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

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

Richmond Whig and Advertiser
Vol. 22, January-June 1845
Missing: May 1845

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



RWv22i1p1c2 January 3, 1845 Texas Debate

RWv22i1p1c5 January 3, 1845 Mexican debt payments to the United States

RWv22i1p2c4 January 3, 1845 TEXAS

RWv22i1p2c5 January 3, 1845 Herrera chosen President

RWv22i2p1c2 January 7, 1845 WASHINGTON, January, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i2p1c4 January 7, 1845 FROM WASHINGTON

RWv22i2p1c4 January 7, 1845 MEXICO

RWv22i2p1c6 January 7, 1845 Annexation, CONGRESS, PROCEEDINGS OF TODAY

RWv22i2p2c3-4 January 7, 1845 Commentary, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i2p4c5 January 7, 1845 Rebellion in Mexico against Santa Ana

RWv22i3p1c1 January 10, 1845 TEXAS

RWv22i3p1c2 January 10, 1845 letter, W. L. COGGIN


RWv22i3p1c5 January 10, 1845 ANNEXATION

RWv22i3p2c3 January 10, 1845 TEXAS IN VIRGINIA

RWv22i3p2c3 January 10, 1845 SENATE (of Virginia), Annexation

RWv22i3p2c3 January 10, 1845 ANNEXATION AGAIN, Locofocos, LILBURNE

RWv22i3p2c4 January 10, 1845 Correspondence, Il Secretario

RWv22i3p1c6 January 10, 1845 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Texas Debate

RWv22i3 p2c6 Jan. 10, 1845, vol. 22 House of Representatives, the “State” of Texas

RWv22i3p2c6 January 10, 1845 From Texas

RWv22i3p4c2 January 10, 1845 OVERTHROW OF SANTA ANA

RWv22i4p1c1 January 14, 1845 Texas, Rhode Island

RWv22i4p1c4 January 14, 1845 Annexation, Mr. Rives

RWv22i4p1c4 January 14, 1845 General Assembly, Senate, Annexation

RWv22i5p1c2 January 17, 1845 Maine, Texas

RWv22i6p1c3 January 21, 1845 Mr. Brinkerhoff (Ohio), Annexation

RWv22i4p2c3 January 14, 1845 Last Orders from the Hermitage

RWv22i4p2c4 January 14, 1845 IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i5p1c3 January 17, 1845 Congress, Senate, Annexation

RWv22i5p1c5 January 17, 1845 Jackson’s 1819 cession of Texas to gain Florida

RWv22i6p1c4 January 21, 1845 Correspondence, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i6p1c6 January 21, 1845 Mexico

RWv22i6p1c6 January 21, 1845 News from Texas and Mexico

RWv22i6p2c4 January 19 & 21, 1845 Gen. Houston of Texas & Jackson

RWv22i6p2c7 January 21, 1845 Correspondence, Il Secretario

RWv22i6p4c5 January 21, 1845 Mexico

RWv22i8p1c1 January 28, 1845 From Washington, Fate of the Texas Movement

RWv22i8p1c3 January 28, 1845 Passage of Resolutions of Texas Annexation

RWv22i8p1c3 January 28, 1845 Santa Ana and Mexico

RWv22i8p1c3 January 28, 1845 Texas Annexation Vetoed by the Legislature of Louisiana

RWv22i8p1c3 January 28, 1845 Richmond Enquirer, Annexation of Texas

RWv22i8p2c1 January 28, 1845 FROM MEXICO, LATE AND IMPORTANT

RWv22i10p1c1 February 4, 1845 Chances of Annexation by the Senate

RWv22i10p1c4 February 4, 1845 Texas Debate in the House

RWv22i10p1c6 February 4, 1845 Constitutional argument

RWv22i10p2c4 February 4, 1845 The Texas Senate

RWv22i10p2c5 February 4, 1845 Correspondence, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i11p1c1 February 7, 1845 Enquirer, opinion on Texas

RWv22i11p1c1 February 7, 1845 Annexation of Canada and New Brunswick!

