form almost every Republican of the Senate and House.  His industry, caution, self-possession, firmness, and withal, his frank conciliatory spirit, as displayed during the late trying times, were the subject of conversation to-day among seven of the most distinguished of our friends in the House—with whom I chanced to be for the moment.

These gentlemen were from different sections of the country—no two from the same State.—And in roaming over the attempts to distract the party, the heart-burnings arising from misconceptions of views and feelings, and the efforts once or twice made to dragoon our friends into submission, to the views of first one and then another—his prompt exposure of the tricks of our adversaries—his efforts to reconcile estranged political friends, and his manly resistance to distraction, form any and every quarter, were referred to, as having most happily contributed to the final settlement of the question, upon terms uniting the whole party in its support.

A lithographed picture—a beautiful thing—was received this morning at the Post Office of the H. of Representatives for distribution among those members who voted against the Annexation of Texas, on the ever memorable 25th of January, 1845.  It was an abolition offering of praise and gratitude to those gentlemen who thereby had rendered such important services to the cause of Loyd Garrison & Co.  Ishal not describe it minutely; but will mention that among the names of heroes, statesmen, and philanthropists, inscribed on the wreath, Santa Anna’s stood out boldly a few inches above that of Washington.  It purported to be “Freedom’s seventh, dedicated to those patriots who, on the 25th of January, 1845,interposed the shield of their vote against the most base assault ever aimed at the vitals of Liberty.”  Their names were paraded in bold relief—commencing with that of the guest of the Richmond Whigs, John Q Adams—who, with Joshua R. Giddings, were alone honored by having their names printed in large capitals.

When I came to the names of the Federalist of Virginia—Summers, Goggin and Chilton, and of those of North Carolina, Rayner, Clingman, Deberry and Barringer, my blood ran cold within me.  It was too much to bear with any degree of patience.  When these men return to their constituents, and attempt, with their lawyer cuteness at special pleading, to convince them that they have discharge their duties on this questions, as Representatives from the south, let this picture be held up before them, dedicated by the abolitionists as a testimony of their gratitude and respect, won by the course of these Southern men on a question of more vital importance to the South than any that has agitated the country since the admission of Missouri as a State.

Yours truly. [MLD]


Friday, March 7, 1845 RE45i98p1c7 1740 words

Commend the Poisoned Chalice to their own Lips!

The people of Virginia will remember, among the other numerous shameless humbugs of the Whigs, during the last Presidential Campaign, the Disunion Humbug.  They attempted to ring as many changes upon it as the six bell ringers, with their 42 bells.  They attempted to intimidate the people with their panic notes, that South Carolina was bent upon the dissolution of the Union—that the Republicans of the Sough were embarked in the same conspiracy—that Colonel Polk was the selected leader of the traitors—and that his election would seal the fate of the Union.  The Republicans not only denied these allegations, but they pointed to the threats of John Q. Adams & Co., to the Resolutions of Massachusetts and Vermont, and to the menacing movements of the Abolitionists and the Whigs, as the evidences of a more decided Anti-Union feeling, on the other side of the House--Against all these open manifestations the humbugging Whigs had politically closed their very vigilant eyes.  Well--and how stands the case now?  Col. Polk is elected, and was yesterday installed into office, as President of the U. States—and still the Union stands firmly upon its basics.  Not a blow as been aimed at its foundation by a single Democrat.  The whole humbug is exposed, to the ridicule of mankind—as far as relates to us—but how is it with the Whigs?  Since the election, Massachusetts has again acted—and issued her bull against the Union—and it now remains to be seen—1st, what she will do to carry out her threats; and 2dly, What the humbugging Whigs of Virginia will say, either to the threat or to the execution, if the Disunionists of Massachusetts should be rash enough to make the experiment.  Texas is now annexed—and we wait to hear from Massachusetts, what she is about to do.  Meantime, we lay before our readers the following scathing article from that capital journal, the “Boston Morning Post,” of Thursday last—the very day on which the Texas Resolutions passed the Senate of U. States:

“THE TEXAS RESOLVES: ANCIENT AND MODERN FEDERALISM.

‘Resolved, That there has hitherto been no precedent of an admission of a foreign State or foreign Territory into the Union by legislation.  And as the powers of legislation granted in the Constitution of the United States, to Congress, do not embrace a case of the admission of a foreign State or foreign Territory, by legislation, into the Union, SUCH AN ACT OF ADMISSION WILL HAVE NO BINDING FORCE WHATEVER ON THE PEOPLE OF MASSECHUSETTS.’”

“Words are said to be things. The Whig majority of the Massachusetts Legislature have solemnly resolved, that if Congress pass an act admitting Texas into this Union, such act “WILLHAVE NO BINDING FORCE WHATEVER ON THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS.”  This language is either trifling, or it is disorganizing.  But first, it is not to be supposed that the men who compose the majority of this Legislature would pass a series of resolves to merely trifle with their time or with the money of the people.  If not trifling, then, secondly, these legislators have here done what they could, and all they could, to raise a spirit of opposition to government that, hereafter, may not “down at their bidding.”  Here the legally constituted authorities of Massachusetts have deliberately and solemnly declared, that if the similarly constituted legal authorities of the Union shall enact a certain law, this law “will have no binding force whatever on the people!”  What does this mean?

“Does it mean that the people of Massachusetts, acting in their inherent right, shall throw off the Federal Government?  In other words, do what the Declaration of Independence declares a people have a right to do.  That they have the right to alter and abolish government whenever and wherever they please, is, unquestionably, the doctrine of the revolution.  If the Legislature mean to take this ground, or, is other words, to plant themselves on the great national right of revolution, then another question comes up, whether the causes are sufficient to justify such a movement.  But this ground is disclaimed by the Whig party.  While its every movement appears upon its face to have been designed to effect a dissolution of the Union, it still repudiates such an intention.  Is the disclaimer only made until the leaders think the pear shall be ripe?

“But take the words as they stand, and what do they mean?  They invite the people of Massachusetts to resist a law of Congress.  Here men priding themselves on their conservative principles—men who have law and order eternally upon their lips—men who are daily charging their political opponents with promoting anarchy; these men unfurl the banner of resistance to a contemplated act of the supreme authority of the country.  Are the people of Massachusetts ready to rally about such a banner?  Are they ready to embark in open resistance to the LAWS OF THE LAND?

“But in all this the federalism of to-day but imitates the federalism of a former period.  If it has been inconsistent in argument, advocating and opposing one and the same doctrine, as the expediency of the time seemed to dictate, it has been consistent in its purposes.  These have been to gain political power at any end every hazard—to rule or ruin.  In 1798 it declared that if Jefferson was made President, the constitution, the country and the bibles would share the same fate.  Facts show that all through hi administration, “certain leaders” did what they could to make this prediction true.  They declared the Louisiana purchase of no binding force, and negotiated to establish a new confederacy.  They declared the embargo laws of no binding force, and preached and practiced open resistance to them—the federal legislature even going so far as to pass an act making the enforcement of some of the provisions of this law criminal, and attaching penalties to a violation of this State act.  They declared the requisition of the United States for its militia to defend the country of no binding force; and not only refused compliance with it, but to embarrass the Democratic administration, endeavored to engage Connecticut and Rhode Island in a similar course of disorganization—and, with shame be it said, the federal Judges even supported the federal Governor, (Strong) and his factious legislature.  Does anyone with to see the key to all this open opposition?  John Adams has got it among his papers.  It was the aim of the federal leaders, he says, first to rule and if they failed, then to dissolve the Union.—In a letter to Gov. Plumer, of New Hampshire, dated August 16, 1809, written on the banks of Newfoundland, Mr. Adams says—

‘ “The plan of a New England combination, more closely cemented than by the ties of the Federal Government—a combination, first to rule the whole, and if that should prove impracticable, to separate from the rest—has been so far matured, and has engaged the studies, the intrigues and ambition of so many leading men in our part of the country, that I think it will produce mischievous consequences unless seasonably and effectually discountenanced by men of more influence and comprehensive views.”’

“The Federal leaders of to-day, on account of the expected annexation of a splendid territory, are using their old bitter language of opposition, if not zealously engaged in promoting their old plans of disunion.  Such language as we have quoted, however, deserves more than ordinary condemnation.  If there is one thing more than another that distinguishes a good citizen, it is obedience to law.  If there is one thing more than another that deserves the severest condemnation, it is the inflammatory language that not only invites but commands disobedience to law.  Such is the terrible language of these violent resolves.—They receive the most hearty welcome from the most fanatic abolitionists.  They should receive the withering rebuke of every good citizen and true patriot.”

Now, people of Virginia, mark!  Not a syllable have we seen escape any Whig Press, in reprobation of this disorganizing resolution from Massachusetts.  If we attempt to defeat the Whigs in their unholy office of cramming an anti-Texas, a Tariff Whig, for six years down the thoughts of 6,000 majority of the people of Virginia, then it is we hear from their fiery lips the cry of our being “disorganizing, “ “revolutionary,” &c.,  &c.—But whenever their own cronies in Massachusetts threaten to withdraw from the Union, if Texas be annexed to it, why then, they are as “dumb as oysters.”  Such are the humbugging Whigs!

Another Whig Humbug!

Our readers have not forgotten, of course, the British Gold Humbug—how it was circulated in every form—proclaimed in every Whig newspaper—announced by every Whig slangwhanger from the stump—thrown into an Election handbill, just before the election, by the “Sole Author,” (now honored by a seat in the Executive Council, from which John Rutherfoord was removed in compliment to his (Mr. Daniels) pretensions.)  Well, what has become of that humbug?  Dead as King Harry the 8th-almost hissed off the stage, after it had stalked its busy hour upon it.  We proclaimed at the moment, that the statement form the London Times, on which it was erected, was a forgery and a fraud; but the true history of the transaction has just leaked out, to stamp its authors with additional infamy.  One, who was then connected with “The Republic,” a New York newspaper, has come forward to certify that it was forged by one of the officers of a Clay Club in the city of New York, to humbug an enlightened people.  Thanks be to a gracious Providence, and thanks be to a “sober, second though” people, all these humbugs were of no avail—and James K. Polk, instead of Henry Clay, was yesterday sworn into office as the President of the United States, by the voice of an enlightened people.  Had Harry of the West been yesterday carried into power, we might well have trembled for the very liberties of the country.  Power thus obtained, by a desperate party, and wielded by a bold and arrogant man, would have been certainly most grossly abused.  The party, which acquires power by such abuses, is sure to abuse the power thus acquired.  Never had the American people more cause for gratulation, than they have for the glorious events of yesterday. [MLD]


Friday, March 7, 1845 RE45i98p2c4  706 words

THE CABINET

The following article from the Wednesday’s Globe gives us the composition of the Cabinet—all of whom had been confirmed, with the exception of Mr. Bancroft, (the celebrated Historian of the United States from Boston,) whose nominations lies over for a day; but, in all probability, was confirmed in yesterday’s session of the Senate:

“The Cabinet—The President nominated to the Senate to-day—

“Hon. James Buchanan, Secretary of State.

“Hon. Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury.

“Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of War.

“Hon. George Bancroft, Secretary of the Navy.

“Hon. John Y. Mason, Attorney General.

“Hon. Cave Johnson, Postmaster General.

“All the nominations were acted on and confirmed during the sitting, except that of Mr. Bancroft, which was postponed until to-morrow, at the request of some member—from what motive, we cannot divine.  The Cabinet is composed of men of talent—of fine business aptitudes—of unblemished and exalted characters.  All of them are distinguished for devotion to the Democratic cause, each having seen at least sixteen years of hard service—twelve years under the lead of Jackson and Van Buren, and four during the term which has resulted in the elevation of President Polk.”

The members of this Cabinet will have no bed of roses to rest upon.  Independently of the necessity of setting in at once to a study of the details and habits of the office, they will have some most important conduct.  Mr. Buchanan, especially, has to superintend the final settlement with Texas, and her admission into the Union—and the great negotiation of Oregon to carry on.  Fortunately, he has studied both these problems, in the Senate of the U. States, and especially in the Committee of Foreign Relations of which he has been sometimes Chairman, and a member for many years.  Mr. Walker will have the knotty and complicated subject of the Tariff—and being from the South, he is acquainted with our rights and wrongs—and being a gentleman versed in statistics, he will be able with his great perseverance to comprehend the details of his office and the duties of his situation.  All the members of the Cabinet are devoted to the interests of the Republican party—and we trust, they will assiduously devote themselves to the support of its principles, and the best service of their country.  They have our cordial wishes for their success—and Mr. Polk, our anxious hopes for the glory of his Administration.

The Washington Correspondent of the “Philadelphia United States Gazette,” (Oliver Old school) refers in his letter of the 2nd instant to the difficulties which Mr. Polk must have had in organizing his Cabinet—and portrays some of the heart burnings, which it is pleased to imagine, among the friends of Messrs. Calhoun and Van Buren.  E know not how this may be.  We all have our favorites-and they (the Whigs) have been pleased to say, that we have ours.  We are not ashamed to “own the soft impeachment.”  We were desirous to see one gentleman in that Cabinet, whose name we do not see there, because we believed him eminently calculated for the Executive service.  But it has pleased Mr. Polk to select other distinguished men.  But this we will undertake to say, that no man has been more efficient than he has proved to be in every service to which he has been called.—He would have adorned the highest possible post in the Cabinet—as he is a man of business, acquainted with both men and things, prompt in decision, energetic in action—who would scorn to burn incense to the vanity of the highest office, whilst he would dare to speak, what men in power, generally, so much want, the truth, even when it is the most unpleasant—As he proved himself the frank, enlightened, and efficient friend of General Jackson, so we had hoped that Mr. Polk would have found it consistent with his public duties to call him to his side.  He has deemed it best, however, to make another disposition of the seals of office,--and we do not hesitate to say, that the gentleman in question will do his duty to himself, to his party, and to his country. [MLD]


Friday, March 7, 1845  RE45i98p4c6 309 words

ANTI-TEXAS WHIGS

The Whig presses of New York are taken all aback by the news of the annexation of Texas—It is impossible for them to conceal, or for us to describe, the agony of their disappointment.  If, as the New York Express says, we “have been lifted out of the very cave of despair, into the perfect fruition of Paradise,” we can only return the compliment by saying, that the Express has sunk into that cave from which we have been lifted—and that there is scarcely a “deeper Hell” into which it could possibly descend.

The New York Tribune adopts a still more reprehensible and disgraceful tone.  It denounces one of its recent favorites, Merrick of Maryland, as “the purchased traitor of Maryland!”  It has the folly to exclaim:

“Yes, the mischief is done, and we are now involved in war!  We have adopted a war ready made, and taken upon ourselves its prosecution to the end.  We are to furnish the bodies to fill trenches and the cash to defray its enormous expense.”

With almost a traitor’s spirit, it appears to egg on Great Britain to war with us, on account of Texas. Hear the maniac:

“If, therefore, Great Britain should see fit to stand up for the feeble and unoffending people on whom we are making war, she will be but obeying the instinct of self-preservation.  By our proceedings in getting possession of Texas, we have declared ourselves the enemies of the civilized world, or only restrained from becoming such by the lowest considerations of self-interest.  Surely, there must come a reckoning for this.  If those who are driving us on to untold expenditure and carnage were themselves to pay the taxes and stop the bullets, it would be a different matter.”

We leave such a journalist to the scorn and indignation of the country.


Friday, March 7, 1845 RE45i98p4c7 1054 words

For the Enquirer

Having seen two articles in the Richmond Whig, in reference to the correspondence between Dr. John R. Taylor and Col. Billups, I was somewhat surprised at the non-committal course pursued by Colonel Billups relating to the instructions received by that gentlemen from a majority of the legally qualified voters of the election district of Mathews and Middlesex, which [..] has the honor to represent, by the accidental [..]prise that I felt, was considerably heightened […] the fact, that Col. B. last Spring expressed himself as believing in the right of instructions […] as a matter of course, I concluded that he th[…] it the duty of the representative to obey, when […] could do so without a violation of his constitutional oath, and, should his obedience conflict his mind with that oath, that then it was his duty to resign.

Until towards the latter part of the session of the Legislature, I was pleased with the vote given by our representative, and concluded that he would continue to carry out the wishes of both the Whigs and Democrats of Mathews and Middlesex, and regretted very much, that when the vote was taken upon the Senate’s amendment of the resolution of the House, expressing the constitutionality of annexing Texas by a joint resolution of Congress, Colonel Billups should have voted against the amendment, and thus by his vote, showing us he was opposed to the annexation of Texas, notwithstanding, before his election, he had declared himself in favor of Texas, and went so far as to pledge himself to vote against Henry Clay, should he come out against the annexation of that delightful country.  After Mr. Clay’s letters m[…] their appearance, Col. B. changed his grou[…] like the Richmond Whig, but he did not have the precaution to play non-committal with that ad[…]ness that he appears to have learned since he had been to Richmond, viz: in remaining silent […] the request of the constituents of both gentlemen until after the Senate had postponed going in an election of United States Senator indefin[…]ly.  An answer from Col. Billups, stating that he was willing to obey the voice of a large majority of his constituents, would have ensured us a Senator to carry out the wishes of the people of Virginia, as expressed last Fall by a majority […] 6,000 freemen.  But no; rather than throw an obstacle in the way of those two traitors to the South—Rives and Archer—the annexation of Texas must be defeated—although John Quincy Adams, and his Abolition friends of the Nor[…] were willing to go for it, but for strengthen[…] the Southern States—and thus give them a be[…] change to crush the institution of slavery, guaranteed to us by the Constitution—and then […] glorious Union, whose flag ought to be waving over every sea, with the addition of the lone star of the sunny South, will be rent asunder by the chilling gales of Northern abolitionists, and […] proud eagle of America will be trampled under the feet of the British lion, whose ambition is as insatiable as the ravenous vulture.

With these facts before us will it be believed that Col. John R. Billups would suffer party feeling, notwithstanding his previous pledges in favor of Texas, to cause him to do aught to defend the glorious consummation of the happy union that have ever existed form the creation of the world—whose stars, if united, would form a constellation whose refulgene would illuminate the world, and guide mankind on to freedom[…] should they be hurled from the firmament, when they now shine so brightly, then will darkness and blood cover the face of the earth.  Forb[…] Heaven!  Forbid it, Democrats! You are the instruments in the hand of Omnipotence to rescue these noble Republics from the tyranny of abolitionism, Britain and Mexico.  Rally in […] your strength to the polls in the coming Spring elections, and sweep from our State and National councils every Whig or Democrat, if one […] the latter can be found, who opposed the admission of Texas; unite-upon one of your strength and most popular men, and let your motto be “Union for the sake of Union”

We have dissensions now in our ranks, in […] thews: two Democratic candidates in the field […].  This will never do.  Let us try and harmonize and unite upon one man.  The Whigs have but one candidate, and why should we have tow! We have 37 majority in the two counties; and shall we again be misrepresented by a Whig, […] who has shown himself opposed to Texas? Ne[…] Capt. A.K. Shepard is the nominee of the Democratic party; he is a young gentleman of ab[…] and talent, and is calculated to do us honor […] Legislature. Mr. John J. Hudgings, the […] candidate, is a good man, of strong mind; b[…] he was not the nominee, his country and his cause call to him in thrilling notes, not only to withdraw, to support the choice of the party.  Should both gentlemen hold on, our defeat is certain, and we shall probably have a Whig majority in the Senate of the United States, and every measure which we hold dear will thus be defeated […] the administration of the people’s President […] not this enough to arouse you, fellow Democ[…] and States Right Whigs, (for I will not appeal […] Federalists,) to rally to the support of one man […].

Before concluding this article, Messrs. Editors, permit me to pay a tribute justly due to our able and true Representative in the senate Doctor John R. Taylor, not only for his […]delity in carrying out the will of his constituents, but for the firm, yet courteous and respectful manner, which characterizes his correspondence with Col. Billups; and also for making […] public.  Let the Whig vilify and abuse […] Taylor, and try and justify the non-commitment of Col. Billups; yet I am much mistaken if […] Democrats and Sates Rights Whigs are not sufficiently enlightened to appreciate the worth of Dr. Taylor, and condemn the course of Col. Billups, in endeavoring to defeat the annexation of Texas, and the election of a Senator in favor of Texas, and in accordance with the express will of a majority of his constituents.
ZEN[…]

[MLD]

Friday, March 7, 1845 RE45i98p4c5 191 words

The Oregon Negotiation

The following information, copied from the New York Courier and Enquirer of Thursday last, is highly interesting at the present juncture in public affairs—Nat.  Int.

“We referred yesterday to the favorable account given in a recent message of the President of the amicable spirit in which this negotiation has been conducted.

“Since then we learn, upon authority entitled to the most implicit reliance, that, in the event of a failure on the part of the negotiators at Washington to agree upon the respective rights of the parties, the British Government have suggested the reference of the whole question to the arbitration of any European Sovereign, to be designated by the Government of the United States, agreeing to abide by his award. 

“With such an offer this nation must close, unless we be prepared to assert our extremist claims at every hazard, without regard to the claims of others, and in utter contempt of the moral sense of the world.

“It must therefore be assumed as certain, that the Oregon question will be amicably adjusted, and that in no event, therefore, can any misunderstanding occur with England in relation to it.”

[MLD]


Friday, March 7, 1845 RE45i98p4c5 66 words

Dispatches to Texas

Floyd Waggaman, Esq., will leave the city this afternoon to deliver to Maj. Donelson, temporarily at Nashville, the Joint Resolution for the admission of Texas into the Union, which was signed by the President of the United States on Saturday.  Should it be found that our Charge has left Nashville, the bearer of dispatches has been directed to proceed immediately himself to Texas—Madisonian, March, 3.

[MLD]


Friday, March 7, 1845 RE45i98p4c6 35 words

Ho! For Texas!

At Baltimore on Saturday last, one hundred guns were fired from Federal Hill, in honor of the passage, by Congress, of the resolutions uniting the “Lone Star” to the glorious constellation of our happy Union.

[MLD]


Tuesday, March 11, 1845 RE45i99p1c5 67 words

Mr. Baptist’s Speech, on the election of Senator, has been crowed out by more pressing engagements.  The Legislature and Congress being now dispersed, and Texas, the all-engrossing question of the day, begin as we hope, settled, we shall have more sea-room for other communications, as soon as we have published two or three speeches, connected with that important subject.  Mr. B’s speech will receive the earliest attention. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 11, 1845 RE45i99p2c5 244 words

Mr. Merrick of Maryland

For yielding to the impulse of duty, above all party considerations, Mr. Merrick has been denounced by the Whig pres as a traitor, bought and sold, to vote for Texas.  It is unnecessary for us to defend him.  He must despise the empty denunciation.  Every one sees that it is the spiteful spirit of the baffled Whigs, which is attempting to wreak its vengeance upon him.—But there is at least one Whig press, which can do Mr. Merrick justice—and that is, the “New Orleans Bulletin,” which holds the following language on the 3d inst.:

“Mr. Merrick, Whig Senator in Congress from the State of Maryland, on the 21st ult., made a bold and full declaration of his sentiments with regard to the annexation of Texas.  Spurning all minor considerations, he came out like a true man and a patriot in support of the measure, as of national and paramount concern.  We hail this noble and manly movement as an auspicious sign.  Does it not warrant the hope that other Senators, whose votes have been thought to be doubtful, have been moved by the magnanimous example of Mr. Merrick, and that the country will be spared the anxiety and agitation of further deylay?  Of course we cannot count on the Riveses, the Archers, the Berriens, or the Barrows, who have committed themselves irrevocably; but Judge Johnson surely will not follow the stupid lead of his colleague. We believe his vote may be reckoned on.”

[MLD]


Tuesday, March 11, 1845 RE45i99p4c4 171 words

The Mexican Minister

Signor Almonte, it is said, will demand his passports the moment the Texas Bill is signed, and Mexico will declare war.  That the Signor would return home was anticipated.  His friend, Santa Anna, has involved all his faithful followers in his troubles, but we doubt the war portion of the rumor; unless, indeed, the invitation of our own citizens or journalists to Mexico go to war with us I deemed a sufficient warrant.  If, without the shade of a shadow of cause, Mexico is induced to take that rash step, annexation with Mexico, Texas and the United States extends our republic over nearly the Whole of  North America.  A United States squadron will made its appearance in the Gulf in a few days, and every privateer under the Mexican flag cruising against our, commerce, the crew of which does not contain two-thirds of native born Mexican seamen, will be deemed pirates according to the law of nations and suffer accordingly.  So we may safely say to all interested, “stand form under.”

Phil.  Spirit of the Times.

[MLD]


Tuesday, March 11, 1845 RE45i99p4c4 135 words

Amusing

Besides abusing Mr. Merrick for voting for Annexation, the newspapers opposed to the measure, are also hurling their denunciations against Mr. Bagby, of Alabama, for giving his vote in its favor, though the people of his State decidedly approve of it, and made annexation one of the issues at the last election.  The most amusing thing, however, is that fact, that those who, a year or two ago, argued strongly for the abolition of he veto power, as a most arbitrary and dangerous prerogative, have suddenly discovered that it is decidedly conservative, and urge President Tyler to apply it in the Texas business.  Nothing is so likely to make men inconsistent as the abandonment of fixed principles, and suffering their views of Governmental policy and public affairs to be determined by their feelings.