RWv22i11p1c1 February 7, 1845 State Senate Texas

RWv22i11p1c2 February 7, 1845 Mr. Barrow of Louisiana

RWv22i11p1c2 February 7, 1845 Texas Again, House of Representatives

RWv22i11p1c5 February 7, 1845 Texas Again, State Senate

RWv22i11p2c4 February 7, 1845 Texas, the Two Houses at Issue

RWv22i11p4c6 February 7, 1845 From Texas, Mexico news

RWv22i12p1c1 February 11, 1845 Progress of Texas Question in State Legislature

RWv22i12p1c4 February 11, 1845 Letter, Reasons for conquest of Mexico, OVID

RWv22i12p1c5 February 11, 1845 Annexation, Benton’s Project

RWv22i12p2c2 February 11, 1845 Correspondence, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i12p1c2 February 11, 1845 Later from Mexico, political news

RWv22i12p1c5 February 11, 1845 Texas Question in the Senate, Benton's Bill

RWv22i18p1c1 Mar. 4, 1845 Texas Annexation passes the Senate, Joint Resolution

RWv22i18p1c2 March 4, 1845 FEU DE JOIE FOR TEXAS

RWv22i18p1c2 March 4, 1845 Correspondence, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i18p1c4 March 4, 1845 TEXAS IN THE SENATE

RWv22i18p1c4 March 4, 1845 TEXAS IN THE HOUSE

RWv22i18p1c5 March 4, 1845 CONGRESS, From the National Intelligencer

RWv22i18p2c4 March 4, 1845 MR. NEWTON, Texas Resolution

RWv22i18p2c4 March 4, 1845 Mr. Tyler signed Texas, Florida, and Iowa Bills

RWv22i18p2c4 March 4, 1845 Jeremiah Morton's address, opinion

RWv22i18p2c5 March 4, 1845 Correspondence, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i18p2c6 March 4, 1845 Letter to Editor, A DEMOCRAT

RWv22i19p1c7 March 7, 1845 MEXICO, news

RWv22i19p2c3 March 7, 1845 DESPATCHES TO TEXAS

RWv22i19p2c4 March 7, 1845 TYLER!, uncrowned monarch

RWv22i19p2c4 March 7, 1845 Mr Waggaman to deliver Joint Resolution, Tyler's nephew

RWv22i19p2c5 March 7, 1845 TEXAS, difficulty in the river on account of tonnage

RWv22i19p2c5-6 March 7, 1845 FROM MEXICO, political news

RWv22i19p4c2-3 March 7, 1845 To Whigs of 9th congressional District, Jeremiah Morton

RWv22i20p1c4 March 11, 1845 CORRECTION AT LAST, cession of California

RWv22i20p2c5 March 11, 1845 Correspondence, IL SECRETARIO

RWv22i20p4c3 March 11, 1845 Letter to Editors

RWv22i21p1c2 March 14, 1845 To the Editors, CHESTERFIELD

RWv22i21p2c2 March 14, 1845 THE LATE ACTING PRESIDENT

RWv22i21p2c5 March 14, 1845 MEXICO, political news

RWv22i22p1c5 March 18, 1845 Question to Henry Brooke, SHOCKOE

RWv22i22p1c5 March 18, 1845 WILLIAM C. RIVES

RWv22i22p2c3 March 18, 1845 MR. WILLOUGHBY NEWTON

RWv22i22p2c5 March 18, 1845 Jno Botts, POWHATAN

RWv22i24p1c1 March 25, 1845 MR. WILLOUGHBY NEWTON, Alexandria Gazette

RWv22i24p1c1 March 25, 1845 COMMENTARY on Newton

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845 PUBLIC MEETING

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845 MANY WHIGH VOTERS


RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845 ANNEXATION!

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845 Two articles from Texas papers

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845 From the Texas National Register, THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION

RWv22i25p1cx March 28, 1845 CITY CANVASS, DICTATION

RWv22i25p1c4 March 28, 1845 WHIG FEUDS IN THE CITY

RWv22i25p1c5 March 28, 1845 rumor, Russian Ambassador entered protest against Annexation

RWv22i25p2c4 March 28, 1845 THE MEETING WEDNESDAY NIGHT

RWv22i25p2c5 March 28, 1845 THOMAS RICHIE!