Philadelphia Ledger. [MLD]


Friday, March 14, 1845  RE45i100p1c4 2085 words

For the Enquirer. 

To Robert J. Walker, Esq, Secretary of the Treasury

Sir—I am your political, and I dare to add your personal friend, although I have scarcely the honor of your private acquaintance.  In yesterday’s Enquirer, there is a rapid sketch on your life and your services, which is calculated to make a very favorable impression upon the public mind.  I recognize in you one of the first champions, who brought Gen. Jackson to the public notice, as a candidate for the Presidential chair.  I admire you especially for your devotion to the cause of Texas.  Upon that subject, you have the highest claim upon the gratitude of the U. States as well as of Texas.  If the Republic of the “Lone Star” voted you a statue in 1837, for your services in her cause, no man will dispute your pretensions as the present time.  NO man has done more for her than Ro. J. Walker; no man has done more to bring her back into the Union, not even excepting the Hero of the Hermitage himself—no man better deserves your reward—and lo, you have it, in part, in the distinguished office which you have received in the Cabinet of Mr. Polk.

You are now the Secretary of the Treasury, and that important office calls you to the highest duties which falls within the scope of the Executive power.  You have assisted in settling the question of Texas.  But there is one of their important measure to adjust, and if you are equally successful in disposing of the Tariff, as you have been on the subject of Texas, you will again receive the thanks of your country.  Mr. Polk will have, then, it is to be hoped, a smooth sea to navigate.  The Republican Party will be better united, and the country more tranquil than it has been for several years past.  But I will not disguise from you the fact, that the measurer is as difficult in itself, as the result may be glorious ot yourself.  You must bring to its consideration as much firmness as discretion—as much correct theory as copious details—as profound a sense of what is due to the obligations of public faith, as to the interests of a suffering people.  Are you prepared to do your duteies in this spirit, or to temporize away our rights, and fritter way your own character?  As your friends and still more the friend of our country, I sincerely wish you every success and every qualification which could belong to a Gallatin or a McLane.

I would warn you against too much confidence in present appearances.  The South is now seemingly quiet.  But it is like Vesuvius, before the volcano bursts forth.  She is indignant at the oppressions under which she is now laboring.—She will never rest satisfied with the act of ’42.—She has it held her wrath, because she has been plunged in all the excitement of a Presidential Election. She has been struggling to elect a President, who would assist her in obtaining justice and relief.  No sooner did she succeed in this object, than the great controversy about Texas came on—and though many of her sons demanded immediate action upon both these questions, yet it soon became obvious, that there was no time to carry both objects at the late session of Congress. The Tariff admitted of more delay than Texas—and to this last question, therefore, they ultimately concentrated all their exertions.  But Texas now carried, you may expect the Tariff cause to be called up from the docket—and the ablest advocates devoted to its prosecution.  Even South Carolina consented to waive her rights, until the Presidency first, and then Texas, were decided.  South Carolina, oppressed as she has been, betrayed by a violation of the public faith, as pledged in the Compromise act, was willing to pause for a time.  But you cannot expect her to slumber forever.  Virginia, and all the South, will unite with her in demanding justice at the hands of the next Congress.

I need not remind you, Mr. Walker, that the present “bill of abominations” was the illegitimate offspring of necessity.  The Treasury was impoverished and in debt, and the friends of Mr. Clay refused to give any relief to the Government without severely taxing the South for the benefit of the Northern manufactures.  You recollect the whole history of the odious transaction, and you manfully stood up on your place in the Senate, and voted against the bill of 1842. It was carried, you know, by a majoirrty of one only.  You heard Mr. Rives denouncing it as worse in many repects than the abominable acto f ’28, and as completely prostrating the Compromise Act of ’33.  In what spirit it was received by the Republican Party of the South, it is scarcely necessary for me to say.  The following extracts from the Richmond Enquirer of August 26, and September 2d, 1842, may not, however, be altogether out of place:

“But this bill, this new ‘Bill of Abominations,’ is too oppressive to be borne.  It is not a Revenue bill, but a Protective bill, and it therefore violates the spirit and intention of the compromise act of ’33.  It disturbs the ‘public faith.’  It infringes the ‘treaty of amity and peace.’  It cuts off many of the articles of importation on which duties ought to be laid, and revenue collected.  It prohibits them for the benefit of the domestic monopolist, and revives the odious system of protection, in one of its most oppressive forms.  It is, therefore, contrary to the spirit and principle of the compromise act; and, therefore, the whole South, the whole agricultural and commercial interest, should make war upon it, the moment it shall be thrust upon the Statute Book.  The South must be roused, and Virginia will be the first to raise the standard of opposition to this fraudulent and iniquitous measure.  We appeal to the Senate for assistance.  We appeal even to the moderate Whigs for co-operation.  Surely, the Southern Senators have not entirely forgotton the great lessons they have learned in days of yore.  Surely they have not abandoned every principle which they once professed.  Surely, they have their own consistency as much at heart, as the ambitious interests of their Federal leader.”

“The Globe gives us a very copious Report of the very interesting Debate, which took place in the Senate on Saturday last on the Tariff bill—It occupies nearly one broadside of teat journal—but, extensive as it is, we shall attempt to lay it all before our readers, as giving the views of different Senators, and the reasons which compelled them to vote for the obnoxious measure, and as shedding some light on their future course.—The Tariff bill received the votes of four Democrats, viz: Messrs.  Buchanan, Sturgeon, Wright, and Williams, (of Maine.)  Without their vote, one or more of the Whigs, who voted against the bill, would have been compelled to show their true colors, and vote on the others die, to save the bill.  If the vote of the Democrats had been withheld, and the bill had failed, we understand, that the bill would have enlisted more of the Whig votes on its behalf.

“The four Democrats voted for the bill with great reluctance—Three of them, (Buchanan, Williams and Wright,) with a protestando.  The full report in the Globe gives us their speeches.—They will be found extremely interesting.  Mr. Buchanan assigns the alternatives between which he had to choose—(the saving of the public lands the securing of a revenue to the Treasury with out litigation with the merchants, and the saving of certain manufacturing interests—and the voting for a bill which he does not approve, for which he says, he ‘would not vote, were it not for the unparalleled condition of the existing law, the treasury and the country’—a bill, which he pronounces to be ‘extravagant in the protection it affords and, in some instances, is all together prohibitory.’)  He ‘accepts it now, as much the least of two evils, and looks forward with hope to better times for an adjustment of the Tariff, on a scale more consonant with all the great and various interests of the Union, without sections.’

“With every disposition in the world to threat with every liberality gentlemen who have hitherto distinguished themselves in the Democratic ranks, yet we beg leave most respectfully to say, that we shall hold them to the letter and spirit of their averments—tat we shall never rest satisfied until this ‘bill of abominations’ is  expunged from the Statute Book, or completely changed in its enactments—and that we shall count upon Messrs. Buchanan, Sturgeon, Wright, and Williams, to co-operate with us, and take the cross upon their own shoulders.  Repeal! Repeal!! is now the word.  We must get back to the spirit and the principle of the Compromise Act—to which the public faith is pledged—and which was in ’33 the ‘treaty of Amity and Peace’—or the South never will be satisfied—NEVER!  It is in vain that Senator White, on the 27th August, congratulates the Whig Committee of Philadelphia ‘on the passage by both Houses of a permanent Tariff bill.’ Permanent it cannot be.  Permanent, the revenues of the country will not permit it to be--Permanent, the interests of the manufacturers themselves will not permit it to be—Permanent, the interests for the agricultural and commercial interests—the rights of the whole South will not suffer it to be.  Everything forbids it, except the factious purposes of he Clay Clique.”

You, Sir, voted against the bill.  It was understood, on all hands, during the last campaign, that Mr. Polk was vehemently opposed to its iniquities.  He disclaimed it in his speech to the people of Madison and adjoining counties in April, 1843, and declared that “the difference between the Federal and the Republican parties is whilst they are the advocates of Distribution and a Protective Tariff—measures which we consider ruinous to the interests of the country, and especially to the interests of the Planting, States we have steadily and at all times opposed both.”  I have no fear that Mr. Polk will not carry out the pledges under which he was elected.  I cannot permit myself to doubt, that you will discharge your duties with an eye to these considerations.

            The subject, however, is as complicated in some of its aspects, as it is important in others.  May I then respectfully suggest, sir, the propriety of collecting information, as soon as possible, to assist you in guiding your course?  Mr. McLane, your collect, was the Secretary of Treasury in 1832.  The excitement was rising to its height in S. Carolina.  Every body saw that something must be done to appease the public discontent.  Gen. Jackson was the first to see it, and determined as far as he could to relieve the people.  Congress was about to take up the subject.  A call was made upon the Secretary for a Tariff bill.  HE replied at once, Give me time, and you shall have one.

            The delay being granted, Mr. McLane addressed a Circular to gentlemen in the most important points of the country, to obtain information on the trade and manufactures of all-to ascertain what articles would admit of reduction—what duties should be imposed.  The mass of information he received in reply was extensive and valuable.  Upon this species of statistics, he founded the bill, afterwards called Verplanek’s bill—Mr. V. being Chairman of the Committee on Finance.  It was the prospect of passing this bill, by the force of Gen. Jackson’ name, that alarmed Mr. Clay into his celebrated Compromise Act—celebrated not more for the solemn pledges, which MR. Clay gave at the time, than the shameless treachery with which he has subsequently violated them.

            But I submit a similar course for your imitation.  The mass of answers to Mr. McLane’s Circular is now in your Department.  May I suggest to your consideration, that you hunt them up, examine them carefully, and send forth a similar Circular, to collect the same information—to direct your own course: and to enable you to report a similar bill, with the mass of statistics on which it is founded, to the next Congress?—Thus you will proceed with full information before you; and Congress will act with more promptitude decision and wisdom.
A FRIEND TO THE ADMINISTRATION

[MLD]

Friday, March 14, 1845  RE45i100p1c3 190 words

MR. CALHOUN

This distinguished gentleman reached Richmond in yesterday’s cars.  He dined with some of his friends at the Exchange Hotel, and present the evening with one of his acquaintances.  He leaves the city to-day in the mid-day cars for his home in South Carolina.

We were happy to see Mr. Calhoun in better health, with excellent spirits, and blessed with great equanimity of temper—and retiring with the most courteous feeling towards Mr. Polk and his administration.  We rejoice to have met at the same table with Gen. Lamar, the Ex-President of Texas, who is on his way to that Republic—with the kindliest feelings towards the annexation of Texas.  We can entertain little doubt, that Texas will come into the Union under the Resolution of the House of Representatives, and thus the Pandora’s box will be closed forever.

We understand that Mr. Almonte’s letter demanding his passports, had been received by our Government, and that probably the first letter which Mr. Buchanan had written, as Secretary of State, was in reply to Mr. Almonte—and that this letter does great credit to him in the new honors which he wears.

[MLD]


Tuesday, March 14, 1845  RE45i100p2c3 117 words

New Orleans, March 5.

FROM MEXICO

By the arrival at a late hour last night of the brig Abiona, Captain Doane, we have intelligence from Vera Cruz up to the 18th inst., four days later.

Verbally we learn that there was no new of importance stirring.  Santa Anna was still in prison at Perote.  Letters from the tyrant to different merchants at Vera Cruz, directing them not to give up any money of his in their hands, had been intercepted.

It is stated that the 24th of February had been fixed upon as the time of bringing on the trial of Santa Anna, and he is to send on his defense in writing instead of appearing in person before the Grand Jury.—Courier.

[MLD]


Friday, March 14, 1845  RE45i100p2c5 364 words

To the Senior Editor

I send you an extract of a letter you addressed me on the 13th of June, 1836.  Amongst other things of interest is the following passage, giving a curious anecdote, and showing that your predilection for the annexation of Texas is not of this day only: “I wrote to Mr. V. B. on Thursday about Texas.  I gave him a long extract form a letter of T-------   ------- to-------.  T. had just dined with Santa Anna on board the independence, and after dinner was left alone with Almonte.  The Mexican Secretary had expressed a preference for an intermediate Republic between Mexico and the United States rather than an incorporation of Texas with the Unite States. But T. showed him, and very justly, too, that Mexico would be in less danger from us, with Texas t our heels, than from the Republic of Texas settling up for herself.  The former was not ambitious of conquest; and the good sense of the whole American people would check completely the spirit of acquisition among the Texians themselves—whereas, if they were left to themselves, that active, and restless, and enterprising people would be invited by the mines and treasures of Mexico to new attacks, and would not rest satisfied until they had planted their own standard upon the Capitol of Montezuma.  Almonte is said to have been shaken—and it was said, that a Commissioner would be sent to the Untied States to ask their aid as an umpire in the quarrel.  I go for the annexation of Texas.  Do not you?  I consider it as but getting back the country which Jefferson claimed, and which Adams gave way.”

Here is evidence that in 1836 you saw ahead, and made up your opinion—and it is now no after-thought to suit the times.

In the same letter you give Congress also a touch.  You say, “Congress will adjourn about the 4th of July.  The Surplus Revenue will haunt their last moments with a fearful struggle.”—Pretty much as the Harbor and River Bill did the Senate and House, the week before last.  Is it not time that this system of legislation should be arrested?

A FRIEND

[MLD]


Friday, March 14, 1845  RE45i100p4c5 1627 words

The Danger Averted!

We have received the “Texas National Register,” the official paper printed at Washington, the seat of Government in Texas, of the 8th of February.  It contains a copy of the documents which were recently submitted to the Senate of Texas, by Mr. Anson Jones, the President of the Republic—embracing the correspondence which has passed between Messrs.  Elliot (the British Charge d’Affaires,) and Jones, in March and April last—and also copies of letters which passed between Messrs.  Jones and Howard, (Charge of the U.S.,) in August, 1844.—The same No. of this Journal contains some very interesting views of its Editor, upon “The Prospect” before them.  We lay these remarks, and the first letter of Mr. Elliott before our readers to show the great responsibility which the Whigs would have assumed, by rejecting the resolutions for annexation.  They would have incurred a risk, which might have entirely endangered the acquisition of Texas by the U.S.  It appears form these and other document, as the Mobile Register truly remarks, that we were in serious danger of losing the country if the recent Congress of the United States had not acted as promptly as the inters of our country required.  Suppose the Whigs had succeeded in defeating the resolutions, how then should we have stood?  The Government of Texas would have been exposed to all the intrigues of the British Cabinet.  Elliott was plying every argument and the commercial interests of Texas, to persuade them to decline Annexation, to secure their own independence, and pledging the powerful interference of Great Britain with Mexico to accomplish that object.  He tells Mr. Jones, in his letter of April last, that it is “the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, that the preservation of his independence is the best security of the people of Texas for the ultimate prosperity, both political and commercial”—that never were there “better founded hopes of an early and honorable adjustment, than at the moment when, as Mr. Jones observes, the door to annexation to the Unites States was unexpectedly opened to the people of this country”—and that Texas need not look to the eminent and practical statesmen in that country are firmly opposed to the Annexation of Texas to that Union, either at all, or at least under any other condition than the consent of Mexico, peacefully obtained; neither does it seem doubtful judging form the same sources, that those opinions are shared by a large part of the people of that Confederacy.”

There is no doubt, if our late Congress had adjourned without adopting the resolutions, we should have left Texas exposed to all the wiles and intrigues of British diplomacy—with her people partially soured by disappointment—and her leading men disposed to listen to the overtures of England.  The “Mobile Register” refers to the Editorial article of “The National Register” as “a very significant exposition of the real wishes of President Jones, and hardly less of those of his predecessor, Gen. Houston, whose influences he represents.  That Gen. Houston and Mr. Jones were originally opposed to the renewal of negotiations with the United States for annexation, and gave assurances to the British Minister in March of last year—Houston being President and Jones Secretary of States—of their hostility to annexation, is sufficiently apparent from the letter of Mr. Elliott of that date, which is now, for the first time made public.  We find it copied into the Galveston News, from the Register, and republish it as an important item in the political history of the times.  It will be seen that Capt. Elliott reminds General Houston, of satisfactory personal assurances for hostility to annexation, which have, by Houston’s wish, been communicated to the British Ministry.  It further appears, that Houston and Jones, both gave Mr. Elliott to understand, that the sending of a Texas Minister to the United States was dictated by a desire to avoid causes of irritation, and to explain that Texas would not entertain the subject of annexation at all.—This letter of Elliott defines what were the disposition of the late and present Presidents of Texas, at that time; and there is no roof that there has since been any real change in their desires.—Indeed the Galveston News, which is in possession of other official letters which we have not seen, says that in answer to Captain Elliott’s enquiries about Gen. Henderson’s mission to the United States—Houston excuses himself, by saying that he “only acted in obedience to the requirements of Congress.” These proofs of the inclination of those in authority in Texas, to reject annexation, for separate independence, under the protection of the British, give force to the pointed declarations of their newspaper organ.—The position is taken broadly, that unless annexation takes place at the present session of Congress, it must be considered as finally defeated, and it will be necessary for Texas to take immediate steps to secure her independence, and settle her relations with European powers.  What these relations will be, is indicated with sufficient distinctness.  The ‘Register’ confirms plainly the rumors transmitted to us from Galveston and published in this paper a couple of weeks ago.—France an England ‘demand no concessions or equivalents from Texas, but merely that she remains independent,’  says the organ of the Government of Texas.  ‘It is further understood that they will terminate the hostile attitude of Mexico forthwith, and compulsively, if it remains independent.  We have no doubt of these facts that Great Britain will yield every condition, and withdraw every pretension, if Texas will but repudiate annexation and consent to owe the acknowledgement of her sovereignty by Mexico to British interference.  Neither do we doubt that if her government could devise any means of defending itself against the real fanaticism at home, it would guarantee the existence of slavery, it required, as the condition for keeping Texas form re-union with the United States.”

(From the Washington, Texas, National Register.)

THE PROSPECT.—We believe it may be set down as certain, that annexation will not take place during the present session of the American Congress, thought prospect was becoming perceptibly less unfavorable, In consequence of the apprehension created there, lest the people of Texas, wearied and disgusted with the dilatory and trifling course pursued towards them, should contract other relations incompatible with annexation to the Union.  Unless the American Congress, foreseeing this consequence, shall act decisively, there is now good reason to believe that they will, at their next session, re-enact the farce of the present and last sessions, and so continue to do for years, until the admission of Texas shall no longer be a matter subject to their decision.—Since the election of Mr. Polk, they can no longer allege that public opinion has not been made up and expressed, in that country.  The proposed annexation has been in point of fact before the American people for their consideration since 1836;  though not at all times submitted to the action of their Congress.  Have we not now a right to demand respectfully, but authoritatively, prompt and final action in regard to it?  It is positively states, that no extra session of Congress will be called by Mr. Polk.  Is not this state of suspense, of all others, the most prejudicial to our interests?  Does not this uncertainty arrest European emigration of the best character, as well as that from our Northern neighbor?  The fear of annexation prevents the coming of those who would unite with us, were we certainly to remain independent.  Others abstain from emigrating to Texas, being unwilling to change their allegiance temporarily.  Furthermore, are we not grossly deluding ourselves in imagining that we have only to continue in the humor for annexation, in order ultimately to attain it?  We have been somewhat cajoled.  Let us, therefore, examine carefully our position and prospects.

Our relations with France and England are on the most friendly basis.  These Governments clearly perceive the great interests they have in our permanent independence, and are willing, it is understood, to lace our commercial intercourse with them upon the most liberal footing.—They have, however, deferred taking any decisive steps herein, pending the present measures for annexation.  Should these measures fail, France and England will then act.  They ask no concessions or equivalents from Texas, but merely that we remain independent. Fro free and equal competition for the commerce of Texas, unshackled by the American tariff, and from the advantages arising from an independent country interposed between the U.States and Mexico, they can well afford to grant all that Texas would ask; for it is further understood, that they will terminate the hostile attitude of Mexico forthwith, and compulsively, if we agree to remain independent.  The course of these Governments will be open.  The United States have been openly negotiating and attempting to legislate about annexation.—France and England will openly submit to the consideration of our Government and people inducement.  And we are assured that, in relation to Texas, as well as on other subjects, the most cordial understanding subsists between the two cabinets, and that they will act, in fulfilling our wishes, in perfect concert.  The Government of Louis Phillippe, will also efficiently promote the speedy negotiation of a treaty with Old Spain; the only obstacle to which has been the unsettled condition of Texas in relation to annexation.  A treaty with Spain opens to us Cuba, whose commerce will be highly advantageous.

We see it stated in the London papers received in this country since the return of the Hon. Ashbel Smith, that he had a long interview with Lord Aberdeen previously to leaving London—What subjects were discussed at this interview, or whether any of importance, has not yet transpired. [MLD]


Friday, March 14, 1845  RE45i100p4c6 825 words

Mr. Elliott, British Envoy, to Mr. Jones, Secretary of State.  Dated March 22d, 1844.

The undersigned, her Britannic Majesty’s Charge d’Affairs to the Republic of Texas, has lately had the honor to acquaint Mr. Jones, that her majesty’s Government was engaged in continued efforts to induce the Government of Mexico to acknowledge the independence of Texas; and he has now the gratification to add that renewed communications have taken place between the Government of Her Majesty and that of the King of the French, and that his Majesty has expressed his concurrence in the purposes of the Queen, and signified his pleasure to command the French Minister in Mexico, to join his continued friendly assistance to that of Her majesty’s representative.

But adverting to the proposals of the Government of the United States, respecting annexation, to the recent mission of distinguished citizens of Texas to Washington on the Potomac, and to the impression as general in Texas, that negotiations having that object in view, are either in progress or in contemplation, the undersigned finds it his duty to express the hope, that the Government of Texas will furnish him with explanations on the subject, for transmission to Her Majesty’s Government.  He is sure that  they will be made in that spirit of frank and friendly unreserved which has always characterized the intercourse of the two Governments.

It must be unnecessary to say, that he undersigned is perfectly aware of the President’s personal opinions on this subject, and he has not failed, agreeably to the President’s wish, to communicate to Her Majesty’s Government His Excellency’s determination to sustain the independence of the Republic, and His Excellency’s confident hope that he people will uphold him in that course.  Indeed, referring to the conference wish the undersigned had the honor to have with the President and Mr. Jones at Galveston, during last Autumn, he can suppose that he mission to Washington of the gentlemen in question, has been dictated by a wise desire to avoid any cause of offence or irritation to the Government of the United States, and to explain with Frankness, that the Government of Texas could not entertain the subject at all, even if all other obstacles were removed, after the former rejection of such an arrangement by the Government of the United States, and wholly without reason, to know that the Senate of the United States will ratify it now, or in future.

The Congress of Texas, however, has met and separated since the date of the communication to Her Majesty’s Government, to which the undersigned has referred, and the President will fell with force, that it is just and necessary, in the present appearance of circumstances, that there should be no room for the least uncertainty on the part of the Governments engaged on the behalf of Texas at Mexico; for, it is not to be supposed that they could continue to press the Government of Mexico to settle upon one basis whilst there was any reason to surmise that negotiations were either in actual existence, or in contemplation, proposing a combination of a totally different nature.  It is manifest, on the other hand, that a distinct disavowal on the part of the Government of Texas, of any intention to consent to such a scheme, either now or prospectively, could not fail to strengthen the hands of the Ministers of their Majesties the Queen and the King of the French, at Mexico.

Confiding in the steadfastness of the people of Texas, to the pledges in the fundamental acts of their national existence, several of the great Powers have acknowledged the Independence of their Republic, and entered into treaties with it.—Whilst that confidence subsists, it may be depended upon, that the Government of Her Majesty will never relax in its friendly efforts to induce the Government of Mexico to adjust, on the policy so forcibly pressed on the attention of Her Majesty’s Government by the Government of Texas, not adopted without mature deliberation by Her Majesty’s Government, and in their judgment equally necessary for the security of Mexico, and the strength and prosperity of Texas.  The undersigned takes this occasion to renew to Mr. Jones, the expression of the sentiment of regard and distinguished consideration with which he has the honor to remain,

His faithful and most obedient servant.

CHARLES ELLIOT

And now we ask the people of Virginia to consider these developments—and determine what wretched politicians these Whigs are—See to what a seductive influence they were about ot expose the Republic of Texas—and to what a serious danger of losing this magnificent country, they were willing to expose the people of the United States—to say nothing of the tremendous agitation into which they would have placed our own countrymen at home, from the risk of sacrificing Texas to the fanaticism of the Abolitionists.  Are these the politicians you would trust?  Is this the party worthy of your confidence? [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845 RE45i101p1c3 2704 words

PRO AND CON!

Mr. Willoughby Newton claims the privilege of reply to some remarks which we have recently made on his vote on the amended resolutions, and we cheerfully grant it.  The discussion must stop here; as, to use the classic language of Mr. Webster, we “have other (perhaps better) fish to fry.”  We shall subjoin a few notes by way of commentary—but they shall be as brief as possible—and as little calculated, as we can make them, to call forth a rejoinder.  We confess we were a s much disappointed and dissatisfied with Mr. N’s latter course, as we were please with the former act of the Texas Drama.  When the House of Representatives were about to strike the last stroke and clinch the nail, 6 of the 8 Whigs who had voted for the original resolutions, flew off at a tangent, and would not vote for the amended resolutions.  If it had depended upon their votes, therefore, it might have resulted in abortion.

Nothing would have been done, in all probability, during the late session.  Our whole country would have been exposed to agitation; the Abolitionists would have crowed over the south; and we should have incurred the serious danger of losing Texas altogether.  We could scarcely have expected this alternative to be adopted, by any politician, who professes to be a friend of Texas.  Mr. N. had come out as the friend of annexation.  He had voted for it.  But his course had given great dissatisfaction to his Whig friends.  He had drawn down upon his back the lash of the Whig press—from “party backs,” as he is pleased to style the critics on both side of the House.  He could “not withstanding the screws of party operation, or the lash of the Whig press; and after a brilliant effort he returned to the vile affinities of party spirit.”  And what is his justification, for the erratic course in which he has pursued?  Hear Mr. Newton!

Washington, March 4th, 1845.
To the Editors of the Enquirer.

In your leading editorial of yesterday, I find the following remarks:

“Is it not melancholy to reflect upon the cursed consequences of this party spirit?  Wonderful to tell, there was but on Whig who voted in favor of the amended resolutions, (Dellet of Alabama) whilst six of the others, (Stephens of Georgia not in the House,) who originally voted for Brown’s resolutions in the House, were mad enough, party-mad, to vote against them in their amended form—a from, certainly, which neither affected their constitutional nor practical character.  And among these six who ultimately turned their backs upon Texas, were Milton Brown himself, of Tennessee, General Clinch of Georgia, and Willoughby Newton of Virginia.  They voted against it, and three others.  Newton!  Aye, our old friend Newton, whose forcible letter was, but the other day, so much admired by the Democrats, and condemned by the Whigs.—These men, it appears, could not withstand the screws of party operation, r the lash of the Whig press; and after a brilliant effort, they have returned to the vile affinities of party spirit.”

These remarks, if not designed to do myself, and my noble Whig associates in the House of Representatives, through whose agency Texas has been permitted to come into the Union, willful injustice, by misrepresenting our conduct, and motives, are well calculated to do us an injury.  How have we abandoned our position?  In what have we turned our backs upon Texas?  I challenge you to the proofs.  Was it our duty to vote with Brinkerhoff and other Abolitionists of your party, for Benton’s amendment to our resolutions, which you yourselves have repeatedly denounced?  (1.) Because your party in the House, for the purpose of consolidating itself must bow to the spirit of Abolitionism; and leave the question of slavery open, for future agitation, must we too follow their example, and vote for an amendment which we deemed very far from an improvement of our plan, and which a large number of the most intelligent of your party loudly condemned, even on the very night of its adoption in the Senate, and declared they would not vote for in the House.  I speak advisedly;  I know that a number of the wisest and best of your party looked with contempt upon the amendment of the Senate, as a paltry trick, designed to delude the country, and to bring to the support of the measure the “dough-faces” of the North.  (2.) I hope we may not live to rue this concession; for Mr. Brinkerhoff, and others entertaining similar opinions, boldly avow that hey regard the slavery question as now open, and mean to make another desperate struggle for an equal division of the territory of Texas.  (3.)

But what is the extent of our offence?  Not that we voted against the proposition as amended but that we did not vote for the amendment, which was distasteful to us, and must be exceptionable to every true friend o the South.  (4.)  Notwithstanding my objections to the amendment, I am free to say, that if the question had been on the resolutions as amended, I should have voted in the affirmative, rather than a measure I had so much at heart should have failed.  I knew full well, however, that the Democrats of the House had been whipped in by the lash of party, and that the amendment would be carried by a large majority; and even if rejected by the House, I had no fear that the measure would thereby be defeated; for, either the Senate would have receded from the amendment and falled back on the original resolutions; or, if the amendment was adhered to by the Senate, the House would have receded.  So that our votes against the amendment, which we disapproved, could in no event endanger the main proposition.

I had hoped that my course in public life had satisfied all who have deemed it worthy of their attention—that I always endeavored to be governed by principle, and that I am not to be turned from the path of duty by the denunciations of a reckless press of my own party, or by the seductive influence of the flattery of my political opponents.  I did not advocate the admission of Texas from any selfish considerations.  I was well aware that I should incur the displeasure of some of my party friends, by doing what I deemed a duty; and on that account, if no other, have a right to claim justice, at least, at your hands.  I ask no more.  And as that is denied to myself and my associates, by the men who, by our aid, have been enabled to achieve a great measure, I may be pardoned the seeming vanity of declaring, that without us, and, indexed, I may say, without my own humble efforts in the cause, the measure could not have been accomplished, at least, during the late session of Congress.  In proof of this assertion, I might cite the evidence of distinguished and liberal men of your party, who are too magnanimous to deny their obligations to Whigs, in the accomplishment of a great national object, merely because it may serve to lessen the apparent triumph of their own party.  (5.)

I do not deem it necessary or proper to reply to ordinary newspaper articles, but your notice of me upon this measure is so pointed, and your views so mistaken, if not designed to do me injustice, that my declining to notice them might be improperly construed.  I have, therefore, to request, that you will do me the justice to public in your next paper these hasty lines, by which I mean to assure you and the public, that my support of the proposition to admit Texas had its origin in a spirit of pure patriotism, which is not likely to be influenced by a desire to conciliate the favor of party hacks, on the one side, or to deprecate their wrath, on the other. 

Yours, very respectfully,
WILLOUGHBY NEWTON

(1.)             We preferred the original resolutions of the House, that is certain—as Mr. N. did.  Bu we would always have taken Benton’s bill, as a proviso to the Resolutions, rather than lose the whole.  When, however, we were advised, upon the best information, that the bill was only calculated to endanger the fate of the resolution, we washed our hands of it.  It turns out, however, contrary to previous calculation, that there were more in the Senate, who would have voted for the amended resolutions, than for the original ones; and if we had to choose between the former, or none at all, as we verily believe, we should not have hesitated for one moment to vote for them.  What is it to us, whether some few men like Brinkerhoff would have voted for them—under erroneous calculations?  The great body of Abolitionists are wholly dissatisfied with the passage of the resolutions.  They do not see out of Mr. Brinkerhoff’s spectacles.  What says the Boston “Liberator,” edited by W.L. Garrison—which the New York Tribune says, is “the oldest anti-slavery paper in the country?”  “In the last No. of his journal Mr. Garrison gives his views of the relative position and conduct of the Locofoco and Whigs parties on the Texas question, in the following emphatic and unequivocal terms:”

“In the name of Democracy has this frightful outrage been perpetrated.  The Democratic party as such, has sold itself, body and soul, to the Demon of slavery, and with cannibal appetite is fattening upon human flesh and blood.  All its professions of regard for the rights of man, of hostility to oppression, of attachment to the cause of liberty, are mendacious and hypocritical to an infernal degree, as indisputably shown by its acts.  It is a party, from which escape by the virtuous and honest is to be made with the celerity that righteous Lot fled from Sodom.  The friends of God and man are now called upon to unite their forces for it is overthrow—to put the brand of profligacy on the brow of every man who shall venture to uphold it—to unmask it as a monster of iniquity—and thus vindicate genuine Democracy, and peradventure save the country from ruin.

“To those members of Congress, whether Whigs or Democrats, who were ‘faithful among the faithless found’ in the trial hour, let the thanks of the friends of freedom be proffered for themselves, and is behalf of the three millions of our fellow-countrymen in chains.  ‘Credit to whom credit—honor to whom honor.’  This impartial justice and genius magnanimity demands—Recreant to their duty in many other instances, in presenting an almost unbroken front to this scheme of annexation, the Whig party have done a noble work, and stood their ground with a firmness and fidelity far beyond our expectations.  Teat of all the Southern Whig Senators, only three were found willing to go for the measure, surprises us.  By their defection from the position assumed by the Whig party, the deed has been consummated; but the party itself stands nobly exhonorated from all responsibility in the case.”

Now, who is the best judge of the views of the abolitionists?—Brinkerhoff or Garrison?  The latter does not consider the question to be left open—but the fate of it sealed, “the deed as consummated!”  And Mr. Newton’s “Abolition Whig” friends are welcome to all the thanks of the abolition crew, which they have won by their votes.

(2.) Mr. N. has the charity to suspect, that this course was adopted for the “purpose of consolidating itself.”  Why not equally suppose, that he and the other five Whigs in the House voted against the Senate resolutions for the purpose of consolidating themselves with their own party?  The one supposition is as liberal, and not more extravagant than the other.

But is it true, that he question of slavery is “kept open,” and that we have “bowed to the spirit of Abolitionism”?  We view that in a very different light.  We are aware, that this is the only straw which the dough-face Whigs, and a handful of Abolitionists will seize upon; but they will find themselves mistaken notwithstanding.  The addition made to the House Resolutions in the Senate will prove to be surplusage.  Now, we have no idea that Mr. Polk will appoint Commissioners and open a new negotiation with Texas—Messrs. Newton, Brinkerhoff, or the N.Y. Evening Post, to the contrary notwithstanding.  Mr. Polk has not recalled the instructions dispatched by Mr. Calhoun immediately on the passage of the Resolutions.  They authorized Maj. Donelson to propose an immediate an admission of Texas, upon the terms of Brown’s Resolutions.  Whether Mr. Tyler should have taken it upon himself to act, on the heel of the session, is one thing—but that he has taken the best alternative course under the resolutions, is another thing.  We understand, that Mr. Polk will not probably adopt the other expedient.  He will scarcely raise against he question between the Treaty and the Legislative powers—much less, keep open the battle between the Abolitionists and the South.  We had the pleasure of conversing with Gen. Lamar, on his way to Texas, on this subject—and he has no doubt, that Texas will accept the terms, and that those terms will be adopted.  We have not yet met with a Democrat, who does not approve this course, and who does not believe the whole question to be closed, and the last straw stricken from the hands both of the Whigs and the Abolitionists. 

(3.) Mr. Brinkerhoff, like other wise men of his caliber, may be counting without his host.—He will scarcely have the opportunity of making “another desperate struggle” upon this field.

(4.)Pretty much like splitting a hair, between the North and the North-west side he, Mr. N. did not vote against the amended resolutions, but against amending the resolutions.  By rejecting the amendment, what would have been the consequence?  In the first place, the original resolutions would have been sent back to the Senate—There, it was understood, Mr. Bagby and others would not have voted for them.  Indeed, it appeared from the very face of the transaction, that with the steady and dogged phalanx of the Anti-Texas Whigs, and the dissentients of the Democratic party, the resolutions would not have passed.—Why, then, send them back to the Senate?  By this course, they were to run again the gauntlet in that body.  One of the three Whigs might have flow the way.  One of the Democrats might have been sick, or absent, or one of the “dough-faces” might have changed his position.  The whole question might have been thrown overboard, in the enthusiasm of excited parties, and in the agonies of an expiring session, when so many other subjects were demanding attention, and some flimsy pretext might have been seized upon by the dough-faces on either side, to shuffle off the whole question.  There was, at least, evident risk in throwing the question as a shuttle-cock, to be toast to and fro between the two Houses—at the very heels of the session—And why run the risk of voting down an amendment, and losing the whole question under such circumstances, when Mr. M. confesses, that, as amended, he should at last have voted for them?  We need not say, we are sure, by the resolutions as they have passed, nor how much they would have exulted, if they had failed in the struggle between the two Houses.

Mr. N. has seen, that no one was more willing to do him justice for the course he originally pursued, than we were.  Indeed, we carried our feelings further than many of our friends.  It was only when he baulked at the last pinch of the hill, and with five of his Whig colleagues, pursued a course which might have kicked over the whole pail of milk, that we rebuke their apparent derelictions.—Whether this was to act the part of a wise statesman, or of a “party hack,” we must leave to more impartial men than ourselves to decide. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845  RE45i101p1c5 1566 words

The Scene of the 4th at Washington

“Of the numbers who attended the inauguration, we have seen none on whose brow there did not sit, as it appeared to our perception, weariness, disappointment, and, in some cases, disgust!”

“Exultation for the defeat of Mr. Clay had spent itself before, and Patriotism, we dare avouch, whispered in the ear of man y a one of them the question, ‘What have you, what has your country gained by discarding that experienced statesman, that old public servant, that gallant spirit who, in her darkest hours, was ever that country’s safest councilor and ablest defender, to elevate one who has rendered no service beyond a thousand others?’  Tell us frankly, visitors to the Inauguration, did not such thoughts cross your minds sometimes, and did not conscience, in the flagging of party spirit, give an answer which you will not avow?”

Thus speaks the R. Whig, the leading Federal organ in Virginia.  It were amusing to have seen this sapient Editor, and modern pupil of Lavater, craning his graceful neck and peering with a critic’s eye, into the countenances of all who had returned from the Inauguration!  With his keen “perception,” doubtless, the wo-be-gone faces of the “numbers who attended the Inauguration,” must have inspired his looks with the beams of pleasure and of pride. It were “sweet revenge” for this piteous mourner over the prostrate fortunes of Mr. Henry Clay, to witness the “weariness, disappointment and disgust” betrayed in the very looks of those who had contributed to bring about the overthrow of the “country’s ablest defender,” to use the language of Whig adulation!  This clearly explains the distorted vision with which the Whig regards every thing connected with the solemn installation of a Republican President, and arrives at such remarkable conclusions.  We (at least one of us) have just returned from a visit to Washington, and we have neither felt nor witnessed such effects, as the piercing eyes of this watchful Editor have detected and portrayed to his gaping readers.—We, too, appeal to the consciences of those, who have recently visited Washington, for an indignant response to the question propounded to them by the Whig organ.  Is there a single Republican who has left the City of Washington with regret for the honorable part which he took in raising aloft the Banner of the Constitution?  The ceremonies of the Inauguration were simple, but imposing.  There was a moral beauty in the spectacle, which should have touched the heart even of the most rabid Whig.  A private citizen had been summoned from the bosom of retirement, and after an unprecedented struggle, had been raised to eh highest honor in the world.  Many thousands, form all portions of the country, assembled to see their victorious champion, invested with the robes of office, and solemnly entrusted with the power to administer the affairs of twenty millions of People.  In spite of the inclement weather, every avenue was filled with gay and happy crowds, and the moving mass of umbrellas brought o mind “Burnam wood come to Dunsinane.”  The immense multitude was not inspired by gaudy banners, nor martial music, nor bristling amour. It was deeper and purer feeling  They felt that the Constitution, had been saved, the union preserved and the destinies of the nation pushed onward.  How nobly does this imply installation of a Republican President contrast with the pomp and prestige of a similar ceremony in the old world!—There we see cohorts of armed men, arrayed around the titled tyrant, to guard his person against popular outbreaks.  All is glitter, and form, and fear; and happy is the nation that escapes from apprehended violence from the oppressed and grumbling masses.  In our own free and happy land, one President goes out of office, and his successor is invested with power.  Thee transition is calm, and smooth, and secure.  Our institutions are firmly stamped on the hearts of the people, and the true patriot who has received this free gift of great nation, enters upon his high duties, with a confiding trust in the affections of the people, and with a virtuous resolution to do all he can to guard the Constitution, and to push on the destinies of the country to the highest point.—Such a man we take Jas.  K. Polk to be—and we have an abiding trust that he will not disappoint the hopes of the nation.  We look confidently to his honesty of purpose, his public and private virtues, and his devotion to the country’s good, and to his own fame, to carry out those great constitutional principles of which he is the selected and responsible agent.  Let him but be true to his principles and to himself, and the difficulties that beset his path will banish before him, and his name will b enrolled high on the list of his country’s benefactors.

But the “Whig” arrogantly asks, what we or the country have gained by discarding Mr. Clay and electing Mr. Polk?  The answer is easily made, and cannot but be conclusive.  The moral triumph in November has already achieved a momentous result.  We allude to the annexation of Texas, with all its benefits to the South gained to the Union. Had Mr. Clay been elected, who will deny that a death-blow would have been given to that great measure, and the safety o f the Union seriously periled?  It was the Republican victory in November, and the election of Mr. Polk, the consistent friend of the “Lone Star, “ that secured the annexation of Texas a the present time, and diffused joy through every portion of the Union.  By this great measure, the fell sprit of Abolitionism has been stilled, and the Union saved.  Where is the threatened dissolution of the union, in case Texas should be annexed?—The great deed is done, and no friend of the Union feels the least anxiety for its fate. Patriotism has triumphed over caption, and the braggart threats of Massachusetts and Vermont have fallen dead before the popular feeling.  IS not his, of itself, a sufficient cause of self-congratulation with every Republican? Btu there is a prospect of still more good to be “gained” by the defeat of Mr. Clay.  A National Monster Bank is thoroughly killed’ and, from Mr. Polk’s avowed opinions, and steady votes, we may confidently expect to see the heavy Tariff of 1842 reduced to a proper limit, and the burdens and benefits of the Government equally and impartially distributed through every portion of the country.  If this result be accomplished, and we confidently look to Mr. Polk not to disappoint the earnest wishes of the nation,--he will receive the cordial thanks of Virginia for settling a difficult and vexed problem.

While in the District, we seized an opportunity to quit the bustle and excitement of Washington, and pay a rapid visit to Alexandria, in whose prosperity an interesting portion of our own State is interested.  We arrived at an auspicious moment. By one of those energetic moves which often secure the fortunes of nations, as well as individuals.  Alexandria has achieve an object peculiarly calculated to promote her interests, in the opinion of her most intelligent citizens.—This was to obtain form the State of Maryland a bill to relieve the lien on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal.  The lower House ha passed the bill by a single vote, and the Senate’s action would make it a law.  At once, the enterprising Alexandrians’ despatched a boat for the Senator of St. Mary’s, who reached Anapolis just in time, on the last day of the session, to complete the law, as it passed the Senate by one vote only. The joyous news reached Alexandria during our visit, and the whole town openly demonstrated their cordial satisfaction.  It secures the completion of the Canal To Cumberland, and will pour, as it is confidently believed, rich treasures into the lap of Alexandria.

This fine canal seems to be well constructed.  THE basin and four locks, forming the outlet at the Alexandria, are admirably built, and afford room for a vast business.  The aqueduct across the Potomac at Georgetown, is one of the finest structures I the country.  It is supported by four broad and solid stone piers, extending sixty feet through the water, and resting on a foundation of rock. The superstructure is of wood, galvanized by a solution of corrosive sublimate, so as protect it from decay.  This noble canal will, it is through, soon be completed, and that result will restore this old town, once so thriving, and connected with so many agreeable associates of the past, to its pristine commercial prosperity.—IT is still the seat of elegant hospitality; the manners of its citizens are of the true Virginia stamp, and we hope, ere long, to see it enjoying the commercial advantages of “the most favored” city.  In some of the mechanic arts, she vies with the largest towns.  The epicure still looks to her famous wine-cellars for this choicest libations; and hwy should not she regain her former high standing as a place of commercial importance? Ere we made our adieu, we though we discovered a new spirit infusing itself into her people.  If this be kept alive, and properly directed, the destinies of Alexandria may yet be as bright as her most zealous citizen may desire. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845 RE45i101p2c1 576 words

Political. 

From the Globe. 

THE RIVAL NATIONS.

Carthage never-looked upon the growth and power of the Roman people with more envy and apprehension than England does on the progress of the American people.  It is true, there is an ocean between the Old and the New World, where the modern rivals have the base of their Mediterranean did between Carthage and Rome Modern improvements in navigation bring England and the United States into close neighborhood.  The growing commerce and power of the two people have literally made the home of both upon the deep.  It is fear of the competition of this vast and rich continent with her island workshop, and of the danger that the new race of her own breed may obtain the ascendancy in agriculture, manufacture, commerce, and, consequently, in power upon the ocean, which has constantly actuated England in her encroachments upon this continent and the islands of the surrounding seas.  The Court of Lilliput did not take great pains to pin down Capt. Lemuel Gulliver to the spot which his limbs covered in his sleep, than England has to confine the United States to the straights in which the royal charters bound them.  The acquisition of Louisiana, of the Floridas, of Texas, all in turn have encountered opposition from England, not only as far as her foreign diplomacy could counteract, but as far as the active, daring treasonable agency of the party under her influence here could go in defeating it.  Efforts to dissolve the Union were tried, which, if not successful in preventing the increase of the Confederacy on one hand, might, it was hoped, curtail it on another, or, at least, by civil war, bring on the decrepitude of he south American Republics—the victims of internal dissension.

The Union has, however, outlived two wars with Great Britain, and grown beyond the limits assigned by the jealousy of its ambitious rival.—It is now only by environing the U. States by entrenched strength on both flanks—in front and in the rear—that the giant, whose power it is feared will invade English supremacy on the seas, is to be held in check.  England on our front, Canada and the West Indies on our right and left, with to command the whole Western coast of our Continent, may be said to have placed the commercial power of the Union in a state of siege.—Whenever it threatens the British dominion of the seas—narrows British commerce or British conquests, then it will be assailed from all these points of vantage at once, which in time will be rendered impregnable to attack.

The people of the U.S. should comprehend fully the position they occupy.  The view should not be confined to the attitude of things at the present moment, nor to an internal policy suited to the genius of a people like the Chinese, who have sought to live in the shell made by the coast and wall by which they are surrounded.  The destiny of the people of this Union is not confined to this Continent.  Their genius broods over every ocean and region of the earth; and influences deeply affecting the fate of the great Republic will every where exist requiring tits vigilance.  At this moment, England brings home to us the policy which is to be watched and repelled.  The articles we annex from a New Orleans paper suggest the observations we have made.  They will be found to contain facts worthy of meditation. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845  RE45i101p2c1 726 words

Important Disclosure

The New York Journal of Commerce of the 20th ult., publishes a letter from Washington, which states, upon what the writer declares to be un questionable authority, that, at the time of Santa Ann’s fall a treaty was in progress, and nearly consummated, for the entire cession of California and New Mexico, to Great Britain, it only being defeated by the fall of Santa Anna.

It is further stated, that the United States Government has been informed that papers were found upon Santa Anna’s person, at the time of his capture, confirmatory of the suspicions which had been entertained fro some time before, of the designs of England up on that section of the country.  It is not astonishing, that Asana Anna should have kept about his person such documents as related to this astounding negotiation, as no one had greater cause than he to dread the exposure of such a purpose before its completion.  Nor was he a man to place much reliance upon the fidelity of his cabinet; and hence the probability that, when he left the city of Mexico, he took with him the papers relating to this affair.

If this intelligence prove well-founded, (and there seems to be no good reason for doubting the main point it develops) Great Britain was securing for herself a more extensive and important acquisition whilst affecting a holy horror of American rapacity in seeking the annexation of Texas.  She was for dismembering the Mexican empire by intriguing with a corrupt and falling dynasty, and against he consent of the people who inhabit the territory sought to be acquired, whilst the annexation of Texas can only be accomplished through the wishes of the people both of Texas and the United States, and its completion can do no wrong to any other power or people.

There would e more reason for questioning the disclosures now made, were it not known that Great Britain has cast a covetous eye towards that country for a considerable length of time.—More than twenty years ago, Mr. Ward, then British Charge to Mexico, pointed out to his Government the value of this territory, and the importance of her taking possession of it; and from that-time till now, British Cabinets have looked amorously upon it.  The possession of the bay of San Francisco, one of the finest harbors in the world, would give her the control of the commerce of the whole coast of the Pacific ocean, and enable her to hem in the Oregon as completely as her islands, the Canadas and New Brunswick do the Atlantic seaboard of the U.States.

In connection with this matter, there have been mercantile movements in Great Britain that have an awful squinting towards the issue involved.—Let those who think slightly of the influence of British merchants in coercing Government measures remember the China catastrophe; and such as would disparage their power in what concerns the acquisition of empire, ponder upon the fate of East India.  We would call attention to the following extract of a Liverpool cotton circular which travels out of the legitimate province o such a writing to dabble in politics:

“If the United States be allowed to usurp (they call it annex) the Territory of Texas, the control of the cotton trade will fall into their hands.  No cotton, save that produced in Texas, will stand in competition with Bowed and Orleans.  The United States do not depend, in the same degree, on Great Britain for thee disposal of their cotton, which Great Britain does on them for the necessary supply.  Let any man make and try to sell fustians, or, indeed, almost any article of extensive sale, out of any cotton grown in Asia, Africa or South America, instead of Bowed and Orleans, and he will soon be made sensible of his error.  In the tow last years, with every temptation, the British spinners have not dared to use more than one pound weight of East India against nine pounds of North American cotton; and they only used so much through being forced by the outrageous advance of the last kind.  Cotton has been skillfully cultivated in Asia for thousands of years; and the result of all the exertions made by an ingenious and laborious people is, that they cannot produce cotton of the quality which is required.” [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845  RE45i101p2c1       334 words

From the New Orleans Courier, March 8. 

Mexico

By the arrival of the brig Leopold, Captain Donnell, we have received Vera Cruz papers of the 17th February—they contain no news of a very important character.

Santa Anna was still detained in the prison of Perote, contrary to the intelligence received by way of Yucatan.  It was the general opinion that he would not be put to death.

Mr. Gomez Farias left Vera Cruz for the city of Mexico on the 25th February: a favorable reception awaited him.

A circular from the minister of finance, Mr. Echeveria, dated at Mexico, February 14, announces that the conducta would leave the city of Mexico March 1, for Vera Cruz.  It would be strongly guarded to protect it form the depredations of banditti on the route.