RWv22i25p2c4 March 28, 1845 ONE WHO KNOWS, MR. WILLOUGHBY NEWTON

April 1845

RWv22i26p1c2 April 1, 1845 Proposed construction of canal at Tehuantepec
From the Baltimore American, comments on building a ship canal and where the best place to build one would be

RWv22i26p1c3 April 1, 1845 Isthmus of Tehuantepec
Information the isthmus of Tehuantepec-comments on the land and potential for development and trade

RWv22i26p1c6 April 1, 1845 To the Editors, NOT A CONSTITUENT

RWv22i26p2c5 April 1, 1845 To the Editors, Texas question
More comments on the Texas question-comments on Texas with regards to the constitution, signed UNION

RWv22i26p2c6 April 1, 1845 Admit Texas or Canada
Comments on admitting Texas-if done must allow people there representation

RW45v22n26p2c6 April 1, 1845: To the Whigs of the 8th Congressional District, signed A BANK AND TARIFF WHIG
Article on a debate at the King William Court House-one of the issues mentioned is Texas

RWv22i26p2c7 April 1, 1845 Texas shall decline annexation
Quote from the New York Tribune about if Texas declines the offer of annexation

RWv22i27p1c1, April 4, 1845 No Collectors in greater portion of State
General Orders from the Enquirer; information Mr. Lyons being a friend of Texas even though a Whig

Hon. Caleb Cushing's letter on Texas to the Journal of Commerce; his opinion that annexation of Mexico is not wise

RWv22i27p2c3, April 4, 1845: Later From England
From the Journal of Commerce

Information on the British Minister giving Santa Anna money for the province of California
Paris press on California, LOUISANA SUGAR

RW45v22n27p2c5 April 4, 1845: City Canvass

RW45v22n27p2c6 April 4, 1845: The Reason Why the Whigs Should Support Mr. Lyons, signed IGNORAMUS

RWv22i27p4c1, April 4, 1845: King William
Account of a discussion that took place at the Court House between Messrs, Newton and Hunter-comments made by all on Texas

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p1c4 April 8, 1845: Texas

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p1c6-7 April 8, 1845: Late From Texas
From the New Orleans Tropic

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p2c1 April 8, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed ANTI-ANNEXATION

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p2c2 April 8, 1845: Letter to the Editors, Our Cause, signed ONE OF THE PEOPLE

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p2c4-5 April 8, 1845: The City Canvass

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p2c5 April 8, 1845: Appeal to Mr. Lyons, From A Friend

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p2c6 April 8, 1845: Correspondence of the National Intelligencer
Dateline New York, April 5, 1845, item: Mexican Minister Almonte embarked for Vera Cruz

RW45v22n29(sic 28)p4c1 April 8, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed SOLOMON

RW45v22n29p1c2 April 11, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed ANTI-ANNEXATIONIST

RW45v22n29p1c4 April 11, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed HOMO

RW45v22n29p2c5 April 11, 1845: "The Snarl in Richmond"

RW45v22n29p2c6 April 11, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed CONCESSION

RW45v22n29p2c6 April 11, 1845: To the Citizens of Richmond, signed MANY WHIG VOTERS

RW45v22n30p1c1 April 15, 1845: The City Canvass

RW45v22n30p1c1-2 April 15, 1845: Our Canvass

RW45v22n30p1c2 April 15, 1845: Escape of Santa Anna

RW45v22n30p1c5 April 15, 1845: The Canvass in Richmond

RW45v22n30p1c7 April 15, 1845: Naval Orders

RW45v22n30p3c2 April 15, 1845: To the Citizens of Richmond, signed MANY WHIG VOTERS

RW45v22n30p3c3 April 15, 1845: Messrs. Seddon and Botts in Chesterfield
Dateline Chesterfield, April 12, 1845, letter signed JAMDUDUM

RW45v22n30p3c4-5 April 15, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed AN AUDITOR

RW45v22n30p3c5-6 April 15, 1845: Hon. William Jay's Letter to Mr. Bowditch
From the Philadelphia Morning Post