We find in the Gazette of Tampico of February 12, the following paragraphs:

The Junta of protection addressed on the 10th February, an appeal to the assembly of the department, praying the passage of a law of this tenor:

  1. To make Tampico de Tamaulipas a port of entrepot like that of Vera Cruz, in conformity to the decree of April 11, 1837.
  2. To reform the tariff now in force by adopting the principles of that of 1842, retaining whatever that tariff may contain in relation to the quantity and quality of goods.
  3. To permit the free circulation of specie in the interior.
  4. When foreign goods have once paid duties in one port they may be carried to any part of the Republic without being liable to the payment of further duties.

A proclamation dated Vera Cruz, Feb. 8, signed Jose de Amperan, prolongs to the 1st March the time fixed for foreigners to obtain their certificates of protection.

Generals Basadre and Canalizo have been transferred to the fortress of Chapultepec.  It was believed that many persons attached to the army were ordered to confine themselves within the limits of certain districts in the interior of the Republic. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845  RE45i101p2c1       258 words

Texas Money

We have been informed, by one of our most estimable and distinguished fellow-citizens, that Major Andrews Jackson Donelson, our Charge d’Affairs to Texas, assured him, that he had taken the necessary steps to ascertain the amount of Texas bonds and notes unredeemed at this time.  The Major was satisfied that the amount now in circulation is not more than between five and six millions of dollars.  For the correctness of this statement, ex-President Houston, than whom no one has better means of being accurately informed on the subject, gave the strongest assurance and vouched in positive terms.  We presume, from this statement, that a great quantity of the Texas bonds and notes has been received by the Government in payment for lands—and hence the reduction of the debt of the Republic.

We have thought it an act of mere justice to make known the facts above mentioned, as we are informed interested persons, stock-jobbers and speculators are very busily engaged in propagating reports, that the public debt of Texas, including her paper money in circulation, amounts to thirty millions of dollars.  The object of these people, manifestly, is to depreciate the current value of Texas bonds and notes, in order that they themselves may buy them up at the lowest prices.  We venture to predict, that in six months from this day, Texas lands, now selling at fifty cents, will fine willing purchasers at five dollars an acre—and, that Texas Government paper will rise to eighty cents in the dollar, probably to par.—Ib. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845 RE45i101p2c5 462 words

MORE STRAWS!

The “Baltimore American” still clings to the hope of defeating the annexation of Texas.  Its last straw, to save itself from drowning, is the letter of Mr. Elliott, the British Charge, to Mr. Jones, Secretary of State, of March last, which we published last week, for the purpose of showing the danger which the Whigs would have incurred, from the seductive intrigues of Great Britain.  The Baltimore American says: “It is evident that difficulties, which the urgent friends of annexation have thought lightly of, are threatening to defeat the consummation of that measure after all.  The Texans Executive will have it in his power, if he chooses, to throw obstacles in the way of negotiations at every step, and if he continues resolutely bent on preserving Texas separate and independent, his means of attaining that object will be abundant.”  But the Texas Executive dare not now throw any obstacles in the way—since the Congress of the United States have opened their arms to the reception of Texas.  The people of that country are too much attaché dot eh Union, especially since they have witness ed our anxiety to welcome her to our bosom, to permit her Executive to forbid the banns.  The case would have been materially different, indeed, if the Whigs had succeeded in defeating the resolutions of the last session.  Then, the pride of her people would have been touched—then, Messrs. Elliott & C. would have had another opportunity of playing their diplomatic game—then, the delay might have bred serious danger.  As it is, we shall scarcely dread the interference of Great Britain—either her secret intrigues, or he open opposition—though we admit, that the sooner the question be settled, by closing in with the propositions of Brown’s resolutions, the better for Texas, and the better for ourselves.

The “American” seems impatient to hear form Texas,” and so are we.  It says truly, and there, too, we agree with the Whig Editor of Baltimore that “If Texas should accede to the proposed terms, and consent to become a portion of the Union, the confirmation of the arrangement on the part of our Government would not be long withheld, we presume, notwithstanding the intimations to the contrary hear and there given out.”  Say, rather that if Texas should accede to our offered terms, (under the resolutions of the two houses,) we have nothing more to do than to agree to the Constitution proposed to our next Congress by Texas herself; and as these resolutions disembarrass her movements entirely in regard to the slavery question—as in fact, they pledge the faith of our own Congress to adopt her Constitution, whether with or without slavery, the confirmation on our part would be promptly and smoothly effected. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845 RE45i101p2c5 465 words

Still Catching at the Straw!

The following warning comes up form the “Balitmore American,” (Whig:)

“Will Annexation Be Consummated?—The ardent advocates of the annexation measure treat with ridicule the supposition, that Texas may, by any contingency, fail to become a portion of the Union.  We are not disposed to speculate about it; but if the supporters of Mr. Polk’s administration choose to differ on the point, we may listen to their reasonings.

“The New York Evening Post of Monday alludes to the conditions yet to be settled before annexation can take place, and says:

“now it is possible—indeed, we do not hazard much in saying that it is probable—that many of those Democrats who voted for the bill as recently carried, and who belong to the next Congress, will not vote for the final admission of the new territory until the terms are adjusted to the satisfaction of all parts of the country.—We confess that we are surprised to see this class of men consent to the passage of the bill, even as a preliminary measure; but our surprise is somewhat diminished, yet not forgotten, when we reflect that they may have reserved an intention to act with more boldness and decision when the proper time shall come.—how men who though the bill of Mr. Brown unconstitutional, of who, to say the least, were anxious that some portion of the new territory should be rescued from slave domination, could  vote even with a mental reservation, to enter upon the President the right to enforce that bill, we did not understand; it is possible, therefore, we repeat, that the question has yet to be determined.”

“This has its significance.  Mr. Polk’s Cabinet is now formed—not to the satisfaction, it would seem, of all his party.  Before the next meeting of Congress, the appointments will be mostly made, and the wielder of Executive patronage will have parted with one strong means of control over the ranks of his partisans.  If it should so turn out that Mr. Polk does not satisfy the leaders of the party—if he should displease them, in fact, by declining to follow their dictation, it is possible that the Texan bomb may be made again to explode.  But we leave the whole matter to the consideration of the Richmond Enquirer, which has taken the Texas business into its particular keeping.”

And we cheerfully leave this “whole matter to the consideration” of Mr. Polk and his Cabinet.—He has now “the Texas business in his particular keeping.”  He will see what the Whigs are counting upon as the last card they are to play.—But Mr. Polk will ut them off from this last hope—for he will consummate annexation now, under the terms of Brown’s resolutions. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845 RE45i101p2c5

THE TONE OF THE WHIG PRESS!

The Philadelphia “U.S. Gazette” refers to certain signs in the North, and says that “the Texas question is not settled; even though annexation should be regarded as accomplished, still Texas is to be rallying word, as effective in some campaign, as was the shout of ‘Remember Paoli’ in another.”

It refers, as one evidence of the signs of the times, to the revelations of the “Boston Mercantile Journal, a staid, respectable paper, of true Whig principles.”  The Journal ays, “the North has been betrayed”—

“Let us, then, trusting only to our own resources, and to the moral and religious character of the free States, prepare ourselves seriously for the contest, now inevitable, and involving graver consequences than any in which we have been engag3d since our national Constitution was first formed.  But, though, as we advance, we may not feel that we can depend upon any part of the South for support, we still shall not feel that we want a safe foundation whereon to plant ourselves, or faithful allies to cheer us on.  We have the old principles of the Constitution of the country, and whatever is true and venerable in justice and religion; to stand upon; and we have the voice of humanity, and the sympathies of all Christendom to go with us, and bid us God speed.  Nor shall we fail of success.  For a body of people, like that which fills the free States of this Union, contending earnestly in such a cause, was never yet brought into a base subjection to the spirit of slavery, and never can be.”

Another sign!—The New York Tribune is volcanic upon the occasion.  It asks: “What remains to be done?  We say, resist the consummation for the Annexation scheme to the last.—Let Connecticut, Rhode island, and other Free States, do their duty in their Congressional Elections, and the mischief may be arrested in the next Congress; but if not, we shall not yet give it up. We shall try, on one hand, to induce Texas to abolish Slavery, gradually, if not immediately; and if Freedom is allowed to discuss the matter, we shall have great hopes of early success. Failing or pending this, if any person in a Free State shall be claimed as a fugitive Slave from Texas, let his seizure be legally resisted, and the case carried up to the United States Supreme Court,” &c.  Pretty much in the Quincy style, this, upon the admission of Louisiana, “Peacably if we can, forcibly if we must!”  Try to arrest the mischief in the next Congress!  Will they indeed?  It is easy enough to see what the Whigs and Abolitionists are after.  They wish to keep the question open till the net session.  For what purpose?  To profit by the chapter of accidents—either to defeat the annexation altogether, or so to shape the annexation at the next session, as to obtain the largest proportion of Southern Texas, in fee simple, for the non-slaveholding States.  And how do they expect to keep it open?  By discarding the terms of Brown’s resolutions, and opening a new negotiation, under the alternative resolutions, so as to send a new compact to the Senate under the treaty-making power—or even to both Houses under the legislative power.  All the anti-Texas Whigs go for this scheme.—All the abolitionists go for it.  The Southern and Western friends of Texas see the game that these madcaps would play, and therefore they go for the scheme which is best calculated to close the Pandora box at once. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845 RE45i101p4c6 86 words

THE TEXAS QUESTION IN INDIANA

Extract from a letter, dated Indianapolis, March 6. 

“Speaking of the Hoosiers, I must tell you what one said on the Texas question the other day, as a good specimen of Hoosier eloquence:—Said one ------ “Colquitt, of Georgia, has made a Texas speech; and the way he skinned Barrow, of Louisiana, was awful.’  'Sarved him right,' said another—‘a Southern man who would go against annexation, ought to be skinned, and have the wound dressed with Spanish flies and vitriol." [MLD]


Tuesday, March 18, 1845 RE45i101p4c7 239 words

(From the Baltimore Republican)

FROM TEXAS

Galveston newspapers to the 2nd […]mo have been received in New Orleans.

The only item of news of any interest is comprised in the following official publication:

By the President of the Republic of Texas.

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas letters of marque and reprisal have been issued by the Government of the Republic of Texas, to authorize individuals to fit out vessels of war, and to wage hostility by sea against the republic of Mexico; and whereas it is deemed expedient to revoke all such letters of marque and reprisal, and all other commissions of like character heretofore issued by this Government:

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Ansen Jones, President of the Republic of Texas, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws, do, by these presents, revoke and recall, and declare henceforth null and void, all letters of marque and reprisal, and all commissions of what nature so ever, authorizing individuals, under the sanction of this Government to fit out and arm vessels of war or privateers, for the purpose of waging hostilities by sea against Mexico.’

In testimony whereof, I have caused the great seal of the Republic to be hereunto affixed.

Done at Washington, the eighth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, and of the Independence of the Republic, the sixth. 

ANSON JONES

By the President:
ASHBEL SMITH, Secretary of State.

[MLD]

Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p1c4 1766 words

WHIG TROUBLES

It is far from our intention to meddle with the family quarrels of the Whigs; but it will certainly not be considered intrusive to quote Whig authority, in order to exhibit to our Republican friends the state of the game in some of the Whig Districts.  S to the Essex District, the situation of our poor friend Newton is truly pitiable.  A Whig candidate for Congress, he is assailed by both Whig and Enquirer—and he must be a man o more than usual influence to stand up against this accidentally conjoined attack.  Whig as he was and is, of the most ultra Bank, Distribution and Tariff stamp, he had no favors to expect from this paper.  True, we did honor his early course on the Texas question, when he boldly segregated himself from the great mass of his party, and, by sustaining Milton Brown’s resolutions, gave evidence that he desired to attain a great national object, irrespective of the tyrannous behests of party.  But when afterwards he relapsed into his party affinities, and, upon grounds the most flimsy and untenable, voted against the same resolutions, modified by an amendment which did not seriously affect the great object of annexation—satisfied, as he should have been, that if the amended resolutions had failed in the House, the question would have been lost forever, and his vote in the negative might have produced that fatal result; when he, at a most inauspicious hour, took this most unfortunate and ill-advised “back-track,” we felt that the credit which he had received for his former independence of party rule, had been entirely cancelled, and that he stood on the same platform with the rest of his anti-Texas Whig brethren, and should be treated in like manner.  So much for our course towards Mr. Newton.  We leave him in the hands of his Whig friends, and beseech for him a “safe deliverance” from their loving affection!

All the strictures of the Enquirer upon Mr. Newton’s course are light as a feather, compared with the loving comments of our neighbor of the R. Whig.  We give a few extracts from the Whig again.  Speaking of Mr. N’s course on the Texas question, the Whig says: [MLD]

“This gentleman finds himself in no enviable position:  He has mortified his true and steadfast friends, or a very large portion of them; they who had stood by him at the crisis and placed him upon the summit he desired to reach, without conciliating his opponents!  He went too far for the first, and not far enough for the last!  He in his rabid support of the extremist Texas movement, without consulting the opinions of the vast and incalculable majority of the party with which he acted, from the Arostook to the Sabine, sinned against the first canons of party propriety, for in doing so, he made the great interests of this country, indissolubly united with the success of Whig principles, as he himself said a thousand time, and measures, subsidiary and subordinate to the immediate annexation of Texas, a measure which could be accomplished at any time whatever!  He displayed in this course, an arrogant and conceited self reliance and self sufficiency over the assembled wisdom of the Whig party at Washington, and Whig opinion throughout the Union, which mark him for an unsafe politician – for one upon whose judgment little reliance can be placed in contingent and collateral questions, and who on such questions, is like a dollar pitched up, as likely to fall heads as fall tails.*  *

“Without, that we have heard, any consultation with his District, or with the great body of the Whigs in it at least, Mr. Newton undertook to give THEIR vote for a measure of unconstitutional violence – we mean annexation of a foreign empire by joint resolutions of Congress, the very lowest grade of Legislation.  That IT IS a measure of lawless and unconstitutional VIOLENCE we affirm, and we appeal to the CONSTITUTION itself, to sustain us in the assertion:  We appeal particularly, to STATE RIGHT MEN!   We ask them to show us and the People, the power of annexing old and foreign empires!  As our neighbors of the Enquirer are wont to say, let them put their finger on the CLAUSE!   And it is a sad reflection that this stab at the heart of the Constitution – this abrogation of all Constitution – is the work of vaunting, self proclaimed, exclusive, State Right men! [JS LLS]

The Whig thus sketches Mr. N’s couse in voting against the amended Resolutions, quotes his explanatory leter to the Enquirer, and thus comments upon it: [MLD]

”The commentary of the Enquirer upon this cringing appeal, is such as it deserved.  It by no means pardons the offender against Texas, and shows off, with force, the weakness of voting against Benton’s amendment, after Mr. Newton and the Texas Whigs had swallowed Brown’s resolutions.  Its reasoning upon this point, is conclusive:  It gives Mr. Newton no credit for changing his voted, on the score of principle, but intimates that it was quite as probably caused by a disposition to attend to his own interest in returning to his party.

“This letter of Mr. Newton we never read until yesterday (Monday):  We read it under PROMISE to a friend, and with the sincere wish of being pleased with it.  We lay it down with feelings of entire disgust, and with the conviction of the truth of what a distinguished, a most distinguished Virginian said, a year ago – he ”will not be a Whig a year hence!”  [JS LLS]

This is sharp enough, truly, from a Whig organ upon a Whig candidate for Congress; and there are stronger passages, which we omit.  We come now to the concluding paragraph of the Whig’s biting comments.  No one can read it without a thorough conviction that the Whig organ has given Mr. Newton’s claims to the winds.  It substantially says to the Whigs of the District:  “Let the Congressional canvass fall to the ground.  Do nothing to sustain this Whig, who has been stained with the plague spot of Texas.  We care nothing for his success—but we earnestly desire to see Whig Delegates to the General Assembly from the different counties of the District.  Put Texas behind you, as a foul and polluting spirit, and, reckless of the Congressional contest, look alone to the counties.”  But is the Whig sure that Texas will not “once cross the mind” of the voters, and will not “influence” their votes?”  Our word for it, this great national question cannot thus summarily be disposed of.—It will, by its overwhelming importance, force itself into the canvass, and exert a commanding influence upon the next elections.  It has been fatal to Federal supremacy in the last great canvass—and it will, at the present trial, go on conquering and to conquer.  No candidate can stand before its triumphant march—and we appeal to the people to make it a test question in the next elections.  We have the authority of the Whig candidate for Congress from this district, and the pet and favorite of the R.Whig, (Mr. John M. Botts,) or saying, that, in his opinion, the Texas question was not yet settled, and that he was glad of it.  Such was the substance of his declarations at Goochland Court on Monday last.  According to Mr. Botts, therefore, the final admission of Texas into the Union may depend upon the Senators and Congressmen from Virginia.  It is, therefore, important, in every point to rally the whole Republican party, in defeating the anti-Texas Whigs.

But to the Whig’s paragraph, which, to our minds, surrenders Newton’s election, though it cries out most lustily for the support of the country delegates.  We publish it for the information of the District, and in order to invoke the unceasing exertions of our friends in behalf of Republican principles, and of the annexation of Texas: [MLD]

“To the Whigs of the District we address an earnest invocation:  suffer not yourselves to be driven from you moorings by these fatal Texas feuds, so much nourished by your Whig Representatives in Congress.  ATTEND TO THE LEGISLATIVE SPRING ELECTIONS. – That is the great and essential point.  Organize for that!  Organize for the United States!  Organize for Virginia!  Organize for Whig Principles!  Let not Texas once cross your mind, much less influence your votes!  Congress is comparatively little this year:  The House of Delegates is all in all!  [LLS]”

The Whig endorses a warm eulogium upon Mr. Pendleton, the Whig nominee in the Loudoun District, and takes occaision to give a sidewipe at Mr. J. Morton, an independent Whig Texas candidate.  It speaks of those Whigs who separate themselves from the main body of the party, and “look for an election to the Democracy,” and holds the following language:

“Their convictions may remain unchanged, but their affections will be estranged from the Whig cause.  The heart will desert first, and the judgment will soon follow.  They will insensibly, and by the operation of causes inherent in human nature, be sucked in by Loco Focoism!

“Texas is not a Whig measure—is not a Whig issue.  The Whig party resisted its being made an issue in every possible form; but it was forced upon them in despite of all their efforts; and being thus forced by Tyler, the Disunionists, speculators and party hacks, it had the effect expected from it, of defeating Mr. Clay and overwhelming the Whig party.  Can Whigs forget this so readily, and Whigs be expected to aid the election of one like Mr. Morton, who makes this the sole issue, and hopes, by its means, and Democratic votes, to ride down the Whig party itself?  We hope no Whig will consent to such suicide.”

This looks like a threat of excommunication against others than Mr. Morton, who, though thorough paced on other questions, have the patriotism and independence to think for themselves on the vital subject of annexation, which a vast majority of the Whigs of the last Legislature declared to be desired by a large majority of the people of Virginia.  If with the Federal organ in this city, every man who is or has been tainted by a Texas leaning, is to be anathematized, and set adrift.  It is not our province to settle Whig difficulties.  We have no fears of the result, if we have a fair contest, and we invoke the Republicans everywhere to concentrate their strength, and carry the elections.  With the present signs of the times, it can be easily done, if we are but true to ourselves. [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p1c5           2684 words

THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS

Its National – Sectional – and Party Aspects.

This important question, the ruling measure of its day, which has done more to shape the election of President, to affect the interests of the country, and the condition of parties, than any other, has not yet exhausted the influence which it was destined to exert.

Every section of the Union was interested in it—the shipping and manufactures of the North—the manufactures and productions of the Middle States—the property and institutions of the south—every portion of the West had a stake in its acquisition. It was necessary to the defense of the whole Union—to round off our territory—to baffle the intrigues of our most formidable rival—and to bind the whole Confederacy together by the strong chain of mutual interests and feelings.  When we recollect the physical advantages with which it is endowed, its rich soil, its delicious climate, its diversified and precious productions with the free trade markets which it throws open to all the citizens of the Union, we are astonished at the fatuity which has misled the Whig party.  We wonder at the infatuation which has eclipsed the judgment of Mr. Clay, in refusing to receive so magnificent a domain into our bosom, which he once contended (in 1820) we had no right to cede away.  We are surprised at the obsequious servility and dogged devotion of his followers, in pursuing his wandering footsteps.  Above all, we wonder how it is, that any American, particularly in the South, should resist the re-possession of a country, which Mr. Jefferson acquired with Louisiana.

In fact, who is not astonished, that any man should have been so led away by blind party spirit, as to object to the restoration of our ancient limits?  Let us be where we were in 1803, would naturally seem to be the wish of every patriot.

Some sections of the country, however, have objected to the re-annexation. These have been actuated partly by Abolition fanatics, and partly by Whig infatuation.  Garrison and John Q. Adams H. Clay and his deluded followers have united in opposition—but thanks to the energies of the Republican Party, we have succeeded in carrying resolutions, which will secure the measure.  Will the threats of the Northern fanatics and of Whig Legislatures be now carried into execution?  We cannot believe it possible.  Independently of the rashness of the attempt, of the dangers which would attend it, and the disgrace which would be stamped upon the authors of this new Hartford Convention Plot, we see in the very facts of the ease, the strongest evidence to believe that the popular sentiment will scout down the infamous proposition.  There are some curious statistics presented in the following article from the New Orleans Picayune, which is calculated to expose the folly of its perpetrators:

“THE TEXAS VOTE.—An analysis of the vote of the U.S. Senate upon the Texas resolutions will present some singular facts, which derive importance from the inflammatory manner in which the subject has been discussed in many portions of the country.  Some of the more violent politicians and presses went the length of declaring that the consummation of annexation would be equivalent to a dissolution of the Union, and others avowed a willingness to see the Union broken to pieces rather than witness the failure of that measure.  The principal topic employed to ferment popular excitement was the slavery question, which was infused with artfulness into the hustings upon too many occasions. It is in the respect to what has been urged upon this branch o the objection to annexation that the analysis of the final vote reveals important results—results, which show how idle it is to attempt to bias the opinions of men by threatening the stability of the Union, and which likewise prove the error of supposing that the slave question was the principal, much less the exclusive ground upon which the proposition was sustained.

“Of the 27 Senators who voted in favor of annexation, 13 (to wit: Fairfield of Maine, Atherton and Woodbury of New Hampshire, Niles of Connecicut, Dix and Dickinson of New York, Tappan and Allen of Ohio, Hannegan of Indiana, Semple and Breese of Illinois, and Buchanan and Sturgeon of Pennsylvania) were from the “free States;” and 14 (to wit: Merrick of Maryland, Haywood of North Carolina, McDuffie and Huger of South Carolina, Colquitt of Georgia, Lewis and Bagby of Alabama, Johnson of Louisiana, Henderson and Walker of Mississippi, Sevier and Ashley of Arkansas, and Benton and Atchison of Missouri,) were from the slave holding States.

“Of the 25 senators who voted against annexation, 15 (to wit: Evans of Maine, Choate and Bates of Massachusetts, Huntington of Connecticut, Upham and Phelps of Vermont, Porter and Woodbridge of Michigan, White of Indiana, Clayton and Bayard of Delaware, Dayton and Miller of New Jersey, and Francis and Simmons of Rhode Island) were from free States; and 10 (to wit: Pearce of Maryland, Archer and Rives of Virginia, Morehead and Crittenden of Kentucky, Jarnagin and Foster of Tennessee, Mangum of North Carolina, Berrien of Georgia, and Barrow of Louisiana) were from slaveholding States.

“Upon the final vote it will be seen, therefore, that in so far as the question of Southern institutions was at issue, it had no effect at all—the vote being as nearly divided, both tin the North and South, as upon any other question of public interest. 

“Again, of the 14 free States, 5 of them (New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania) voted for annexation; 6 of them (Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island) voted against it; and 3 (Maine, Connecticut and Indiana) gave a divided vote; whilst of the 12 slaveholding States, 5 (to wit: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri) voted in the affirmative; 3 of them (Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee) in the negative, and 4 (Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana) gave a divided vote.—Upon what other question has there been so equal a division?

“There is another aspect of this analysis that exhibits a yet more striking result.

“By referring to the Census of 1840 it will be seen that the 5 free States which voted for annexation contain the following population:

New Hampshire 284,574; New York 2,428,921; Pennsylvania 1,724,033;

Ohio 1,519,467; Illinois 476,183 souls,

making a total of                                               6,433,178

The 6 free States that voted against annexation, are populated as follows:

Massachusetts 737,699; Vermont

 291,498; Delaware 78,085; R. Island

 108,830; Michigan 212,267; and N.

Jersey 373,306 souls, making a total

of                                                                     1,802,135

And the 3 free states that gave a divided vote, contain:

Maine 501,793; Connecticut 307,798;

Indiana 685,866 souls in all

On the other hand, the 5 slaveholding States which voted for annexation contain:

South Carolina 594,398; Alabama 590,756;

Mississippi 375,651; Arkansas

 97,574; Missouri 383,702 souls, in all  2,012,041

The 3 slaveholding States that voted against it, contain:

Virginia 1,239,797; Kentucky 779,828;

Tennessee 829,210 souls, in all             2,848,835

And the 4 slaveholding States which gave a divided vote, contain:

Maryland 470,019; N.Carolina 753,419;

Georgia 691,392; Louisiana 352,411

souls, in all                                                        2,267,241

If we divide the population of those States which gave a split vote upon annexation, the result will be:

    Those Senators from the free States that voted for annexation represented a population of                         7,231,996

    Those Senators from the free States that voted against annexation, represented a population of                   2,748,835

    Those Senators from the slave States that voted for annexation, represented a population of                        3,175,620

    Whilst those Senators from the slave states that voted against annexation, represented a population of          3,982,455

If we add up the hole together, the following result is elicited:

    The Senators who voted for annexation represented a total population of                                                  10,407,657

    Those who voted against it represented a total population of                                                                         6,583,408

In this calculation the population of the territories is of course left out, and in the slaveholding States the gross number is taken instead of the federal number.  Were the first added, and the latter reduced according to the federal ratio, the difference would e yet greater on the side of annexation.

            “To recapitulate:--The final vote in the Senate, upon the Texas resolutions, stood—yeas 27, nays 25.

            “Of the 27 yeas, 13 were Senators from the free States and 14 from the slave States.  Of the 25 nays, 15 were from the free States and 10 from the slaveholding States.

The thirteen Senators from the free states who voted for annexation represented a population greater than that represented by the fifteen Senators from the free states who voted against annexation by                                           4,631,043

And the ten Senators from the slaveholding States who voted against annexation represent a population greater than the fourteen Senators from the slaveholding States who voted for it represented, by                                     806,794

And the twenty-seven Senators who voted for annexation represented a majority of the whole people of the United States, of                     3,824,249

“It would appear also that this majority is all from the free States—that in point of fact the slaveholding population opposed it.  How absurd, then, do those people who talk of a dissolution of the Union in connection with this subject appear!  When they try it, they will find their hands full at home.  We have been minute in this analysis, as it proves that the great measure of the day has not been decided upon local or sectional grounds;--it has acquired a national character and this determined its fate.”

The New Orleans Bulletin justly remarks, on the preceding statistics from the Picayune, that “Emphatically as the measure is there shown to have assumed an aspect essentially national and popular, those characteristics would have been apparent to a much greater degree, had the votes of all the States been cast according to the known sentiments of their citizens.  The States of Maine, Michigan, Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana and Louisiana gave but three votes in the senate in favor of the resolutions;  whereas, had the public sentiment been represented, those States would have cast sixteen votes for the measure.  It will be seen, therefore, that the popular majority, which ought actually to b set down in favor of the measure, is immense and in no respect sectional.  Had it not been for the unhappy circumstances which brought the topic into the arena of party strife, there would probably have been no serious opposition to the measure, except in two or three of the New England States.  True wisdom, and a regard for the public quiet would now dictate that the vindictive passions that have arisen in the struggle should be sought on all hands to be appeased and reconciled.”

Were we even disposed to pursue these counsels, a large portion of the Whig press would not permit us to bury this question in oblivion.  The rabidness as well as absurdity of the Richmond Whig on this subject shows still the spirit of the Whig party.  Their presses are constantly harping upon the alleged mischiefs of the measure, abusing its friends, and still idly speculating upon some prospect of defeating it.  They are in favor of keeping the question open, with a hope, that at the next session of Congress they may still be able to crush it.  But is it right to throw entirely a veil over the conduct of the great body of the Whig Party?  Must we forget the history of the Hartford Convention, because it has blown by?  Must we cease to recollect the opposition of the Whigs to Texas?  Is it not a material element in any calculation, which we are to form of the political character of that party?  Were they statesmen in their course?  Were they patriots?  Must we send back to the councils of Virginia a party, who refused to act decisively in favor of annexation—a party, who would re-elect Mr. Rives to the senate of the United States?—a party, who effectually cheered on the two Senators of Virginia, in resisting the wishes of her people?

Extend the views of the “Picayune” and the “Bulletin,” to this aspect of the case—change the statistics from sectional to party calculations, and statistics from sectional to party calculations, and how will the case stand?  Out of the 28 Whig Senators, every one voted against the Resolutions, except three.  Every Democrat in the Senate voted for them.  A single Whig only in the House of Representatives voted ultimately for the amended Resolutions (Dillet of Alabama.)—And two Democrats only (Davis of N.York, and Hale of N. Hampshire.) voted against them.  Now, analyze these Whig votes in the Senate, on the principle of the “N.O. Picayune,” and it will appear, that in the slaveholding States, 1 Whig from Maryland—2 Whig Senators of Virginia, (aye! from Old Virginia, both Senators went against the great question of the South and of the day—both Messrs. Rives and Archer)—the Whig Senator of N. Carolina—the Whig Senator from Georgia—the two Whig senators form Tennessee (flying ultimately the true track)—one of the Whig senators of Louisiana—and both the Whig Senators from Kentucky;--thus, ten Whig Senators from the slaveholding States voted against us—and to the annoyance of old Virginia, let it never be forgotten that her tow Whig Senators voted against her wishes and her interests—and that the Whigs in her Legislature refused to express the wishes of Virginia, and support the principles of her General Assembly, lest it might “embarrass their Senators,” and carry the great question of the times in favor of the United States, and especially of the South.  Then mark! Citizens of Virginia, this other thing—that the Whigs are now moving heaven and earth to reelect their party to the next General Assembly for the express purpose of re-electing Mr. Rives, one of the anti-Texas Senators, to our public councils.  And the Whigs now complain, that the Republicans of our State Senate would not permit them the other day to trample upon 6,000 majority of the Republicans of Virginia, and to thwart the wishes of the State, by fastening Mr. Rives around your necks for six years to come.  What say ye, People of Virginia?  Will you trust these politicians again?  And will you subscribe to the outrage which they would have perpetrated at the last session, and they are now seeking to renew at the next, against your principles, against your rights, and against your wishes?

The Whigs are deceiving themselves and deceiving others.  They would have us believe, that there is imbecility, incapacity, indecision in the present Cabinet.  The Whigs are grossly deceived.  “Mine is a working Cabinet,” says Mr. Polk—and we have no doubt, they will prove themselves to be such.  They are all setting in to the study of their respective duties.  Mr. Buchanan is at home in our Foreign Relations.  Mr. Walker is putting the best foot foremost, by collecting light form all quarters on the revenue and Tariff.  Mr. C. Johnson is adjusting his arrangements and anticipating his contracts, as far as he can, to the new Post-Office law of next July.  His Department requires energy and economy—and he is the man who will display both these qualities.  Bancroft drops the Historian’s pen, for a time, to compass the condition and penetrate the recesses of the Navy.  Messrs. Marcy and Mason are preparing for the new and important offices to which they have been called.  Success to them all.

            The Whigs even flatter themselves will the hope of distraction in the Cabinet.  The Washington correspondent of the Baltimore Patriot affects to believe, that “there is already a division in Mr. Polk’s Cabinet—each party striving for the mastership in swaying and controlling the President.”  What wretched humbugs!  We are advised upon good authority, that the Cabinet is now a unit—and that the President has rather too much pride to be controlled by any Secretary.  They all tell him the truth; that is their duty.—They will give him advice; that is his right.  Bu the will decide and act for himself. [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p2c3 647 words

“To be, or not to be?—That is the Question.”

THE WHIGS STILL AGAINST ANNEXATION

The Whigs die hard.  We had supposed that the annexation might have been consummated without much difficulty under the resolutions of Congress.  The Whigs say, No.  They mean to struggle to the last.  They are determined, it would seem, to stir the embers of strife again next Winter, whenever the Constitution of Texas comes in under the House Resolutions, and much more, if the new compact is submitted under the resolutions of the Senate.  Mr. Botts said on Monday last, in Goochland, that the question was not settled—that he was glad of it—and that he would fight to the last against the annexation.  (See the two communications in to-day’s paper about the discussion in Goochland.)  Mr. Winthrop, of the House of Representatives, told a Virginian the other day that they intended to make battle against the Constitution of Texas, when t came before the next Congress.  If we believe these Whigs, therefore, the battle is not over, and they mean to oppose Texas again at the next session.

But there is another fact of much importance, which shows the desperate spirit in which they are acting.  We request the reader’s attention to the following extraordinary move, made by the Whigs of the Senate of the United States, on the 10th instant:

From the National Intelligencer

In EXECUTIVE SESSION, March 10 1845

Mr. Berrien submitted the following resolution for consideration:

Resolved, That in executing the authority conferred by the joint resolution of Congress entitled “a joint resolution for the annexation of Texas to the United States,” the President of the United States will best conform to the provision of the Constitution by resorting to the treaty-making power, for the purpose of accomplishing the objects of that resolution.

Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to lay before the President of the U.S. a copy of this resolution.

March 11, 1845

Mr. McDuffie moved to lay the above resolution on the table, which passed in the affirmative by the following vote:

YEAS—Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Cass, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Haywood, Huger, Johnson of Louisiana, Lewis, McDuffie, Niles, Semple, Sevier, Speight, Sturgeon, Woodbury—23.

NAYS—Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Berrien, Thomas Clayton, John M. Clayton, Corwin, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Greene, Huntington, Jarnagin, Johnson of Maryland, Mangum, Morehead, Phelps, Simmons, pham, Webster, Woodbridge—20.

Here, too, we ee the desperation of the Whigs.  Every man of them but one, votes for the resolution of Mr. Berrien.  They were put to sleep by the Democrats of the Senate.  Here we see the Whigs attempting to place the annexation at the mercy of the treaty-making power, where two-thirds are necessary to carry it through the next session.  That is to say, they sought to kill Teas by a side-blow.  But what shows their desperation is this: that they attempt to direct the President, in virtue of their Executive (or treaty-making) character, how to construe a joint resolution of both Houses, adopted in their legislative capacity.  How can these men pretend to talk of what “best conforms to the provisions of the Constitution,” when this very resolution of Mr. Berrien does not itself conform to the constitution, but flies in the face of the most obvious constitutional distinction, between the treaty-making and the legislative powers?—It is indeed a curious position which the Whigs occupy.  After Congress have passed a joint resolution, one branch (the Senate) would assume the power of advising the President what it means, or rather, that it means something, which violates the Constitution!  Such, however, is their eagerness to defeat Texas, that they will resort to any expedient, however desperate.  People of Virginia, you see what you are to expect form these Whigs at the next session.  We will baffle their designs, however, and secure Texas to the Union. [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p2c3 684 words

ORGANIZATION—UNION—ACTION

We extract the following appropriate and admirable remarks from the “Augusta Democrat” of Tuesday last.  There is not a sentiment in the article which we do not cordially approve—not a word of advice which we do not earnestly recommend.  Down, down with those ambitious candidates, who are seeking to obtain a seat in the Legislature, at the hazard of defeating their party, and of losing the State!  Away with such selfish and despicable aspirants!  The man who, at such a moment as this, will press his claims beyond the bounds of moderation, and refuses to listen to any proposition from his competitors, his political friends of the committees of vigilance, which is calculated to select but one candidate and concentrate the whole vote upon him is unworthy of the concentrate the whole vote upon him is unworthy of the confidence of the people

Away with him! “let no such man be hereafter trusted!”

“SPRING ELECTIONS.—The Spring Elections are rapidly approaching, and it behooves the Democracy of the State to be preparing for the contest.  Important issues are at stake—questions vitally affecting the rights and interests of the people are to be passed upon.  Our motto has ever been, “Principles, not men,” and we wish to see the Republicans standing up to the mark at the next Election.  The success of Republican measures, and not the mere triumph of man over man, are we to fight for.  We are to seek for the extension of correct principles and not the elevation of certain individuals, however valuable their services may have been heretofore.  We are to strive for the triumph of measures, not men—the success of Republicanism over Whiggery—Democracy over Federalism, and the principles of Jefferson over the high-toned Federal notions of Hamilton.  Will our friends through out the State drown all minor difficulties, discard personal preferences, and make a united and determined effort to secure the triumph of our long cherished Republican principles?  What will our friends in Harrison do?  Will they suffer themselves to be distracted by commotions in our ranks, and thus fall an easy victim to our political enemies? We hope not.  What will our friends to in the Scott Senatorial District?  Will they not heal the apparent breach in our ranks, and rally to the support of our cause on principle, overlooking the claims of particular men, and the wishes of political aspirants?  In every county and district in the State where dissensions exist where aspirants wish to gratify personal feelings at the sacrifice of our principles, or jeopardize the success of the party, we hope the people will take the matter into their own hands, and ‘rule off’ all such stubborn and headstrong partisans, and teach them wisdom by experience.—The man who will endanger the success of our party by pressing his personal claims, should be looked upon as a traitor to the best interests of his country, and receive the censure of all honest men.  By such conduct he shows that ‘self,’ dear, precious self, is his first consideration, and all things else must bend to his desires.  Mark such men—let them be known and treated as our enemies, enemies more dangerous because they nestle in our midst. We say, in conclusion, Republicans, arm for the conflict!  Put on the whole Democratic armor and prepare for the contest!  Let us have a majority of men good and true in the next Legislature, so that we may secure the election of a Democratic Governor, and be able to place a fair exponent of the wishes of our people in the U.S. Senate.”

“Democratic Meeting.—We have been requested by a number of our Democratic friends to give notice that there will be a meeting of the Republican party at the August a court-house, on the 4th Monday of this month, (court day.) A full attendance requested.”

“Col. Hiner is a candidate for re-election to the House of Delegates from the county of Pendleton.”

Such are the staunch men whom the people of Virginia ought to send into their next Legislature. [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p2c4 949 words

MESSRS. BOTTS AND SEDDON IN GOOCHLAND

To the Editors of the Enquirer: 

Goochland, Monday Night, March 17

The first encounter in this Congressional campaign was here to-day.  The judgment, as to which champion had the better, will depend entirely upon what rule of judging a person adopts.  Those with whom loudness of voice, confident and unconsidered assertion, and more than kingly loftiness (not to say arrogance) of look and manner, pass for strength of mind and correctness of though, must give the palm to Mr. Botts.  Such as like sound, clear reasoning, carefully ascertained facts, all clothed in chaste and forcible words, uttered with becoming modesty,--will award the victory, beyond measure, to Mr. Seddon.

Never did I see a face, which assumes so much the appearance of absolute infallibility, as the face of Mr. Botts does in speaking.  It swells and glistens with indignation, at the bare idea that nay one should be audacious enough to differ with him.  Every feature, and every tone says, with all the eloquence of a Salt-river roarer, that he would chaw up, if he could, the man who dares to think differently form Mr.Botts. Pity but you could have heard his argument (as he would call it,) to prove that the annexation of Teas in the way that Congress has taken, is against the constitution!  It consisted, almost entirely, of a whole thunder-storm of abusive epithets against the measure.  You may have a pretty good notion of it, by turning to Swift’s Tale of a Tub, and reading the “argument,” by which Lord Peter proves a piece of dry bread to be good, fat mutton:  “I say, this is Mutton! And if you were not a parcel of d—d fools, you would see that it is.  And if you don’t take it and eat it as mutton, may G—d everlastingly d—n and confound you all!” (I quote only from memory)

To mention but one of Mr. B’s reckless assertions:  He said, that the repeal of the 21st rule had produced no harm, nay, rather good to the Sough; for, that, since the repeal, he believed, not a single Abolition petition had been presented.  Now, if you will look into last Saturday’s National Intelligencer, (for the country,) you will find a list of the petitions presented by Mr.B.’s particular friend, J. Q. Adams, during the session, regularly numbered, amounting to largely over 200; and of the four or five that I examined in the list, nearly all were Abolition petitions.

I would gladly sketch you the debate; so sounding, and empty, ad violent, or the one side—so masterly and convincing on the other.  But time and space are wanting.  You must know, however, the decisive turn which the TEXAS part of the discussion has taken.

THE TEXAS QUESTION IS YET OPEN!—Its NOT YET SETTLED!

This was affirmed, and proved, by Mr. Seddon; and admitted, or I should rather say most positively asserted, by Mr. Botts.

Mr. S. said, that it was important to have in the cause in various ways the question might again come up from there, for the action of that body.  Texas might accept our offer of union, but with some qualification, which would of course have to be decided upon by our Congress.  Or, a motion might be made there next winter, to repeal the joint resolutions, by which she is proposed to be annexed.  In either of these cases, a member who believed the annexation unconstitutional, would be obliged to vote against it.  Or, Mr. S. said, that when Texas, in pursuance o the joint resolutions, should frame her constitution as a State and offer it for the approval of Congress, some such embarrassing and exciting question might be raised about it, as was raised about the constitution of Missouri in 1819: when the Union trembled on the verge of dissolution.  In such a juncture, all those who thought annexation itself unconstitutional, would, of course, vote for anything that would frustrate annexation.  And in any of those cases, where would Mr. Botts be found?  He who is opposed to our annexing Texas in any manner, but especially by legislative action, as being against both expediency and the constitution?  The Texas question, therefore, is deeply involved in this contest.

Mr. Botts, in his reply, burst into that tempest of hard words, which I before attempted faintly to give you some idea of; denouncing annexation as every way monstrous—as unconstitutional, unwise, and un-everything.  In short, I wonder he did not say with Dr. Syntax, that it “upset the categories, and overturned the predicaments.”  He concluded that the Texas question was by no means settled: that if it should come before Congress in any form, (as come it must,) he, if a member, would oppose annexation.

My language is very tame, compared with Mr. B’s. I should vainly attempt a rivalry of his thunder-and-lightning style.  For most of his epithets, however, see the R. Whig, passim; and especially the letters of Il Secretario—who, as I heard a Whig of high standing say the other day, is a very clever fellow;  “but,” added, he, “to talk of making him a Professor in the University, is the best joke that ever happened, except that of a man’s bequeathing five pounds to pay off the national debt of England.”  The fluency with which Mr. Botts pours out his plentiful streams of invective, reminds me of that noisy and passionate blade in the Odyssey, who is sarcastically asked,

“What God to thy untutored youth affords Such headlong torrent of amazing words?  May Heaven delay thy reign, and cumber late So bright a genius with the cares of State!” [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p1c4 621 words

From Another Correspondent. 

For the Enquirer,

Seddon and Botts met yesterday. Seddon, at Botts’ request, leading off in a speech of two hours.  Seddon first touched on the Bank question, which he considered as for the present lifeless; but if there were any power which should hereafter revive it, he was ready to aid in again destroying its existence.  He next took up the Tariff question, advocating a tariff for revenue only; and as to protection, such as was only a necessary consequence of a tariff, and equally apportioned among all the great interests of the country.  He considered this to be the view presented in Polk’s Inaugural, and as such commended it.  The Texas question he considered unsettled, either in he event of Texas acceding to Milton Brown’s resolutions, or preferring the plan of the Senate’s amendment.  In the first instance, she must come before the House of Representatives with her Constitution, which would at once open all those exciting questions which produced so much confusion at the time of the Missouri controversy. In the other, of course the whole matter still depended on negotiation.

In this connection, he spoke of the impropriety o sending to Congress a man, form whose associations in Congress such inferences might be drawn, as from Botts’.  He spoke of Botts’ peculiar attachment to John Q. Adams—his selecting that gentleman to present his contesting petition—his invitation to the dinner given to Botts, &c.—Botts rose, as you may imagine, in a great rage.  He said he had rather keep Adams’s company than such as Seddon kept, for which remark Seddon at once stopped him, when Botts declared he meant no personal indignity, &c.—He thought that a remark of dams’ which Seddon had quoted, was not only as Seddon called it, “fiendish,” but hellish—nevertheless, it arose from the old Puritan spirit, which could not brook finance.  Adams was no Abolitionist—he knew him better than any body else—he would have considered it the highest honor for Adams to attend the dinner give to himself.  He had requested Adams to attend the dinner given to himself. He had requested Adams to present his petition, because he thought the Whig members of Congress from Virginia were too young to manage it well.  He could not trust the Democratic members, and Massachusetts was called long before Virginia in calling the States for Petitions.  On the Bank and Tariff, he was ultra Federal, in his usual style of violent and empty declarations.  He agreed with Seddon, as to the fact, that the Texas question was unsettled—he was very glad of it.  He then went on in a sort of half-mad half-scared style of scolding against Texas and all its friends.  Calhoun and McDuffie were disunionists; Tyler was every thing that was villainous.  Seddon admired Calhoun, and therefore Seddon was a disunionist, too.  Polk was the best of the whole set; he had driven Calhoun and his friends from the councils of the nation.  The Northern Abolitionists were better States Rights men than they were: he was a States Rights man himself.  When he had finished his tow hours, you may very well imagine, from your knowledge of Seddon, the scorching rejoinder poor Botts received.  His defense of Adams, and his attack up on the friends of Texas, as well as his absurdities in regard to the Tariff, were most glaringly exposed.  Botts went on for another half an hour, with an attack on Mr. Calhoun, and then the meeting adjourned.  Seddon is determined to vote every hour of his time to the canvass, and as soon as he has head form the different counties, will announce the places at which he may be expected.” [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p1c5 710 words

To the Editors of the Enquirer.

THE 8th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

It has been said that Republics are ungrateful—as amended by gallant Mr. Newton, Republicans are ungrateful—very!  Because they have dared to question his infallibility, and dared to offer any opposition to him—dared to say that they do not entirely approve of his course.  Vain and ungrateful men—How could you venture to doubt that he, “Honest W. Newton,” is the wisest, the best, the greatest statesman whom this District ever gave birth to?  Who, that listened to his great speech, yesterday, at Tappahannock, has the temerity to say, that Mr. Newton is not one of the “shining lights of the sunny South?” O! how I envied the man, when I heard him proclaim to his people, that, but for him, Texas—Texas would have been lost—lost forever to us—lost beyond the hope of recovery.  The eight Whigs saved Texas—and he—honest and gallant Newton—influenced the eight Whigs; ergo, without his aid, Texas could never have been ours.  Then let the glad tidings go forth—let the shouts of gratitude, from the Sabine to the Rio Del Norte, be heard—let Virginia and the whole South echo the shouts: Yes, “let the winds tell the tale”—the Representative of the eighth Congressional District has saved the country—saved the Union.—Now he might “die content;”—the measure of his country’s glory is filled by him—happy man.

Messrs. Editors: Newton and Hunter were here yesterday: each addressed the people.  Need I comment?  Would that you could have been here, in your native county—your native town—(God bless the old village!) Newton spoke first.  I will not trust myself to give you a sketch of what he said, and how it was said.  No—the Whigs may do that.  But I will say, that a more arrogant, unsatisfactory and presumptuous effort, it has never fallen to my lot to listen to.  He did not, however, forget to pay his respects to “Old Tom Ritchie.”*  Why is it, that the Federalists, in Virginia, always feel it necessary to attack “Old Tom Ritchie?”  I ask the question—but I can answer it: “Old Tom Ritchie” and the Federalists cannot live in peace and harmony in Virginia; hence the efforts of the latter to prostrate the former.

Gallant Mr. Newton addressed his peers bout one and a half hours; but for the last half hour we (the Democrats) found it difficult to keep order; the Whigs seemed wearied.  He, gallant man, had crossed the “Rocky Mountains;” he had gone to Oregon; and had gotten fairly in a fog on the Columbia river.  He commenced under a cloud, and he ended in a fog, and in a fog let him stay.

Hunter arose bout five o’clock.  When he appeared on the hustings, the old court-house seemed to shiver from top to bottom.  The winds from the Heavens were howling loud and deep; but the people, the mighty people, proclaimed with one united voice, “We too must speak; we must be heard.”  Yes, and they were heard!

Again, Messrs. Editors, I must decline giving any description of Hunter’s speech.  I could not do justice to his noble and eloquent effort.  I will not attempt that.  But never before did I so much envy (yes, envy) any man.  When Hunter closed his speech, by an appeal to the South, I felt (and others, no doubt, felt it too) that I would sooner have been R.M.T. Hunter of Essex, than the “Emperor of all the Russias.”  This is no fancy sketch. 

The mail is about to close, and I have only time to say that we shall do our duty to the cause ,to the country, and to the “SOUTH”

Tappahannock, March 18.

*T.Ritchie is old enough to distinguish a “hawk from a hand-saw”—an ambitious Federalist from an honest Patriot—a politician who has changed his coat once or twice in the course of his mortal career, from a statesman who is true to Virginia and her interests.  He is young enough, too, to feel sufficient energies in his nerves to defend his own principles, and to defy the whole Federal party, with “honest Willoughby Newton” at their head. [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p2c7 628 words

For the Enquirer. 

TO THE DEMOCRATS OF THE ALBEMARLE DISTRICT.

We are now at crisis in this district, which threatens a complete discomfiture in the Congressional contest.  The apathy that pervades our ranks, arises from personal predilections, and the seeming injustice done to the counties of Orange and Greene, from the mode of voting in the Convention which nominated Shelton F. Leake.  I regret much to say, that this spirit of discord is not confined to the rank and file of the party, but some of distinction, who heretofore have been faithful sentinels on the watchtower, announcing the approach of the enemy, have sheathed their swords, and retired to their tents.  Among these, are some of my friends, and it renders it more mortifying to me, that I believe them to be enemies of their own political family.  Yes, retired to their tents, when “the Philstines are down upon us,” and we, at such a time, are to be short of our strength by the compatriots of our Democracy. But let us inquire, is this a part of our duty, to become inactive, because the mode of voting in a Convention does not fill exactly our measure of justice?  As one, I denounce the mode of voting in the convention as unjust.  Further, I believe the delegates appointed by some of the counties were for the purpose of sustaining a nominee without a full exposition of the people’s preference.