RW45v22n30p2c6 April 15, 1845: Editorial comments on Jay letter

RW45v22n31p1c4 April 18, 1845: Letter of Mr. Pendelton to Dr. Garland
From the Alexandria Gazette

RW45v22n31p2c4 April 18, 1845: Whig Candidates for this Congressional and Senatorial District

RW45v22n31p2c5 April 18, 1845: The Canvass

RW45v22n31p2c5 April 18, 1845: City Delegate

RW45v22n31p2c6 April 18, 1845: The City Canvass

RW45v22n31p4c2-3 April 18, 1845: From Texas

RW45v22n31p4c4 April 18, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed SHOCKOE

RW45v22n31p4c5 April 18, 1845: Rumors form Washington
From the Baltimore Patriot

RW45v22n32p1c1 April 22, 1845: A Word in Reply to "Many Whigs" - Caucusses, etc.

RW45v22n32p1c2 April 22, 1845: Loudoun Country Congressional District - Morton and Mason - Thoughts for Richmond

RW45v22n32p1c3 April 22, 1845: Late From Europe
Items about Texas, the President's inaugural address

RW45v22n32p1c6 April 22, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed A SPECTATOR

RW45v22n32p1c6 April 22, 1845: Mexico
From the New Orleans Bee

RW45v22n32p2c2 April 22, 1845: The City Canvass - Many Lyons Whigs

RW45v22n32p2c3 April 22, 1845: Letter to the Editors, signed EXODUS

RW45v22n32p2c3 April 22, 1845: From Texas

RW45v22n32p2c6 April 22, 1845: Letter to the Editors, The City Election, signed A VOTER

RW45v22n32p4c2-3 April 22, 1845: From Mexico
From the New Orleans Bee

RW45v22n32p4c3 April 22, 1845: General Orders

RW45v22n32p4c5 April 22, 1845: To James Lyons, Esq., signed JEFFERSON WARD

RW45v22n33p1c1 April 25, 1845: Thoughts Suggested by Mr. Garland's Letter, in continuation

RW45v22n33p1c5 April 25, 1845: Letter to the Editors, The Election, signed A VOTER

RW45v22n33p2c4 April 25, 1845: Election Returns

RW45v22n33p2c5 April 25, 1845: From Europe
Texas annexation

RW45v22n33p2c5 April 25, 1845: The Oregon Question
From London, House of Commons, April 4

RW45v22n34p1c2-3 April 29, 1845: Oregon Emigration
From the St. Louis New Era, April 18

RW45v22n34p2c1 April 29, 1845: Later from Mexico
From the New Orleans Bee, diplomatic correspondence between Shannon and Cuevas and comments

RW45v22n34p2c2 April 29, 1845: Naval

RW45v22n34p2c4 April 29, 1845: A Word in Season to Whig and Democrat

RW45v22n34p2c4 April 29, 1845: Texas in Richmond

RW45v22n34p2c5 April 29, 1845: Mr. H. A. Garland's Letter

RW45v22n34p4c1 April 29, 1845: Foreign News. The Oregon Question
Per the Caledonia, from the London Times

MAY 1845

  Sources say that the English are both excited and irritated by events concerning Texas and Oregon.

RW45v22i35p1c2, May 2, 1845 PROBABLE WAR WITH MEXICO.
  Speculations by the United States Gazette.

  War is not desired, but pride will rise to occasion.

RW45v22i35p1c6, May 2, 1845 TEXAS-MISSION TO ENGLAND.
  Quote from New York News regarding Texas’ Minister’s mission to England.

RW45v22i35p1c6, May 2, 1845 ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES.
  From the  Globe. Polk announces his agenda in Oregon and Britain responds.

RW45v22i35p2c5, May 2, 1845 RE-ANNEXATION.
   A satirical article from the London Punch which editors hope will force those who are pro-annexation to realize there is more to the issue that meets the eye.

RW45v22i35p4c2, May 2, 1845 UNTITLED.
   From New Orleans Com Bulletin. Any attack on Texas is really an attack on the United States.

RW45v22i36p1c1, May 6, 1845 MR. GARLAND’S LETTER.