But the die is cast, the enemy is fully arrayed against us; and it is wise, is it just, is it patriotic, to thrown down our weapons, halt and inquire, how came we to be organized, or how were the officers appointed, or, like Cato before the Roman tribunal, when inquiring why he revolted, the bold exclamation was, “That the Romans, and not he, were the aggressors, since they had sent, instead of dogs and shepherds to secure their flocks, only wolves and bears to devour them.”  This is not the language of a patriot, either political or military.  But if we are desirous of a defeat, such a course will infallibly insure it.  We all have our predilections for men and for modes.  But is it not our duty to lay tem down on the altar of our country? And so long as the Democrats will assemble around that shrine, victory will rejoice to perch on her standard. 

The Texas question is one that should awaken us to all our energy, independent of the decisive frown which should ever mark the Democratic brow towards the unhallowed waywardness of Federal croakers.  But suppose we consider the Texas question as settled, should the Democracy, by their own act and deed, place the wreath of victory around the brow of J.K. Irving, who, in the last Presidential campaign, and in the contest now waging, opposed it upon the grounds of expediency?  Inquire of yourselves, voters of the District, are you willing, by your apathy, to produce such a result?  Are you willing, by your apathy, to reward by remaining at home, on the 4th Thursday in April next, J.K. Irving, for opposing and, along with them, the Lone Star, with its incalculable wealth?—Or, with the gratitude we owe to Shelton F. Leake, for the zeal, energy and ability employed in the last Presidential election, rally to his support?  Is it not our duty o rise form our slumbers, shake off the discord that hangs about our skirts, call up the soul-stirring spirits and to sound the parting knell of disaffection?  Let energy and conciliation be our watchword, and the eagle emblem of a Republican victory will perch on our banner, whilst the enemy’s will draggle in the dust, as a strict administration of justice.

RAPID ANN

Orange, March 14th, 1845[MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p4c3 1641 words

SPRING ELECTIONS—Organization

The Democratic Central Committee will public their Address, in the course of this week or early in the next, to the People of Virginia.—They will pay their respects, of course, to the late Address of the Whigs.

We lay before our readers, in this morning’s paper, the names of the country Committees, who were appointed by the Democratic Legislative Convention.  They are earnestly and respectfully advised to meet forthwith, to organize themselves, to extend their number, and to spread their members in every part of their county.  They are requested to exert themselves for the success of our Republican candidates—to rouse the people—to spare no efforts to carry their districts or counties—to concentrate the votes upon one candidate only, where there is but on Representative—and wherever there should unfortunately prevail too grate a competition among the candidates, or nay schism in our ranks, to strain every nerve to rule off superfluous candidates, and restore the union, harmony and energy of our party.  No time is to be lost, and we earnestly recommend it to our committeemen everywhere to be up and adoing.

We have some snarls in our party—some candidates too many for the demand, and too dogged to accommodate themselves to the true interests of the party.  We respectfully recommend all such cases immediately to the consideration of our Country Committees.  One of the cases to which we lately alluded, is the strong Republican county of Monongalia.  Upon that subject, the Margantown Mountaineer of the 15th has the two following articles.

“A short time since, we borrowed the Richmond Enquirer, (as Father Ritchie has forgotten to exchange with us,) and observed a lecture to the candidates of this county especially, after a few faltering remarks upon us “in particular.” We intend to publish it for the benefit of the Republican party, but he paper has been mislaid, but we remember the substance of the appeal which was. “hold a convention, rule off all the candidates but tone, and if any man would dare to raise his voice against the nomination, throw him over the fence and let it be a lesson to all refractory spirits hereafter.”

“This is sound doctrine, and we most heartily endorse it; and coming as it does from Thomas Ritchie, the father of the press in the Union, the people of the county will en masse approve it.—They are already pursuing that course, n there will not be a dissenting voice to the nomination.  The plan is not yet agreed upon, and thee is a general feeling to postpone the matter until March Court, when we can all meet, and in two weeks the nomination will be made, and Monongalia will be where she has been and always will be, leading the van.  We will then bring out our chicken.  It is a beautiful bird and Chapman shall crow.”

Again—“It affords us pleasure to say to our friends at a distance, that everything is right in Monongalia.  Discord has been banished, and all the candidates have but one feeling, and that is submission to a Convention.  We heard tow of them say this week, that they would rather be defeated a thousand times by Convention than have a Whig elected.  We pride ourselves in the ‘Old Vanguard’ on our stern Republicans; and when Monongalia is named in any part of the Commonwealth, she is classed with the ‘Tenth Legion;’ and shall our ancient character be lost?  Not if all the candidates act in accordance with their pledges.  We have confidence in them, one and all; we would be proud to battle for anyone in the thickest of the fight; if it would be necessary, we would traverse the whole country, and urge the people to the polls.  But to be nominated, is to be elected without opposition; and we will support the nominee, whether he is our choice or not—and this is the feeling of ninety nine hundredths of the Democracy of the county”

            (Our friend of the “Mountaineer” might very well have saved us the hit of “Father Ritchie,” or the complement of “the Father of the Press,” &c.  But he shall no longer have to borrow our paper.  It will be put upon our exchange list, as we supposed it had been done before.  We shall be amply rewarded for any little service we may do him, by his telling us in the next Mountaineer, that all is peace and well in Monongalia.)

            There is still some snarl in Harrison county.  At least, the “Scion of Democracy” says, “we expect the Democracy of Harrison will do something on Monday with reference to their county candidate, and we hope also that the number of candidates for the Senate will be diminished.  If t is not done, we shall endeavor to show that some gentlemen are more anxious for office than the success of the party to which they attach themselves.  With regard to this Congressional canvass, we have only now to say, that if the Democratic party mean to carry the district, they must display more zeal, activity and energy than they seem disposed to do. May we tell them, emphatically, that the district is in danger?  We will strive for success in the person of our candidate, and after the battle is fought, if we have any complaints to make about that candidate, we will make them then.  If every member of the party will pursue that course, he will have the gratification of knowing that he was superior to the personal objections and differences.”

            Organize, then, is the word!  Organize everywhere.  Let us beat the Whigs, and save the State from their misrule.

The New York Express, as most of the other Whig prints, which have spoken upon this question, is anxious to see the administration open the negotiation with Texas, under the amendment of the Senate.  We confess, we prefer the other mode, if it be agreeable to Texas—and it seems to us sufficiently easy to ascertain that fact.  We concur with the Glove, that President Tyler and his Cabinet ought not to have taken any action under those resolutions, on the very eve of its dissolution.  The whole matter ought to have been turned over to the new President, who would have ample time to consider the subject, and to frame the instructions in whatever form and at whatever time he though the public interests require.  We are free to say, that this was the course, which it was expected things would take.  But it does not, therefore, follow, that Mr. Tyler had adopted the wrong alternative.

            From the information which we have received, we incline towards the immediate settlement of the question, under the House Resolutions, if it be agreeable to Texas.  We had understood that Maj. Donelson approved this mode of adjustment, and expressed the opinion that it would be acceptable to Texas. The N.Y. Morning News seems to state the fact differently.  There is no difficulty, however, in consulting Texas upon the subject, in such a manner as not to cut off Mr. Polk from either horn of the alternative, which he and the Republic of Texas may prefer.  A little frankness alone is necessary to ascertain that fact. It requires no diplomatic subtlety, no finesse, no double dealing in the matter.  We have no advantages to gain over Texas.  All that we want is to promote the interests of the two countries, which are fortunately not in collision with each other; but it is very desirable for us, to close the matter as quick and as easily as possible; to avoid all further agitation in our own country, and nay renewal of the controversy at the next session of Congress.

            The N. York Express is offended with Mr. Yler’s course; and, moreover, informs its readers “that the Senate have passed a resolution calling upon the President for information as to the condition of our relations with Mexico.  Mr. Allen wished the resolution modified, so as to leave the communication of the information asked for, to the discretion of the President; but the was defeated, his proposition obtaining only six votes.

            “It is further proposed, we are told, to direct the President to take immediate measures for the revocation and nullifying of all proceedings in the premises, assumed by John Tyler, and now in the process of consummation; directing, also, that the President shall submit to the Government of the Republic of Texas the amendment of the Senate, to the Joint Resolutions of he House, as the plan for the Annexation of Texas.”

            We should doubt the accuracy of this last piece of information, because we very much doubt, whether the Senate (through the Treaty making power) could understand to direct the President in carrying out a proposition, which did not emanate from the treaty making power, but was a Joint Legislative Resolution of both Houses of Congress.  We should suspect, therefore, that the Express has probably made some mistake in the matter.

            For our own part, we repeat, that we cheerfully leave this whole question with Mr. Polk.  He has no inducements to swerve his judgment, and we cannot doubt hat he will take the wisest course which circumstances require.  The public creditors of Texas may not like the House Resolutions so well, because they would prefer their debts to be immediately paid; but, as was remarked to us the other day by a citizen of Teas, “let her come in now, and if it be found best hereafter for both parties, (for Texas and the United States,) that Texas make over her lands to the United States, and the United States to pay her debts (by founding them,) nothing would be easier to do it subsequently by a fair and honorable compact between them.” [MLD]


Friday, March 21, 1845 RE45i102p4c3 768 words

OUR RELATIONS WITH MEXICO

The New York Herald says: “we have seen a long letter published in some of the papers, written by Caleb Cushing, probably with a view to its publication, giving his views on the present position of the United States and Mexico, growing out of the annexation question.  According to this gentleman’s opinion it is improbably that any difficulties will spring from the resolutions passed by the last Congress. He thinks that Mexico is in no position to make war against the United States when she was unable to carry on an offensive war with Texas alone.  This is quite probable.  He also states that there is no probability of Mexico issuing letters of marque and reprisal, because such a movement would be condemned by the European Governments as an act of piracy.  He is probably right also in this opinion” Right also for another reason—that, as the French Admiral did, we should feel ourselves authorized and compelled to do, viz: to hold every such vessel to be a pirate, which had not the greater portion of her crew of Mexican seamen—which, of course, she would be unable to supply.  A few English crews, tucked up at the yard arm, would effectually end the letters of marque. 

We need not be alarmed by this bugaboo humbug, which the Whigs are attempting to get up, of a war with Mexico.  Great Britain, too, will not risk any interposition, at the hazard of involving herself in a war with the United States. 

            True, she is anxious enough to defeat the annexation of Texas.  We hear it as a well-authenticated fact, that Mr. Packenham intended o have a great fete at Washington, in case the Resolutions were defeated—and, of course, his Whig guests would have been there, to chuckle ovr the defeat, and congratulate his Britannic Majesty’s Plenipotentiary on the success of tier opposition.  But he firing of the one hundred triumphant guns on Capitol Hill apprized him of his disappointment, and dissipated his magnificent fete into thin air.

            The Washington correspondent of the N.Y. Courier and Enquirer is probably behind the curtain in the secrets of the Green Room.  He writes or the 9th as follows:

“Gen. Almonte, the Mexican Minister, at 3 o’clock yesterday, P.M., addressed a note to the State Department, complaining of the late act of congress, resolving to annex Texas, which he considered an act of hostility to the Mexican Government; and in conclusion demanded his passports.  In the course of the Day, Gen. Almonte sent a formal letter, addressed to all the Foreign Ministers near our Government, remonstrate in the name of Mexico, against he resolutions of Congress for the admission of Texas.—the letter is written with some poignancy, and displays no little shrewdness.  It is the intention of Gne. Almonte to sail from New York for his won country in the course of ten days.

            “Last evening at a concourse of the Foreign Ministers, this subject was discussed.  Though in some respects their opinions varied, in one they all agreed—that the men who now ruled the affairs of the Mexican nation had characters for intelligence and respectability.  They are men of discretion and of experience; and though among the people of Mexico, there would be much exasperation and no little complaint of the conduct of our Government, still they thought that the administration would not recommend any hostile measure towards our nation.  The most it would insist on, would be an indemnification from our Treasury for the loss of Texas.  Satisfied with this, it would abandon any belligerent intention towards our Government.  It may be taken for certain that the Mexican Government will grant no letters of marque—no licenses to afflict our embroiled with her in a naval warfare, with out implicating England, whose navigation would suffer as much as the American from such a state of things.”

A Subsequent letter from Washington, to the N.Y. Courier and Enquirer says:

“It is understood that a reply has been made by our Government to the protest of General Almonte, and that it has been framed upon the precept that ‘a soft answer turneth away wrath.’ The Mexican Minister spoke of the annexation of a province of Mexico as ‘an unparalleled outrage;’ our Government passes by this harsh language, and seeks to smooth over the wrong, which no argument can justify.”

“No argument can justify!”  So says the Whig press—although Texas is as independent as Mexico is—as free to contract alliances—as “free, sovereign and independent,” as we were after the battle of York Town. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 25, 1845  RE45i103p1c4  669 words

ANNEXATION

The last New Orleans mail continues to express some doubts about the course of the Republic of Texas.  “The Tropic,” (a Whig press, which has feebly inclined, and only now and then, in favor of the measure,) comes forward on the 15th to state, that “The jubilations of some of the rampant annexationists may yet be dashed to the ground, and, what is worse, the blow may come form an unexpected quarter.  If the outpourings of some of the Texas papers afford any indication of public sentiment in that Republic, the question of annexation is by no means settled.”—If by “rampant,” be meant ardent and devoted friends Texas, we cannot include “The Tropic” in that category.  We should rather think it is now expressing its hopes, more than its fears.

            But now so, with the New Orleans Bulletin of the same date, which, though Whig in its general principles, has always been true, like the needle to the pole, to the great cause of annexation.  It has been ardent and devoted to the measure—firm in its purposes—just and enlightened in the means which it adopts.  That respectable journal addresses the following manly letter to “The People of Texas.”  It is not only honest in its views, but what it says is enforced by the soundest reasons of State Policy.  It breathes hopes, but is not destitute of fears. We cordially concur in its representations.  We, too, claim to be the ardent friends of Texas—her friends, when immediately on the commencement of General Jackson’s Administration, we pressed the re-acquisition of her country by the American Union—her friends, when she raised the Banner of her Independence—her joyful admirers, when she won the brilliant victory of San jacinto—her friends, when at the instance of Mr. Memucan Hunt, her Charge d’Affaires, and others, we waited upon Gen. Jackson, on the morning of the 3rd of March, 1837, to beg him to grace the last day of his administration by recognizing the independence of Texas; and when the petitions of the other friends of Texas, concurring with his own enlightened views, induced him to nominate La Brance as Charge to Texas, within one hour of he close of his power—the friend of Texas, her unfaltering, her anxious friend, when we urged the adoption of Mr. Tyler’s Treaty, and form that day to this, have never ceased to devote our energies to her service.  And now, when we were on the eve of annexation, as we all supposed, here come new signs of the times upon us, creating doubt and some uneasiness respecting the movements of her government.  The official “Register” has urged grounds against an acceptance of our propositions, which, if they are allowed to prevail, are calculated to defeat annexation forever.  The New Orleans Bulletin has answered these objections by irresistible arguments, in the following article.  We adopt its positions.  We respectfully urge its due consideration on t people of Texas.  Let them be assured, that the Unite States do not mean to take any advantage of her. Let her accede to the terms which have been offered, and we pledge ourselves to co-operate with her press in obtaining, by future compacts, any liberal or honorable terms, which may be compatible with the justice and character of the United States.  Nothing will be easier, than to adjust, by such compact, any question which may arise about there boundaries, her division into to her States, her Indians, her public debts, and her public lands.  We give her citizens welcome to all the rights and privileges, to a full participation of the great power and the high character of American citizens.  Let her be bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh.  The name of Virginia is as proud a one as that of Texas—yet, Virginia has become, and will continue to be, a proud sovereign member of the Confederacy of American States.  To the same relation, we cordially invite the people of Texas: [MLD]


Tuesday, March 25, 1845 RE45i103p1c4 2093 words

From the N.O. Bulletin.

TO THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS

This journal having so long been regarded among you as your steadfast friend and advocate, in every vicissitude of your fortunes, and having suffered what, probably, no other journal in the United States has been subjected to, no little obloquy and reproach, on account of its unremitting efforts I support of your claims to admission into the Federal compact, and of the general policy, expediency and propriety of that measure; we trust it will not be considered officious or immodest, if we venture to address ourselves thus directly to you at a crisis so interesting and important as the present moment. 

            By the same conveyance that this will reach you, you will receive authentic intelligence, that the combination of adverse influences and circumstances which has so long operated to prevent your admission into the Union, has been at last overcome, the Legislative and Executive branches of our Government having united in a measure to give expression to the desire of the country, and provide for your restoration to the Republic.—Now it is anxiously feared by many of your friend, sand exultingly hoped by your enemies, that the terms of this overture on the part of our Government will not only not be acceptable to, but will be rejected by you, and thus the proposed measure of union, instead of being immediately consummated, be placed at greater hazard than before, if not forever defeated.  We do no profess to share in those apprehensions, though the tone of your Government press is well calculated to awaken anxiety, and especially to grieve those who have relied on your attachment to your native country, and to the Federal Constitution, as the basis of their efforts to obtain your admission to the privileges and protection which the Union guaranties.

            It is sure, that the bill which has passed through the forms of our Constitution, and acquired, as far as the assent of this country is concerned, the force at once of a law and a compact, is not without its points of objection.  It may be true, that full justice is not without its point of objection.  It may be true, that full justice is not done by it to Texas; and that it is not, in all respects, the magnanimous and liberal offer which it would become this great country is concerned, the force at once of a law and a compact, is not without its points of objection.  It may be true, that full justice is not done by it to Texas; and that it is not, in all respects, the magnanimous and liberal offer which it would become this great country, underall the circumstances, to make you.—Let us grant all this.  Let us grant, that more is required of, and less guarantied to you, than ought to have been proposed.  Will that warrant you in declining the position which you have sought, and which you have sought, and which has been gained with so much labor and difficulty, through so much contumely, and with so sincere a desire for your welfare, in connection with that of our common and beloved country?  We venture to respond to this query, most emphatically, No.  If a participation in the advantages of this Union is desirable to you at all, it is desirable under the bill which has been adopted in Congress for your admission.  Under that bill, you will attain an exact equality with the other States, and that is all you could reach under any circumstances.  As to denuding your selves of your nationality, and sinking your separate existence, against which such earnest appeals are made to your pride, it is, of course, indispensable to a connection with this Government—and, indeed, is no more than every one of the original States of this Union did each for itself, rightly considering that the advantages to be derived from a common and united government were infinitely above those fanciful considerations that were then held out to them and are now held out to you, and that, in fact, the greatness which would spring out of the union of the States would reflect more real dignity and character on its several members, than they could by any means attain to as petty sovereignties.  The States of Virginia, with a territory attached to her as large as your own, and which now contains a population counted by millions, and divided into several distinct States, did not disdain to part with a portion of her sovereignty for the sake of the security and character to be gained by mean of the confederation.  Neither did Massachusetts, nor New York, nor Pennsylvania, nor Connecticut, nor the Carolinas, nor Georgia, all having sufficient territorial limits, and existing as well formed and solid communities.  Would any one of those States derive additional importance in the estimation of the world, or in any way consult its prosperity or dignity, could it withdraw, even in the advance and improved conditions to which they have all attained, and become a distinct sovereignty?  No, no, there is no State in the Union, as familiarly as a dissolution of the sacred bond is sometimes talked of, which the other twenty-seven could drive from its portals, or which, being out, would not sin to a deplorable insignificance, and sue for re-admission.

            The same circumstances that make it desirable for Louisiana or any other State of the Union to rest beneath its shadow, render it also desirable to you.  We will not say that your country does not possess the elements of a distinct and commanding nationality; we will not say, that in the conflict for political power and for commercial and territorial superiority, which are springing up, you will find it impossible to maintain your independence.  But we will say, that you cannot attain to the one, nor maintain the other, except through a painful and protracted effort; that you put at hazard all your political and social systems by the irruption of a population, which, whatever its merits, has habits, inclinations and interests incompatible with your present relations; that you cannot, as a distinct power, enjoy either the repose or the security necessary to a speedy development of the resources of your country, or of a realization of the hopes which led you to emigrate thither; that you cannot participate to nearly the same extent if the great changes which are now prosecuting and in anticipation, for the amelioration of commercial and social intercourse, and the general advancement of mankind, as if you were co-workers in this confederacy, and shared in its triumphant progress; that, as the population of your country and the opening up of your resources will certainly not be as rapid, so neither will your welfare be well secured, or be settled on as enduring a foundation; in short, that, in no imaginable contingency, can you attain, as Texians, the same prosperity at home, or the same estimation abroad, as you will at once reach, under that name of pride, of honor and renown, that is now offered you, and at the sound of which your bosoms has been wont to exult—that of AMERICAN CITIZENS.  Let us not to be misunderstood.  We mean no reflection on the Texian name. We have too often rebuked the revilers of your country, and called to mind the recollections of bravery and patriotism, and the unequalled act of magnanimity, which distinguish your annals, to be suspected of such a thought.  But it is not undervaluing that name to say, that it cannot become an appellation of the same significance and estimation as belongs to the citizens of this Republic.

            We need not remind you, the greater part of whom were so long familiar with the practical workings of our system of government, of the inherent difficulties that impede the consummation of such a measure as that of extending the confederacy in a particular direction of the prejudices the passions, the apprehensions, the jealousies which, under the most favorable circumstances, must be met and overcome.  If you add to these the peculiarly unfortunate position which the question of your admission was made to assume in the conflict of parties, and the factious and vindictive opposition that was thus necessarily engendered, you may forma n idea of the difficulties in the face of which the friends of the incorporation of your country into the Union have contended and prevailed.  Can you be surprised or chagrined, then, if, in the progress of the question, the friends of the measure found it expedient to yield some points which they had been glad on account of the United States as well as of Texas, to incorporate into the act of admission?  The act which finally prevailed, to make way for your reception, was agreed upon in the same spirit as that in which our Union was framed, cemented and is maintained—the spirit which animates all our important movements, maintains the equipoise of the States, settles all internal disputes, and in which, if you would enter our great family, you must share—the spirit of compromise and conciliation.  In that spirit you are invited to embrace the offer that is held out to you; and if it be not all that could be asked, not to take cautious exceptions to its terms, but to trust in the generosity and sense of justice of the people of the U. States after you are entitled to participate in their councils, and to address them by the endearing title of countrymen.  Your confidence will not be misplaced.  If you come into the Union under the resolutions which have been adopted, you will undoubtedly receive more favor and consideration at the hands of the country than in any treaty or bargain you could drive.

            It has been represented in your public prints, that even after having complied with the terms of the act of Congress, disrobed yourselves of your nationality and dissolved your existing Government, you are still subject to the mortifying alternative of a rejection at the threshold of the union.  This is not so.  The act of union is complete when you signify your assent to its provisions—The formal acceptance by Congress of the Constitution your may adopt as a State, is indeed requisite under the Federal Constitution; but you become to all intents a part of the country—“annexed,” since the term has become popular—the moment you have complied with the proposals moment you have complied with the proposals that have been sent to you.  You are more secure in your position than a territory of the Union: because, in your case, the time is fixed for your admission, and the preliminaries settled; whereas the pleasure of Congress is the only law that is known to our territorial organizations, in regard to their admission as States.

            We have not written this hasty and crude appeal to you, because we have any doubt of your disposition to come into the Union, or that you will cordially embrace the invitation that is held out to you, but because we know that the most powerful arts of persuasion and menace will be employed to induce you to throw away the opportunity, and we would assure you of the interest with which the course of events in your country is watched.  We have advocated your incorporation into the Union, for the reason, that we believe your claim to admission to be founded in justice, and also that he welfare and renown of our common country will be advanced by the measure.  The advantages, as we think, will be mutual, else we had never contended for the project.—Were your country assuming a place of less dignity and consequence, in exchanging its position as an inferior member of the family of nations, to become and important member o this overshadowing commonwealth of States, it would be with a poor grace that the invitation would be sent to you.  Were our country, on the other hand, acquiring but a barren scepter, yielding no substantial benefits, and subject to be wrenched away by discord and discontent, what American so base as to endeavor to persuade his countrymen to so hazardous an enterprise? But the change will impart consequence, security and prosperity to Texas; while it will increase the prowess, give defense to the frontiers, extend the dominions, consolidate the interests, and, if there be any virtue in experiments fully tired, promote the harmony and strengthen the bonds of the Union. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 25, 1845 RE45i103p1c5 1439 words

IMPORTANT MOVEMENTS IN ENGLAND

Duties of our own Government

The Globe shows, by the late news form England, how that power is softening down in their policy towards the United States—in regard to our commerce, as well as on the claim of the right of search.  The Globe says: “The reduction of the duties on cotton, and the discrimination in favor of the sugar raised in the United States over that produced elsewhere by slave labor, imports much; and the speeches in and out of the duties on cotton, and the discrimination in favor of the sugar raised in the United States over that produced elsewhere by slave labor, imports much; and the speeches in and out of Parliament, urging still further reductions in the duties on the agricultural products of this country, which, even under the existing Tariff, flow into England in vast quantities, promise, at an early day, the adoption, as the settled system of England, of that which the Democracy of the United States has urged as the only true financial and commercial principles, viz: trade unfettered by any other than a strictly revenue Tariff.  The doctrine of protection for monopoly is alike abhorrent to the masses of both countries; and the effect of this feeling is evidently reaching both Governments.”