RW45v22i36p1c4, May 6, 1845:  SPECIAL MINISTER TO ENGLAND.
A report from the New York Commercial stating the belief that ex-president Van Buren will probably be sent to England to settle the Oregon dispute. A rumor the editors believe is more likely than the appointment of John C. Calhoun.

RW45v22i36p1c4, May 6, 1845:  “YOUNG AMERICA!”
From the UNITED STATES Journal. Young America is great and should have Texas and Oregon no matter what.

RW45v22i36p1c4, May 6, 1845:  THE GREAT QUESTION OF THE DAY.
   Editors agree with the Union which makes a distinction between the British sovereign and the UNITED STATES President.

RW45v22i36p1c6, May 6, 1845 MINISTER TO ENGLAND.
Washington Union reports Mr. Pickens of South Carolina is minister, not Van Buren.

RW45v22i36p1c7, May 6, 1845 F. H. ELMORE.
   Charleston Courier Col. Elmore declines Polk’s appointment as Minister to England.

RW45v22i36p1c7, May 6, 1845 AMERICAN FLEET– THE GULF.
Ships and guns headed to Vera Cruz.

  War meeting in Philadelphia. Editors report meetings in Philadelphia were disrupted by factions but all agree for the need to assert rights against Britain.

RW45v22i36p2c4, May 6, 1845 “TWO PICTURES BY ONE ARTIST.”
  Philadelphia Post. Two editorials of the proceedings.

RW45v22i36p4c4, May 6, 1845 THE UNITED STATES, TEXAS, AND MEXICO.
  Cities info from recent journal of Commerce. Contradicts info from New Orleans Press. Texas is pursuing an honest, patriotic, and judicious course.

RW45v22i37p1c1, May 9, 1845  EXTENT OF REPUBLIC – CALIFORNIA.
    From the New Orleans Tropic. Illegible.

RW45v22i37p1c2, May 9, 1845 NEWS FROM MEXICO
  Congress talks in bellicose manner. However they must fight or never be taken seriously.

RW45v22i37p1c2, May 9, 1845 THE GREAT QUESTION
  Washington Union points out that the Polk administration is backing down from the position it took on Oregon in inaugural.

RW45v22i37p1c2, May 9, 1845 UNTITLED.
  Speculations that Mr. Holmes of Charleston will be minister to England if Pickens declines.

RW45v22i37p1c2, May 9, 1845 LATER FROM MEXICO.
  The latest from the Mexican Congress as reported by the New Orleans Tropic.

RW45v22i37p1c5, May 9, 1845 FROM TEXAS
  Galveston papers prove Texas is pro-annexation.

RW45v22i37p2c3, May 9, 1845 TEXAS ANNEXATION.
  The New Orleans Bee reports from Galveston make annexation seem inevitable. Whig editors hope for quickness and that their fears will not be realized.

RW45v22i37p2c4, May 9, 1845 FOREIGN NEWS
  Oregon concerns subsided.

RW45v22i37p2c4, May 9, 1845 SANTA FE AND CHIHUAHUA
  Events in New Mexico.

  From New York Express latest news from England.

  There are those who are determined for the three territories to be part of the Union whether they want to be or not.

RW45v22i38p1c2, May 13, 1845 THE GREAT OREGON – IT’S NEW GOVERNOR
  From The Washington Union. Reports of a supposed Governor appointed by Britain. Most likely a deputy. United States outraged if true.

RW45v22i38p1c4, May 13, 1845 ONE DAY LATER FOREIGN NEWS.
    A bellicose speech by Sir Robert Peel that appears only in the New York Sun.

  Thought from the North American on likely naval increase.

RW45v22i38p1c6, May 13, 1845 MILITARY MOVEMENTS.
  From the Washington Union. Col. Kearny departs from Fort Leavenworth.

RW45v22i38p1c6, May 13, 1845 MINISTERS TO ENGLAND.
   The latest from The New York Journal of Commerce, Mr. Pickens declines.

  Views have not changed since his speech in 1843.

  Excerpts from his 1843 speech to the senate.

  Not everyone in Britain is against the United States “Rationale of American Politics” from Liverpool Journal proves it.

RW45v22i39p1c2, May 16, 1845 MISSION TO ENGLAND.
  Update on the current status of finding a minister.

A more detailed history of the difficulty in finding a minister.

Warning against expansion including Oregon and California.

RW45v22i39p1c5, May 16, 1845 THE TEXAS QUESTION SETTLED.
  A judge in Mobile refuses to exclude a citizen of Texas from jury duty in Alabama.

RW45v22i39p1c6, May 16, 1845 MISSION TO ENGLAND
  The Charleston Mercury’s coverage.

RW45v22i39p2c3, May 16, 1845 MISSION TO ENGLAND
  Report from Washington Union contradicting rumors of Calhoun’s likely appointment.

RW45v22i39p2c3, May 16, 1845 COST OF ANNEXATION
  New Orleans papers debate best way to attack.

RW45v22i39p4c2, May 16, 1845 SOMETHING RICH.
  Brief discussion of the Philadelphia meetings regarding Oregon.

RW45v22i40p1c1, May 20, 1845 BEWARE ALL YE NATIONS OF THE EARTH.
  Editors pity Great Britain and copy an article from the Washington Union which they should use as an example.

RW45v22i40p1c1, May 20, 1845 SANTA ANA
  Life is no longer in danger. Picayune has speculations of his fate.

RW45v22i40p1c2, May 20, 1845 PROTECTION
  New Orleans Tropic asks why we need a large army to protect what was said to be essential to our protection.

RW45v22i40p1c2, May 20, 1845 ONE TERM!
Polk intends to keep promise.

RW45v22i40p1c3, May 20, 1845 WAR RUMORS –British Troops.

RW45v22i40p1c3, May 20, 1845 CANADIAN VIEWS OF WAR
  Toronto Globe.

RW45v22i40p1c4, May 20, 1845 WE ARE A WONDERFUL PEOPLE
  New York Courier. It is our destiny to annex.

RW45v22i40p1c4, May 20, 1845 TEXAS
  Update on annexation feelings.

RW45v22i40p1c4, May 20, 1845 MISSION TO ENGLAND
Status update.

RW45v22i40p2c1, May 20, 1845 GENERAL SAM HOUSTON
  Comments by Commodore E. W. Moore of Texas navy. From Texas papers from New Orleans Tropic.

RW45v22i40p2c2, May 20, 1845 A WORD IN THE EAR OF MR. POLK
  From Punch. Do not go to war.

RW45v22i40p2c2, May 20, 1845 THE OREGON QUESTION
  Relating Hamlet to The Oregon Situation.

  War with England should carry with it the Generals continuation of his hobby

  Expresses popularity of annexation.

RW45v22i40p4c2, May 20, 1845 COMFORT FOR ABSQUATULATORS
  Texas papers are comforting to absconding debtors.

RW45v22i40p4c3, May 20, 1845 WHAT CAN MEXICO DO?
  Mexico has just cause to be upset.

RW45v22i41p1c1, May 23, 1845 TRUE SENTIMENTS OF WAR AND PEACE.
  Honorable J. S. Calhoun of Georgia’s editorial “The War cry” from the Columbus Enquirer.

RW45v22i41p2c2, May 23, 1845 WAR ITEMS FROM CANADA
  Rumors published in British Whig. 13 May

RW45v22i41p2c4, May 23, 1845 “THE YOUNG DEMOCRACY”
  United States Journal and Richmond Enquirer. Illegible.

RW45v22i41p2c5, May 23, 1845 NEWS FROM ENGLAND
  Avoiding war doesn’t look promising. Phila N. Amer.

RW45v22i41p2c6, May 23, 1845 FROM MEXICO
  British Consul receives papers guaranteeing independence of Texas. Discussion of Santa Ana as well.

RW45v22i41p3c5, May 23, 1845 AN IMPROBABLE STORY.
  Correspondence of the New York Sun. The Oregon-British Governor of Hudson Bay Co travels to Oregon. Cincinnati, May 12.

RW45v22i42p1c1, May 27, 1845 MR.  CALHOUN AND THE MISSION TO England.
Charleston Mercury refutes claims of Calhoun’s appointment.