            “Even the London “Times,” commenting on the Prime Minister’s speech, admits, that “the present reductions are only the steps to a more comprehensive plan now under contemplation.”  And it concludes by stating, that “The freest possible exchange of commodities, and the imposition of taxes only for revenue, are made the basis of a scheme which we think it due to the financial acts of the ministry to publish even in its present imperfect shape.” (These are indeed important revelations!)     

            “There is another national point, (says the Globe,) in which the policy of the Democracy has had a triumph over the diplomacy of Europe, aided by the treachery of some who, thank God, no longer hold power in this Government.  We allude to England’s pretension to the right of search, which she attempted to bolster by a Christian league of all Europe.  This league was preached like a crusade against the United States, in the name of a war against the slave trade.—One of the last acts of Mr. Stevenson, while minister in London, representing he administration of Mr. Van Buren, was his bold, powerful, eloquent letter, exposing the design, and refuting the principle on which it was attempted to assert, under a new name, the usurpation of the right of search.  General Cass, our minister in France and Great Britain.  The last arrival brings us the result of the bold and patriotic resistance of which were betrayed at home by the Anglo-American power, installed in our Government by the unfortunate elections of 1840.

            “ ‘Wilmer & Smith’s European Times, of the 4th of March, has this notice of the changed aspect of this question:

            “The right of search—that irritating surveillance of the high seas, which has proved of late years an endless source of annoyance to American shipping—is virtually at an end.  The commission which has been appointed on the part of evil, may throw dust in the eyes of the Exeter Hall saints, but it will assuredly deceive no one else.  For all practical purposes, the power is against the principle, that no ministry can withstand it; and some of the most clear-headed of English statesmen think, that not only does this obnoxious right of search constantly keep us on the confines of a collision with the U. States, but that, so far from mitigating the horrors of the slave trade, it has actually increased it.”

            The change in the tone of the British Cabinet on this subject, is justly supposed to have arisen from the late language of Mr. Guizot, the French Premier, to the British Government.  He speaks of the “powerful ad formidable national sentiment” (in France) against this pretended right of search—and Lord Cowley, the British Minister in Paris, writes thus to Lord Aberdeen, on the 18th January last (1845):

“A great change had taken place in the opinions of the Chambers, as well as of the public generally, upon the question of the right of search.  It would be useless, he said, to enter into any examination of the causes which had led to that change; he would only say, that the prejudice existing throughout France against he exercise of that right was unconquerable, and was daily increasing.”

            Whilst these changes are going on in England in favor of liberty of commerce and the immunities of our navy, it becomes us to do our own part. Our new Secretary of State is placed in a condition to distinguish himself.  Not only is he called on to keep down Mexico and admit Texas into the Union, but to meet the overtures of England for free trade.  If we are invited to adopt towards England “the freest possible exchange of commodities, and the imposition of taxes only for revenue,” then it will well become our Secretary to meet them more than half way.  The present Administration has indeed most important duties before it.  It will be in its power to give freer and more vigorous wings to our commerce, and to open new and more liberal markets for our productions.  Look also to the North of Germany, to the Brazils, and to China for theatres of great and expansive development to our commerce and home industry.  For example:

            “The Washington Constitution regrets the non-confirmation of the Zollverein treaty, and the more, because ‘it is understood here,’ it adds, ‘that Mr. Pakenham has been invested with power for negotiating, upon reciprocal and equal terms, a treaty, by which there may be an exchange of the surplus products of both countries to the mutual advantage of each.’  The Baltimore American says: ‘If such a disposition to treat has been manifested by the British Government, the probability is that the Ministry begin to perceive the necessity of a reduction or the removal of the duty on American cotton; and for this measure of necessity, forced upon them by the demands of their own manufacturers, they would be happy to obtain concessions on our part, as though they were about to proffer us voluntarily a favor.’” (This remark was made by the “Baltimore American,” in anticipation of the news by the Cambria.)

            But the suspension of the Zollverein gives our Secretary of State an opportunity of collecting the best information from the most intelligent agents we have in Germany, as to the best means to regulating that trade.  Our commerce with the North of Germany, is susceptible of a vast augmentation, under proper regulations, and with a proper spirit on the part of our merchants.—An intelligent Correspondent wrote us the other day, that if we had a representative in Berlin from the South, who understood our tobacco interests, we might make arrangements for introducing 25,000 hhds. Of tobacco more per annum, than we now carry.  The trade in that article alone (one of the staples of old Virginia,) has been on the increase for several years.  For instance, we only shipped to Bremen in1833, 75 hhds. Of stems; this increased in 1840, to 1,158 hhds. Of tobacco, and 876 stems; in 1842, to 4,573 tobacco, and 2,294 stems; in1843, it fell off to 3,013 hhds. Tobacco and 1,534 stems.  Judicious arrangements on our part, to collect the best information, in order to assist the next Congress in making the best regulations and laying revenue duties, would enlarge our commerce considerably in that important commercial region.

            The Brazils, too, with her coffee, sugar and other productions, given in exchange for our flour and domestics, open another important field for the secretary of State to act in.  And who shall set bounds to our commercial relations with China—with her teas and silks in exchange for our manufactured fabrics, and all sorts of notions?

            Mr. Polk says, his is “a working Cabinet”—and we congratulate our friend, Mr. Buchanan, on the vast field which lies before him, for enlarging his won fame, and for extending the commerce, manufactures and agriculture of his country.  Scarcely was there ever a more brilliant opportunity presented to any secretary to effect those objects.

            The great movement of the age seems to be in favor of free trade.  It becomes our duty, placed as we are in a young and free country, to set and example of this principle; and especially to encourage it, whenever other nations relax their restrictions and strike for greater freedom of trade. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 25, 1845 RE45i103p1c7 1565 words

EUROPEAN CORRESPONDENCE—No. 42.

To the Editors of the Enquirer.

FRANKFORT-ON-THE-MAINE,

February 28, 1845

Dear Sirs: In the letters which I wrote to you from Manchester and elsewhere in England, now more than two years since, I stated, that the entire duty on cotton wool in the United Kingdom would certainly be removed at an early period.—This prediction is now about to be realized.  In Sir Robert Peel’s “Financial Statement,” made on the 15th instant, he remarked:

“I now come to that article, which, of all others, is the most important to the manufacturing and commercial interests for this country.  I come now to cotton wool—(hear, hear)—and the duty upon it.  The present duty on cotton wool is, so far as the revenue is concerned, 5-16ths of a penny the pound weight; but as that duty is applicable to the whole amount of cotton wool imported, and as about one-fifth of the total amount of such cotton wool is unavailable, for the purposes of manufacture, and is necessarily waste, the duty, of course, presses with increased severity upon that portion of the whole amount, which is capable of being used for manufactures.  It is estimated, and I believe the estimate to be a reasonable one, that we ought to add one-sixteenth more to the five-sixteenths, in order to calculate the full amount of duty paid upon the whole of the cotton wool that is actually manufactured in this country.  Six-sixteenths, or three-eighths of a penny per lb. weight would, therefore, be the total amount of duty paid on cotton wool.  Now, when the price of cotton wool is four pence per pound, on the average, three-eighths of a penny per pound, is a duty of nine per cent on the value of the raw material.  If the price of cotton wool be as a duty amounting to not less than 12 ½ per cent. On the value of the raw material.  This duty so levied falls with peculiar severity on the coarsest description of cotton—(hear, hear)—upon the fine muslins you can hardly estimate the amount of duty, it is so small; the coarser the fabric and the more it is in common wear, the higher is the amount of duty.  It is in respect to the manufacturers of this country are exposed to the most formidable competition in South America and China, and even in our own colonies—(hear, hear.)  Of course, in respect of the manufactured cotton of the United States, we labor already under great disadvantage from the ready access which the people of that country possess in the raw material, and they are formidable competitors of ours in all the coarser descriptions of cotton goods.  *  *  I know it will be said that this trade is now in a flourishing condition, but we must not disregard the formidable competition to which it is exposed, (hear, hear); we must consider how materially this cotton manufacture has contributed to the strength of the country, (loud cheers)—how materially it aided in enabling us to go through successfully that great conflict in which we were some thirty years ago engaged, (cheers)—what thousands and tens of thousands of persons there are who are indebted to it for their occupation and subsistence.  Seeing and considering these things—seeing the amount of duty imposed upon the coarser fabrics—seeing the extent of competition to which they are exposed—seeing the importance of this manufacture to the commercial greatness of this country, we are prepared to advise the abolition of duty on Cotton Wool—(loud and long-continued cheering.)  The estimated loss to the revenue by the abolition of the duty on cotton wool—taking as a guide the amount received last year—will not be less than L680,000.” A member asked how soon it was intended that this change should take effect.  Sir Robert Peel replied, immediately.

            Thus our great staple is a once, and voluntarily, to be relieved of the burden which it has been bearing in England; amounting recently to a no less sum than $3,400,000 per annum.  This will, I am persuaded, be joyful tidings not only to the cotton planter, but to the entire agricultural interest in the united States.  The stock of cotton in Great Britain, which is but little below 900,000 bales, is to receive no benefit whatever from this abolition of duty; and, therefore, prices must slightly improve in our markets.  The producers of the article, in the present condition of the world, cannot reasonably expect what were heretofore regarded as high rates for their crops; but they may expect living and uniform ones.  Let them continue to cultivate their fields faithfully, and they will assuredly, in a few years, drive their feeble competitors—Brazil, India, Egypt, &c.—entirely form the European markets.  This advice I have repeatedly given them through the columns of the Enquirer, an time has tested its soundness.

            The financial movement of sir Robert Peel will fall with peculiar severity upon the manufacturing interest of the “German Commercial League.”  The manufacturers in the states composing it, could not sustain themselves against the competition of England, while they had no duty to pay; and what is to become of them, under the removal of the weight of duty with which the English manufacturer had to contend, amounting, as is show, form 9 to 12 ½ per cent., cannot be readily foreseen!  Even while they were favored by such advantages, they never were able to make their own twist, or to enter into the first stage, successfully, of manufacturing from the raw material.  In speaking of the absurdity of the provisions of the Wheaton Treaty, in my letter of 31st of March last, I said, “The chief object of the Germanic Association, at least, as far as expressed, is to foster the manufacturing establishment embraced within its boundaries.  It would, then, be a suicidal policy for it to tax the raw material, which is to build them up, and give them permanent duration.  It is, therefore, an absurd belief, to suppose that the Zollverexn, either now or ‘in future,’ will lay an impost on raw cotton.  The United States, on that score, have not the slightest favor to ask,” &c., &c.  Yet, strange as it may now appear, it was heralded over the country, in all directions, that the American Diplomat had achieved a mighty triumph in getting the Zollverein to concede that “no duty should be laid upon cotton.”  As I am speaking of the German Customs Union, I will take occasion to remark, that the United States have but one concession to ask of it in its Tariff of duties, and that is, to admit tobacco on the same terms as Hanover does—say at 69 cents on the 100lbs.—In return for this, under a general revenue act—to a differential treaty—I should be happy to see the duty on its various manufactures modified to 15 per cent. Ad valorem.

            What will New England think?  What will the world think now of British philanthropy?—Will it not henceforth be regarded in its true and proper meaning, which signifies, British interest?  No one, however charitable in his feelings, can bestow upon it any other definition.  Slave frown cotton, and slave grown sugar, have diametrically opposite meanings in John Bull’s vocabulary, because, forsooth, “thousands and tens of thousands of persons” are indebted to the former for occupation and subsistence,” and the “country for its commercial greatness,” while the latter interferes with his West India plantations, &c, &c.  The Abolitionists and manufacturers of the North must be incurably blind, if their eyes are not now opened.  All Europe is shocked at the brazen effrontery of Great Britain, in urging the abolition of slavery as a measure of philanthropy, after this new development of her selfish policy.

            The annexation vote has created no sensation on this side of the water.  The British Press is unusually silent, both in relation to Texas and Oregon.  The “London Chronicle,” which was so fierce for a war on these questions a year ago, in a recent editorial dolorously remarks, among other things:

“Colonel Benton, on whose rivalry with Calhoun and whose opposition to slavery people counted, in order to divide the Democrats, and defer, if not defeat, annexation, has, on the contrary, declared for it, on the proviso, that Texas is to be divided into slave States and non-slave States.  Such has been the compromise proposed by Missouri.  And such is the nature of the resolution, which passed by 120 to 98.”  Speaking of Oregon, the same journal says:  “The veteran Quincy Adams declared, with his wonted impetuosity, that the American claim was too manifest to be longer postponed, and consequently he would recommend his country to flay on, Macduff.’”

            Let the people of the United States be true to themselves—Whig and Democrat uniting on question s concerning the durability and safety of Union—and they have nothing to apprehend form abroad.  I am encouraged to believe, by my accounts per the Cambria, that measures were adopted by Congress, which would give us jurisdiction, or will at an early period, over Oregon and Texas.  If this has been done, rely upon it, the nation will enjoy repose, hereafter, and be on better terms with G. Britain than it has since it had existence.
Yours truly,
AGRICOLA.

[MLD]

Tuesday, March 25, 1845  RE45i103p1c6 159 words

America Rivalling France!

Gaynor, Wood & Co., Druggists, have supplied our Toilette with soap and shaving cream, as white as snow, and delightfully flavored with bitter almonds.  Our Barber, who is a thorough adept in the mysteries of his important profession, pronounces a high eulogy upon these beautiful compounds.  They are manufactured in Philadelphia by Roussel, whose name indicates his French origin, and proves that, with all the evils that, in Whig assertion, flow from our liberal naturalization laws, the country receives much benefit form the accession of European talents and industry.  We are glad to see, that in New York the Whigs are coming to their senses on this subject.  What will now be the course of a certain Whig organ in this neighborhood, whose rabid attacks upon the poor foreigners almost equaled its bitter denunciations of the annexation of Texas?  With Mr. Roussel’s fine soap, we shall keep our hands clear of all contact with such a monster as Nativism. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 25, 1845 RE45i103p2c3 247 words

Which is the true version?

A few days since, the Richmond Whig said that Texas had had “the effect of defeating Mr. Clay, and overwhelming the Whig party.”  In its leading article of yesterday, it “devoutly wishes Texas was the other side of Cape Horn!”  But, strange to say, in another article of yesterday’s Whig, the Editor professes to rejoice at the assumed gain of the Whigs of New York in their town elections, and adopts the language of the N.Y. Tribune, a most rabid anti-Southern journal.  The Whig says: “The Texas iniquity (listen, people of Virginia!) has done it, and it is going to produce yet more extraordinary results!—They who compassed that national disgrace, if they live long enough, will live to repent it in sackcloth and ashes.”  The Whig is right—but the “extraordinary results,” so far from ensuring to the benefit of the anti-Texas party in Virginia, will act with redoubled force against them; and will, again, in the language of the Whig, “overwhelm the Whig party,” that oppose a measure so heartily desired by a “large majority of the people of Virginia.”  The Whig may rest assured, that, so long as Texas continues in the Gulf of Mexico, and be not removed, by some magic influence, to “the other side of Cape Horn,” it will e the fixed fulcrum whence to move the great American nation.  This prominent question will work out its own end, and will crush the puny whiglings who may resist its powerful momentum. [MLD]


Tuesday, March 25, 1845 RE45i103p2c3 9,232 words

ADDRESS OF THE DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, To the People of Virginia!

Another political campaign has commenced.  The important considerations involved in the contest, make it the duty of the Democratic Central Committee appointed by the Legislative Convention, to address such remarks to its political friends in the states as may serve to explain the principles and conduct of the two great parties which divide the country.  The course pursued by the Whigs of Virginia and the majority of the last Virginia Legislature, should also be placed in its true light before the people.  When that is doesn’t, we hope that he Democratic party will require nothing more to stimulate its zeal, and lead to the adoption of such an organization as will make its action united, harmonious and efficient.

            The victory of 1844 leaves much to be done before we are freed from the control and influence of misguided men.  We still have foes to encounter, dangers to meet, and obstacles to avoid. Not only in our own State, but throughout the Union, we see a party formidable in numbers, and strengthened by the vast influence of incorporated wealth, directing all its energies against those rules of constitutional construction and principles of public policy, on which the freedom, happiness and prosperity of the country depend.  However much the different portions of that party may vary, in the arguments by which they endeavor to justify their measures in the different portions of the country, it should be remembered that they strive for the attainment of a common object, and, that their successes to give a character to our Government in its practical operations, which the framers of the constitution could not have anticipated.

            To avoid this consummation, the Democratic party has directed its whole energies. From an early period in our history to the present time, it has contended, that, from the nature of the compact which unites the American States, the General Government, created as an agent, and entrusted with prescribed powers, must confine itself strictly within the commission conferred by those who called it into existence.  In every attempt to carry out this principle in the practical operations of the Government, it has met with formidable opposition.  A considerable portion of the people acting at different times, under different party names, have contended for such a construction of the Constitution, as would empower the Federal Government to sit in judgment on the Constitution itself, to destroy its guarantees by implication, and perpetuate injustice by giving abiding force and to precedent established by itself.  This construction, predicated on the supposition that the people of the States of this confederacy were consolidated, by the adoption of our federative system, into one body politic, with a government acting as the representative of its sovereignty, is fraught with the most dangerous consequences. The doctrine, if fully established and carried out in practice, would convert our State into a mere district or department of the United States with its reserved rights under the control of the very Government to which it refused to surrender them, and all its domestic interests at the mercy of men responsible to a distant constituency for their public conduct.

            The principles were once so alarming to the great body of our people, that the very name of the party which professed them became an epithet of reproach.  But since the defeat of the younger Adams, which was thought a final overthrow, the principles of his party, aided by fortuitous circumstances, have been made more acceptable to the nation.  All the elements of opposition to the administrations of Gen. Jackson and Mr. Van Buren were forced to act in concert with those who had supported Mr. Adams.  Although the party thus formed was composed of such discordant elements that it could agree on no homogeneous system of policy, it found a powerful ally in the extreme distress and consequent desire for change produced by the derangement of our monetary affairs; and succeeded in electing Gen. Harrison to the Chief Magistracy of the Union; who had declared a National Bank to be unconstitutional, and stood pledged to regard the compromise of the Tariff as sacred and inviolable.  The Whig party, which united its forces and gained the control of the government by professing the leading principles of the Republican faith, as soon as practicable, carried through Congress a Bank bill more objectionable than any which had preceded it—distributed the proceeds of the sales of the public lands from an exhausted treasury—violated the compromise of the tariff, and framed a scale of duties at war with those which both parties had solemnly pledged themselves before the country to support, as the permanent policy of the Government.

            A common name and the labors of an arduous contest, had the usual effect of uniting those who had co-operated with each other.  Party discipline and the well-known necessity of supporting a particular candidate for the Presidency, completed this consolidation, as far as it was practicable.—But, happily there were many over whom party names had no force and party discipline no control, who saw the tendency of the measures forced upon the Whig party by those who represented the incorporated wealth of the country, and resolutely opposed the party which had duped and deceived them.  The Whig forces, consolidated by the process which we have endeavored to explain, were compelled to adopt the principles of a majority, sanctioned as they were by the concurrence of the man who stood most prominent as their leader.

            The effective majority of the party being at the North, determined the course of the Whigs, not only on the Bank, Tariff, and Distribution questions; but, at a later period, succeeded in arraying it against the most important question which has agitated the country since the formation of the Government.  The non-Slaveholding States, did not leave the reasons of their opposition to the annexation of Texas in doubt or obscurity.  Hostility to the slave institutions of the south, and a determination not to allow their further extension, were boldly and unequivocally proclaimed to the world as the basis of their action; and the Abolitionists were distinctly invited, in the name of the whole Whig party to lend their aid in a common cause.  It was not pretended, to our knowledge, that the rights of the North would be endangered, its interests compromised, or its prosperity impeded.  The Whigs of the non-Slave-holding States thought themselves privileged to sit in judgment on the character of the South, and of making it the duty of the Federal Government to take, under its supervision, the domestic institutions of the high contracting parties who created it, as a mere agent, for other and far different purposes.

            This issue was distinctly made, and it was to be hoped, that no Southerner would be induced by party consideration, however strong, to be wanting in his duty, when our rights were thus endangered, and our honor likely to be compromised.  This hope was not fulfilled.  The Whigs of the South, true in party discipline, co-operated with the Whigs of the North upon this vital measure.  They endeavored to justify their conduct by such shallow arguments, that we were compelled to believe nothing, except party discipline, could have placed them in a position which they could but so impotently defend.  Although Texas had maintained her independence for a number of years, and had been received into the family of nations by the leading powers of Christendom—although she was confessedly independent by the forcible destruction, by Mexico, of the only instrument which united her with that Republic—although she had been victorious in resisting a conquest, and not in effecting a revolution, it was contended that the U. States could not treat with her for territory, without committing an act of spoliation on a friendly power—a power which had attempted forcibly to subdue the country that we wished peaceably to annex to our confederacy.  An ordinary treaty of peace and amity, was, contrary to the law of nations, made an insurmountable barrier to such a proceeding, while ideas of national honor, before unknown, were heard on every side form lips which uttered no word of reproach to Great Britain, though it was generally conceded that her Majesty’s Government was ready to perpetrate the alleged wrong on Mexico, by guaranteeing the independence of Texas against he world.

            When opposition to a great measure is so badly defended, we must believe that some cause, not apparent on the surface, is at work.  And when we see so many members of that opposition railing against the measure because of the influence it was calculated to have over the result of a political contest, all doubt vanishes.  We are then convinced that party policy and party discipline have usurped that position which belongs to reason and judgment.  The motives which regulated the course of the Northern Whigs, on the question of annexation, are notorious.  The necessity of uniting the party on a great question, if it would triumph, is equally plain; and the line of policy adopted by the Whigs, in consequence, as we believe, of that necessity, should be remembered by the people long after all agitation on this subject has finally ceased.

            Before dismissing the question of annexation, we must call the attention of the people of Virginia to the action of the Whig members of the last Legislature.  It becomes our duty to do this, since the resolution of the Legislative Convention, imputing to them a covert design to defeat the joint resolution brought forward by the Hon. Milton Brown, has been made the pretext of explaining their course on that and other occasions.  The task of proving that the Whig members of the Legislature desired to defeat a Democratic measure, is indeed novel, and may serve to throw light on the character of the Whig party of our State.

            It is well known, that the members of the last Legislature were elected without reference to this question.  The elections took place before the Democratic party had selected its candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the U. States, and resulted in returning a decided Whig majority to the House of Delegates; the Democratic party maintaining its ascendancy in the Senate.  The Legislature, thus elected, convened after the defeat of the Whig party in November, and then when the Texas question, in despite of the most strenuous exertions, was carrying every thing before it.  During the whole canvass it was viewed as a purely party question, and had triumphed in Virginia by the election of Mr. Polk.  We will not stop to discuss what course the Whig majority in the Legislature should have pursued.  It is plain that they should have either considered the popular vote given in the Sate as instructions, and endeavored to obey them, r opposing the annexation of Texas, should have used their best efforts to defeat the measure.  They contend that they did not take the latter course.  It only remains to be seen whether they endeavored in good faith to effect it, or endeavored to place obstacles in the way of proceedings which they did not wish to take the responsibility of defeating.

            The first move in this question was made by the Senate.  That body passed a resolution declaring, “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.”  Not a Whig member voted for it.  This resolution simply says, that the sense of the Senate was in favor of immediate annexation by the constituted authorities of the United States and Texas.  No constitutional question as to the mode of proceeding is either raised or decided.  And, consequently, the Whig party of the senate were committed, by their party votes on that occasion, against the measure, independent of constitutional scruples.  Of this fact the Whig Address makes no mention.  The Whigs in the lower House laid this resolution on the table, and none of them made any effort to call them up.  Two-thirds of the session of Congress had expired, and thee was an ascertained desire on the part of the Whig members in our Federal Legislature to defeat the measure if possible.  Three days afterwards, a member of the Democratic party moved to take up the Senate’s resolution, when every Whig but there voted against it.  Of this fact the whig Address makes no mention.  The three days after this unsuccessful attempt, another motion was made by a Democrat to take up the resolution, when every Whig but two voted against it; one of whom had received positive instructions—of this fact the Whig address makes no mention.  Notice was then given that similar motions would be made daily until the end of the session, unless the Senate’s resolution was acted upon.  Then a Whig member brought forward a substitute to the resolution in these words:

            “Resolved, That the annexation of Texas to the United States ought to be effected at the earliest period that may be practicable, consistently with the welfare of Virginia—the obligations of peace of the Union, and the faith and honor 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.”  The Senate’s resolution simply sanctioned the annexation of Texas.  The substitute, it will be perceived, does not—except upon certain contingencies, of which our Senators in Congress were to be the judges.  Men are not swayed by doubts when their minds are determined—and hence the conditions indirectly destroyed the effect of the resolution; for they intimate, without asserting, that he General Assembly did not feel assured that annexation could be effected consistently with the welfare of the State or the obligations of the Constitution—consistently with the peace of the Union or the faith and honor of the country.  In fact, solemnly enacting, that it was doubted by the General Assembly, whether it was expedient or constitutional, safe or honorable, to annex Texas to the United States.  Would same men adopt such a course, in order to accomplish a desirable object?  Was not this plan of mooting many questions and deciding none, equivalent to declining all action, and calculated to defeat annexation, without meeting the question presented in the Senate’s resolution, fairly and candidly?