RW45v22i42p2c2, May 27, 1845 A PASSAGE IN THE POLK-OREGON WAR.
  From Kentucky Keepsake for 1845. A work of fiction.

RW45v22i42p4c1, May 27, 1845 UNTITLED.
  Report from Baltimore American of a citizen being told to finish business and leave Mexico immediately.

RW45v22i42p4c2, May 27, 1845 ENGLISH VIEWS UPON ANNEXATION
  From London Times May 2. Illegible.

RW45v22i42p4c2, May 27, 1845 THOMAS CLARKSON AND TEXAS
  Indians will probably oppose annexation.

RW45v22i42p4c3, May 27, 1845 AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY
  Reasons why we should not go to war.

RW45v22i43p1c5, May 30, 1845 MEXICO
  “The reported declaration of war by this power, is entitled to no credit. The restoration of Santa Anna is a most singular and yet not unanticipated event.”

RW45v22i43p1c5, May 30, 1845 WAR!
  England prepares.

RW45v22i43p2c3, May 30, 1845 MEXICO AND TEXAS
  discussion Texas desire to join Union if recognized by Mexico as independent.

RW45v22i43p4c3, May 30, 1845 MEXICO – RUMORS OF WAR.
As reported by the New Orleans Courier.

RW45v2222i43p4c3, May 30, 1845 MEXICO
  Rumors from the Bee.


RW45v22i44p1c6 June 3, 1845 From Texas
News from Texas

RW45v22i44p1c6 June 3, 1845 From Mexico
News from Mexico

RW45v22i44p2c3 June 3, 1845 Texas will accept
Bid to the union

RW45v22i44p2c3 June 3, 1845 A proclamation

RW45v22i44p2c4 June 3, 1845 The Texans
Texan behavior

RW45v22i44p2c5 June 3, 1845 Later From Texas
News from Texas

RW45v22i47p1c1 June 13, 1845 Violence of the Texas Presses

RW45v22i47p1c1 June 13, 1845 Mexico and Texas

RW45v22i48p1c2 June 17, 1845 Texas and the Treaty

RW45v22i48p1c2 June 17, 1845 Peace or War

RW45v22i48p3c3 June 17, 1845 From Texas

RW45v22i49p1c2 June 20, 1845 Late From Mexico
News from a Mexican steamer

RW45v22i51p1c3 June 27, 1845 Banishment of Santa Anna

RW45v22i51p1c3 June 27, 1845 Important from Texas

RW45v22i51p2c1 June 27, 1845 The annexation of Texas

RW45v22i51p4c2 June 27, 1845 Very late from Mexico


RWv22i1p1c2 Jan. 3, 1845 “Texas Debate,”
The debate on Mr. Ingersoll’s, resolutions of annexation, which was expected to commence Monday, has been postponed until to-morrow.

A strong attempt is being made by the Texas party at Washington to reconcile all Democratic dissentients upon the basis of some new plan, like that of Mr. Weller of Ohio, or Mr. Douglas of Illinois. There was a Caucus Saturday, and, as conjectured, chiefly for this purpose. A private letter shown us expresses the opinion that every plan will fail, as public opinion in the northern and middles States was becoming more and more hostile to Texas :- The writer might have added just as truly, and with entire truth, so far as we know, “in the South, too.”

Except the “Chivalry” and a few other, some from one motive some from another, the Southern States taking the masses of both parties, are opposed to annexation, or quite indifferent about it. N. Carolina has openly through her Legislature, Expressed her dissent, and Virginia, submitting the question to the Democratic party alone, to say nothing of the Whigs, we hold it to be extremely doubtful if a majority would not be found opposed to “immediate annexation” – that is to annexation without the previous consent of Mexico. Nothing is more certain than that in this affair of Texas our venerable neighbor runs quite ahead of Democratic opinion. There is very little sympathy with his hot haste, out of the circle of those who hold Texas Lands.  The Sweat House itself is divided on the matter. If Mr. Gallatin’s letter were published by the Enquirer, the Texas ranks would be reduced to a mere skeleton. The Calhounites and the Land and Scrip holders would be pretty much all.