            On the motion of a Democratic member, the resolution above recited was amended by an addition, stating that the conditions mentioned would be performed by the joint resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on the 25th of January.  Pending the debate on the substitute and amendment, they were referred to a select joint committee.  That committee could effect nothing, and was discharged.  Both the resolution and amendment were withdrawn, and the senate’s resolution was carried; thirty-four Whig members voting in favor of it, and thirty-one against it.  That resolution, it will be borne in mind, mooted no constitutional question, but simply declared the sense of the Senate to be in favor of annexation.  If the Whig members were originally in favor of that resolution, why did all those in the Senate vote against that body?  If he members of the House of Delegates were in favor of it, why did they encumber it with implied doubts as to whether the interests of Virginia would be injured, the peace of the Union, the good faith and honor of the country be compromised?  These questions cannot be answered on the hypothesis that the Whig members acted openly and in good faith, either to carry out or destroy the measure.  And yet, in the face of these facts, we find that the authors of this Whig Address claim credit to their party for the motives which actuated them in referring the resolution to the House, and its amendment to a select committee, because it might lead to “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 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.”  We will examine further into the history of this matter to see if the members of the Whig party desired to give moral weight to, and influence public sentiment in favor of, a measure which had been so unanimously opposed in the Senate, and clogged with such remarkable conditions is in the lower House, by men who insisted on pretermitting the constitutional question by expressly raising it, for the purpose, it seems, of making known their doubts to the Senators. 

            After the adoption of the fist resolution on this subject by the Senate, and before the action on it by the House of Delegates, information of the passage of the Hon. Milton Brown’s joint resolution had been received; and it is but fair to presume, that the Whig members of the Virginia Legislature were informed of the position occupied by our Senators in Congress.  Here, then, was some definite proposition to be acted on.  No one could fear to commit himself to any particular mode of annexation, lest it should be the mode adopted by Congress; whilst the constitutional scruples of our Senators (Mr. Rives and MR. Archer) must have been known to their political friends in Richmond.  Immediately we find the Senate’s resolution, which the Whigs had twice voted against taking up, by a strict party vote, showing concert and arrangement, brought to the consideration of the House.  After the proceeding the Senate’s resolution was adopted.  Before this period, no expression of opinion could be obtained for or against the constitutionality of annexation, in any manner.  The information arrives, that Mr. Brown’s resolution is the manner determined on in Washington, and immediately the opposition assumes a definite shape.  The expediency of the measure could now be admitted, though denied previously by the Whig Senators.  Hence forward, the joint resolution is the thing to be opposed.

            As the next move, Mr. Gordon offered the following resolution: “That the admission of Texas on the conditions and guaranties 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 the General Assembly, is just and proper, and will be approved by the people.”  This resolution which, like that of the Senate which had been adopted, made no mention of the constitutional question, would not suite the Whigs, although they had insisted on pretermitting that question and made that desire the basis of their opposition to the Democratic party.  Accordingly, a leading Whig ember brought forward a substitute covering the whole ground of Mr. Gordon’s resolution, with this addition: “This General Assembly, however, forbearing to express any opinion as tho the constitutionality of annexation by the mode of a joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress.”—This substitute, suggesting again the constitutional doubt, for the express purpose, it seems, of not deciding it, was adopted by a strictly party, vote; tow Whig members only voting against it the one instructed, and the other virtually instructed.  Does this look like a desire to influence public sentiment in favor of the measure, or a wish to make known to our Senators the fact than the General Assembly had doubts as to the constitutionality of the joint resolution, and wished to throw those doubts against the resolution?  We will presently show that those doubts did not exist in the minds of those who wished to parade them before the world.

            The substitute above recited was passed by a party vote, and a resolution was offered instructing our Senators to vote for the joint resolution which passed the House of Representatives on the 25th of January.  This resolution was rejected by the Whig majority. The substitute which had passed the House with the constitutional doubt attached to it, was amended in the Senate: 1st, by declaring the joint resolution “lawful and constitutional;” and 2dly, by striking out the last clause which brought forward the constitutional question. The House refused to concur in those amendments.  A committee of conference was then appointed by the two bodies.  The committee of the Senate proposed to withdraw the first amendment, if the House committee would agree to the second.  This course it will be seen would have led to the adoption of that resolution which would have made no mention of the constitutional question.  But even this would not satisfy those who did not  wish to commit themselves.  They would only consent to it themselves.  They would only consent to sanction this arrangement on condition that the fact that the General Assembly forbore to express any opinion, on the constitutionality of the joint resolution, should be state din the report of the committees to their respective Houses—thus against in forming the country in terms that our Legislature was not prepared to sanction the annexation of Texas.  This Senate’s committee very properly rejected this proposition, which ended all action on the subject.  It has generally been thought that legislative action was based upon the convictions of legislators.  It was reserved for the Whig Legislature to encloud their functions by enacting what they did not believe.

            It will be seen, from the sketch we have given of the legislative proceedings on this matter, that up to the time of the passage of the joint resolution by Congress, the Whig party in the Legislature had not given any opinion, even ads to the expediency of annexation.  Every effort to bring up the question had failed.  In the Senate, they were committed against it, even on that ground.  But when the joint resolution was passed, the could safely yield the ground of expediency, and by reserving the constitutional question, allow the Virginia Senators in Congress to oppose the very measure, which, in their new born zeal, they pretended to admire so much.—But why reserve this constitutional question?—One would be led to suppose from the Whig Address, that the majority of the Legislature entertained some doubt on this head; yet the gentlemen to whom eth action o the Whigs on this subject was entrusted, has informed the public, through the public prints, that many members of his party in the Legislature agreed with the Democrats.  Indeed, from his communication, he seems to doubt but they constituted a majority of his party.  Be it remembered, that four Whigs, in addition to the two who voted with the Democratic party on the resolution instructed our Senators to vote for the joint resolution, would have been sufficient.  What, then, but party drill, acting upon party subserviency, could have thus defeated the known wishes of a large majority of the members of the Legislature?—And why was this party drill used, if the Whigs really desired the annexation of Texas to the Union, and acted in good faith in voting unanimously in favor of the “conditions and guaranties” of the joint resolution?  It taxes ingenuity beyond its power, to imagine any but “a covert design to defeat eh measure”—a design which was no where avowed, and which led to the rejection f the only effective action by a party vote, when many of that party were known to have no constitutional scruples whatever.  The Whigs seem to have been driven, by political necessity, to oppose before the people a measure they wished to advocate, and were compelled, by public opinion, to end, by seeming to advocate a measure they wished to defeat.

            The Whig Address, to which we have frequently alluded, after defending its party action on the resolutions touching the annexation of Texas, contains an attack on the Democratic members of the State Senate for not voting for a joint order for the election of an U. S. Senator on the 13th February. The Federal Constitution contains the following words: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.”—Thus much of the Constitution the Whig address quotes in order to show that it was the imperative duty of he last Legislature to fill the vacancy that would be occasioned on the 4th of March by the expiration of the term of service of the Hon. Wm. C. Rives.  “For,” says that Address, “if this Legislature should refuse to make such election, then it is very clear that from and after the 4th of March next, the Senate will not be composed of two Senators from each State, for their will be but one Senator from Virginia; and that the successor to Mr. Rives will not be chosen as the Constitution requires he should be, for six years; bur for such portion of the six years (counting from the 4th of March next) as may remain unexpired at the time when the election shall actually be made.”  These are the words which convey the whole argument of the Whig Address on this subject.  The clause of the Constitution immediately following the one above recited, and which has a direct and important bearing upon the question, is omitted through accident or design.  It is in these words “and if vacancies happen, by resignation or OTHERWISE, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.”

            This clause of the Constitution provides a mode by which its requirements can be fulfilled by the Executive, when the vacancy occurs, as the present vacancy did occur, during the recess of the Legislature.  It was known that the General Assembly would adjourn before a vacancy occurred in our senatorial representation, and that an Executive appointment would fulfill there requirements of the Constitution, no matter how imperative they might be as to the number of Senators or their terms of service.  Had the vacancy occurred during the session of that body, we contend, the Executive could not have made an appointment, the terms of the Constitution could not have been complied with, and our representation would have been, deficient according to the Constitution.  Those who produced such a state of things might have been held responsible to the people for a dereliction of duty.  But this is not the case in point.  A vacancy was merely anticipated during the recess of the Legislature which the Executive was empowered to fill: the words by “resignation or otherwise” comprehending every possible mode by which a vacancy could occur.  It was known to every member of the Legislature worthy of his seat in that body, that a case would happen which the framers of the Constitution ahd foreseen and expressly provided for.  And we contend, that the mere fact that this event, thus foreseen and thus provided for, was allowed to happen, cannot be considered as contrary to the spirit and meaning of the Constitution, which had taken cognizance of it, and expressly sanctioned the proceedings it might make necessary.  The Whigs consider the first clause of the Constitution, touching this subject, to be imperative, making it the duty of each State to have TWO representatives in the Senate elected for six years.  IF this be so, then the second clause which recognizes the validity of Executive appointments to fill vacancies which may “happen by resignation or otherwise during the recess of the Legislature of any State,” leads to the irresistible conclusion, that the command is obeyed, and the requirements of the Constitution complied with, both as to the number of Senators and their terms of service, if no contingency is made to happen, not provided for by the Constitution. Unless the second clause of the Constitution, cited above, is thus construed, and allowed to explain the first, then Mr. Rives had no right to a seat in the Senate, for he was not elected for six years; and, according to Whig doctrine, the Constitution was violated when he took his oath of office.

            We frankly admit, that it is advisable to fill vacancies in the Senate of the United States by a joint vote of eth Legislature, instead of an Executive appointment, even in those cases in which the Executive is empowered to act, and that nothing but grave considerations of public policy should lead to a different course.  But we earnestly contend, that grave and adequate considerations of public policy sanctioned the course of the Senate.  The Presidential election of November last had shown that the State of Virginia approved the principles of the Democratic party.  A majority of the counties in the State had voted for the Democratic nominees; and it was a measure of the last importance that so decided a majority should not be misrepresented for six years in our national councils, when great measures were at stake.  It was anticipated that all the leading questions which have agitated the country would be permanently affected the legislation adopted during those six years.  An administration sanctioned by the people of Virginia, and of the Union, because it entertained certain principles, was about to take the reins of power.  The Senate was nearly equally divided; and the election of a Whig Senator from this State might give the opposition the entire control of one branch of Congress, and thereby negative the expression of popular will in November, and endanger all those measures that popular will had so distinctly demanded.

            Under this view of the position of the last Virginia Legislature, and under the true constriction of the Federal Constitution, we contend, that the action of the Democratic party was right and proper, and called for by the best interests of the country.  Had the conduct of the Whig party been equally defensible, the Senatorial election would have caused but little difficulty.  We believe, notwithstanding the views which the Whig Address promulgates, that party was willing to make the election of a Senator depend on party considerations, by showing a disposition to defeat an election, unless it was certain of success. It had selected the 22d of January as a fit and proper time to hold an election; and when he day arrived, the joint order agreed o both by the House and by the Senate, was evaded by an adjournment—thus leaving the performance of what they considered a high constitutional obligation to depend on future contingencies.  True, this happened at an early period in the session; but it happened at an early period in the session; but it should be remembered, that the Whig party had determined that this was fit and proper time for the election.  Yet, these men arraign the Democratic party for not contracting to do, the very thing which the Whig party would not do, when pledged by the concurrent vote of every one of its members on both branches of the Legislature.  The matter of time being left out of consideration, they justify themselves for not performing what they conceived to be an imperative command of the Constitution, and arraign the Democratic party for taking a course sanctioned by that instrument.  They justify themselves for thwarting the wishes of an ascertained majority of the people, by the strange plea that they wished the state to be fully represented, and arraign the Democratic party for taking a course which was calculated to place the whole matter before the people themselves at our Spring elections.

            We will now examine the whole history of this matter.  It should be remembered that at the commencement of the session neither party could command a majority on joint ballot in a senatorial election.  At this period there were three contested elections—one from each of the counties of Bath, Caroline and Fairfax.  In the contest from one of those counties a Democrat, and in the tow last Whigs, had been returned.  In the first case, the Whig Committee of Privileges and Elections reported in favor of the Whig contestant.  This gave the Whigs a majority of tow on joint ballot.  Having performed thus much, the committee rested from their labors for a reason.

            In the contest from the country of Caroline, no report was made by the Committee, until after the attempt to make the senatorial election, and a few days before the termination of the session.  The report then made, giving the seat to the Whig member, was never acted upon by the House, and the contest was never terminated.  In the case from Fairfax, although the eligibility of the sitting member had been contested though te petitioning member had been contested: thought e petitioner had sworn to his belief of the charge submitted, and adduced testimony to prove it, the committee asked to be discharged form its consideration.  Subsequently, another petition was presented, new testimony adduced, and the whole matter again placed before the committee.  Notwithstanding this, without giving notice to the Democratic party of any intention to fix a day for the election of a Senator, on the 16th day of January a resolution was offered to proceed with the election in six days thereafter.  This was more than six weeks before the expiration of the term of the present incumbent and when it was known that the contested elections, which might alter the character of the majority on joint ballot, could not possibly be decided, before the day fixed on for the Senatorial election.  In addition to this, the Whig majority was distinctly informed that one of the Democratic members was absent, and that he could not be notified of the proposed proceeding in time to return to his post.  The Whig party, knowing what day they would select, could have informed their absentees thereof, before any move in the House was made to notify their opponents of their intentions.  The fact that members were absent, was held not to be a sufficient reason for delay in an important matter.  Yet we will presently see that his is the only excuse made by the Whig address for the course of its party in breaking the joint order for holding the election.

            Two days after this resolution was sent to the Senate, a motion was made by a Whig member of the lower House, to discharge the Committee of Privileges and Elections form the consideration of the case from Fairfax; and a motion was made to instruct the Committee to report either for or against the member.  Even this reasonable request was rejected: every Whig but two voting against it.  This savors of injustice, and accords badly with the vaunted desire of the Whig Address to see the State fully and fairly represented.  On the same day on which this unfair course was adopted, a motion was made by a Democrat, to enquire into the eligibility of the Whig member form the District of Wood and Ritchie counties, on the ground that he was the Commonwealth’s Attorney in the Circuit Superior Courts of those counties, and that he held lucrative office within the meaning of the Constitution, which provides that “all persons holding lucrative offices, and ministers of the Gospel, and priests of every denomination, shall be incapable of being elected members of either House of the Assembly”  A certificate was exhibited form the Auditor of Public Accounts, proving that the member referred to had received his compensation oas Attorney long after his election to the Legislature.  Although the law was thus plain, and although the current of decisions pronounced that and similar offices lucrative offices within the meaning of the Constitution, and persons holding them ineligible; and although sufficient evidence was adduced to sustain the fact alleged, the Whig majority would not allow the matter to be enquired into, without coupling with the motion an amendment, directing the Committee to enquire into the eligibility of every member in the House.  This solemn trifling was not only unworthy the representatives of an intelligent constituency, but had the direct effect of a refusal to allow the inquiry to proceed, by rendering any report from the Committee impossible.  As might have been foreseen, no report was made, and a few days before the close of the session the Committee asked to be discharged. 

            Notwithstanding these disadvantages produced by the utter disregard, by the Whig members of the dignity and responsibility of Legislators the dignity and responsibility of Legislators, the Democratic Senate concurred in the resolution for the election of senator on the day fixed by the Lower House.  It is objected, that the Senate pursued an unusual course, by retaining the resolution, with out acting upon it, until the very day fixed for holding the election.  But it should be remembered, that the same course has been pursued in other elections, and that there is nothing improper in such action.  The House had suggested a day for an election.  The members, it was to be supposed, had so fixed the day because it suited their convenience, and to have been aware that such would be the day, unless some other was suggested.  The Senate, very properly, did not act upon the resolution at once.  For, had it done so, the day fixed upon could not have been altered without the concurrence of the other branch of the Legislature, however desirable such an alteration might become.  If the Whig party suffered any thing form this course, it only proves that its members did not believe that the Senate would going to the election at that time, and had not provided for an election when they fixed the day: the only rational motive for such conduct being a desire to entrap the Senate in an unpopular proceeding, while pretending to discharge a high constitutional duty.  But, as we have before stated, the Senate agreed to go into the election on the day fixed by the House.  In that body, not a Whig uttered his voice against it.  Thus both Houses agreed to go into an election.  But, the Whig party in the House of Delegates, finding that a Democrat would be elected, in accordance with the wishes of the people of the Commonwealth, determined to defeat the election, even after it was commenced by putting a Democrat in nomination; and, displaying a discourtesy to the senate, adjourned without giving that body any intimidation of its intention.  And now we feel justified by the facts, in contending, that the failure to elect a Senator is properly chargeable to the disorganizing course of eh Whig party, in breaking up a joint order, originated by the Whig party itself under circumstances which destroy the validity of c[…]y pled they have urged in their behalf.  Believing, as they contend, that they had to obey the command of the Constitution, they made their obedience depend upon contingencies unknown to that instrument.  They pretend that the State was not fully and fairly represented, yet they wished to elect a Whig Senator for a Democratic State; and had refused, in effect, to decide the contested elections, which might have changed the majority on joint ballot.  The Whig Address admits that the Whig party wished to avoid an election by adjourning, and endeavors to justify that course.  Why, then, did not their members in the senate vote against going into an election?  Did they wish to avoid the responsibility of opposing openly a measure they sustained the House for defeating indirectly?  Were they most afraid of the unpopularity of an act than the act itself?  If these questions are unpleasant to the Whig members of the Senate, they must remember, that they have co-operated in defending a course of action which they thereby approve, and yet would into pursue.

            Having disposed of the Whig address, so far as it relates to the course pursued in the Virginia Legislature on the Texas Resolutions, and the election of a Senator to fill the vacancy in the Congress of the United States; we will give but a few words to the course of the Whig Party in receiving the land fund, and electing a Councilor, the other matters treated of in their address.

            The question involved in the reception of the land fund, has long been familiar to the People of Virginia.  In the last contest it was made a political question, and was decided by the voice of the State.  The Democratic Party everywhere contended, that the act of Congress distributing the proceeds of the slaves of the public lands among the States, was in violation of the Constitution inasmuch as no sanction could be found in that instrument for such a proceeding; and the public domain was intended as a common fund, ceded originally to avoid the necessity of taxing the different States.  The practical operation of the Distribution act, as well as the violence done to the Constitution, was a source of complaint.  The Democratic Party could never consent to see Virginia, a stipendiary of the General Government looking with anxious eyes to the action that Government, to determine by its contribution what schemes of domestic policy the Common wealth might carry out.  When the Distribution Law was passed, the Treasury of the Union was exhausted.  The subject of revenue was of great importance; while the manner of raising that revenue had convulsed the whole country.  The public domain was yielding a fund to the Government, which all parties agreed might properly to used to defray its expenses.  With this fund at its control, about the use of which there could be no question, it was highly inexpedient in Congress to adopt such a line of policy as would deprive the Treasury of this source of revenue, and thereby create the necessity of raising an additional amount from a system of unjust and unequal taxation.

            The consistency of the Democratic members of the last Virginia Legislature in sustaining in our Halls of Legislation the doctrines they advocated before the people, has been made a subject of complaint by the Whigs—indeed it is intimated that their action on this subject savors of a disposition to meddle with, and thwart the action of the General government in the legitimate exercise of its functions. T is utterly untrue.  The Democratic party wishes at all times to see the Federal Government exercising, without […] or hindrance, its legitimate powers, and eve[…] should that action be contrary to the Constitution and at war with the interests of the country with endeavor to seek redress in the constitutional modes.  But, when an unconstitutional and impressive enactment is made, it will in no event tend its assistance, and give validity to a proceeding which, without that aid, would be inoperative.

            Its proper to lay before the people an act of the Whigs on this subject, which their Address omits to mention.  It is well known, that there have, throughout the country, endeavored to enlist the cupidity of the people in favour of reciting the Land Fund.  They have portrayed it glowing colors the benefits which it could effect the improvements it could carry out, and the blessings of education it could confer.  The fund was represented as a Fortunatus’ purse, which would enlighten the ignorance of the State remove the barriers to the internal communication and which no public exigency could exhaust.—Knowing that this course had been adopted, the Senate called upon the Auditor of Public Accounts for an estimate of the amount which would be received by every white male over twenty-one years, if Virginia’s quota of the fund was distributed among them.  The Auditor, in obedience to this call, stated that the sum received by each would be twenty-five cents and thirty-five one hundredths of a cent.  After the adoption of the resolution to receive this fund by the House, a resolution to receive this fund by the House, a resolution similar to the call of the Senate was proposed by a member of the Democratic party, and was adopted.  But the Whig party soon saw the fund on which they had declaimed so much would appear contemptible in the eyes of the people; while it was not prudent to oppose it directly.  It remains to be seen whether the people will trust a party which seems to place so little confidence in them.

            The next point to be touched on is the fact connected with the election of Councillor for the State.  On this point we shall be brief.  The character of the Democratic member who was ejected, requires no defense, for it has never been attacked.  In his public and private relations even party hostility has never pretended that there was an assailable point.  One would have supposed, that under these circumstances the Whig party, that under these circumstances the Whig party would not have adopted any doubtful little of policy, and that it would have declared open either for or against proscription, and, like me abide the consequences.  Bu they did neither though they adopted very efficient action.  They ascertained, that while the great bulk of the party wished to vote for a Whig, in preference the Democratic incumbent, a few would not consent; and without those few they could not succeed in their wishes.  Hence they determined to withdraw their candidate, and reap the credit a course which they did not wish to purse is useless to notice the objections to the re-election of Colonel Rutherfoord.  The Whigs withdrawing their candidate and claiming […] for forbearance, have declared to the world that they were not actuated by them.  They have themselves declared they were not influenced by the d[..]ly considerations which their ingenuity could discover, to justify their actions, while they contested they wee actuated by a motive which no enlightened body should for a member recognize.  Indeed, throughout the whole of the session of the Legislature the professions and the conduct of the Whig party seem to have been utterly at variance—there seems to be some hidden spell upon them.  Desiring to annex Texas, they defeated all effective action, though that action was sanctioned by a majority of the Legislature.  In the efforts to elect a Senator, in receiving the land fund, in ejecting a Democrat from the office of Councillor, in their conduct on the contested elections—in short, in every matter of political concern, we find that indirect action which characterizes men who, with all the bitter feelings of partisans, do not wish to make a direct issue with tier opponents.

            We have finished the examination of the course of the Whig party.  All the facts are now before the people.  It is for them to decide upon the conduct of their public functionaries.  Important issues are still before the country.  The victory of 1844 has not destroyed the Whig party.—It must be followed up and sustained, before it effects anything which Whig energy may not destroy.  The annexation of Texas is not yet completed.  The Tariff is not yet reduced to a revenue standard; and the next Virginia Legislature may defeat the tow leading measures of the Democratic party, by placing the United States Senate in the hands of our adversaries.  We have the people with us; and if misrepresentation can be avoided, all will be well, and the fruits of the late arduous contest will be realized to the nation.

            That contest was decided in favor of the Democratic principles.  The voice of th people, in elevating Mr. Polk to the Chief Magistracy of the United State, condemned a Protective Tariff, a National Bank, the Distribution of the Proceeds of the Sales of the Public Lands among the Sates, and that latitudinous construction of the Constitution on which those measures depend.  We have received the joint resolution for that annexation of Texas, as the fruit of the at victory; and the Tariff remains as the all-absorbing question now to be decided.  That resolution having been compromised, and the compromise having been violated, must continue to agitate the country until one of th great parties shall be utterly vanquished.  One “Treaty of Peace’ having been destroyed, without scruple or hesitation, we can see no guarantee that any other will be observed, longer than policy might require.  Firmly resolved therefore to make hostility to protection a test of political faith, the Democratic Party must look with anxiety, and yet with confidence, to the action of Congress on this subject.  We look with reason to a Democratic president, sustained by a majority not only on the floor of Congress but throughout the country, for ample redress of our long sustained grievances.

            The people of the agricultural and expecting States have suffered sufficiently long under a system, which forces them to bear an undue share of the burthens of Government, whilst they see their sister States enriched, because the Government is burthensome.  That duties on importations operate as a tax on consumption, was never, to our knowledge, denied, until a necessity existed to make a line of policy palatable to our people, which had been forced upon them against their earnest remonstrances.  That being conceded, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the labor invested in any unprotected employment must pay whatever duties may be levied and collected on the articles which it consumes, whilst he domestic producer of those articles not only avoids the payment of the impost, but is enabled by those duties, to sell a portion of his products at higher rates than if no revenue as needed by the Government.  The exigencies of the nation are thus made a source of profits to the manufacturer; for protection not only shifts the burthen of Government form his shoulders, but makes his trade more profitable than it would be, if there was no burthen to be sustained by the people.  This we hold to be so unjust and oppressive—so contrary to the legitimate functions of a good government—that nothing but an express recognition in the fundamental law could give such power to our Congress.  This recognition cannot be found in the Constitut