Here is a view that we think cannot but strike the public with much force: Mr. Polk, the Texas party say, was elected as a friend of immediate Annexation: We deny the fact – but grant it to be so: Why not then wait for Mr. Polk’s administration to annex it! Why defraud him of this glory? Why squeeze Texas through as the shank of an inglorious and universally detested Administration and at the short session of Congress, when there is no time to debate it fully and gather public opinion? Why this unaccountable, this thundering haste, so little in consonance with the gravity of the occasion and with the weight of the subject?

Ah! “thereby hang’s a tale!” The Texas Land and Scripholders are not only impatient to realize and grasp their profits, but they know well, yes, they well know that it is “now or never,” and that even with a Texas President in the person of Mr. Polk, the measure of Annexation cannot be carried if the public opinion of the United States is left to time and calm deliberation. “Immediate Annexation” is odious, and any annexation, is day by day receding in public favor. Could we steer clear of inflicting any wrong to Mexico, and put ourselves right in the *** *** of the world in the acquisition – even then we believe it would be repugnant to the large majority of the American People: But unless that be first done the Whig party are unanimously opposed to “immediate “Annexation” and a large portion besides of the soundest part of the Democratic Party.

RWv22i1 p1c4 Jan. 3, 1845“From Texas,”

By the arrival of the steam packet New York, Capt. Wright, we have received our files of Galveston and other papers to the 21st inst. Nearly 400 emigrants from Bremen had arrived at Galveston within a few days.

The Gazette of the 1st says: “The interruption in the navigation between this city and Houston, in consequence of low water in the bay, within the past week has retarded the steamers, and left us without late intelligence from the Seat of Government. The mail due a week ago only came to hand yesterday, and its successor had not arrived when our paper for this morning went to press. WE believe we have not before mentioned the election of Mr. Greer as President pro tem of the Senate. He, as well as the Speaker of the House, is a decided friend of the administration.”

The papers contain President Jones’ Inaugural Address. It is brief and to the purpose and neat in diction. His object, he states, will be the maintenance of public credit; the reduction of the expenses of the Government, the abolishment of paper issues by the Government; a proper [ . . . ] with incidental protection, the establishment of a system of Common Schools; the attainment of speedy peace with Mexico; the encouragement of immigration; friendly and just relations with the Indians on the frontier; the introduction of the [ . . . ]; the encouragement of Internal Improvement.

A Galveston paper says: “The question will soon be laid before the people of Texas [ . . . ] authentic shape, whether they will take an acknowledgement of their independence from Mexico, [ . . . ] of declining annexation by the United States, or await the chance of union with this country.”

The Houston Telegraph [ . . . ] steamer Dayton is hard and fast of Red Fish [ . . . ]. She is heavily laden, with upwards of 60 passengers, and among them, Capt. Elliot, the British Minister.

Business between Houston and Galveston is very brisk. Two steamboats are constantly employed as packets between the two cities.

Ebenezer Allen, Esq. has been appointed Attorney General of Texas. Stephen Hoyle is to be private Secretary to the President.

The Indians about Bastrop have been engaged of late in several acts of depredation, such as horse stealing, &c, &c.

Major Hays has disbanded his company of veterans and indefatigable spies. His reasons are want of means to defray their expenses. Since this even the Mexicans in the neighborhood of San Antonio have become more impudent and insulting that heretofore. The people in that neighborhood call loudly upon Congress for protection.

The Texas National Register (started on the same plan as our Niles Register) appears to be a valuable paper and ably conducted. [N. O. Bee

RWv22i1 p1c5 Jan. 3, 1845

Keywords: Mexican debt payments to the United States

“Il Secretario” in a letter to the Philadelphia North American of Dec. 27, says:

“Of Congress, I have nothing else to tell you, but that Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, took upon himself a sort of engagement to call up the Texas question, on Monday.

On this matter, Mr. Calhoun,- whom I had expected to manage it with some little of the ability of which he has the reputation-has certainly proved himself as great a bungler as was ever seen. He has done little but march from one blunder to anther; and if we escape a nation mischief for which the party in power were really ripe, was shall owe it, after all, to nothing but his incapacity, the folly by which he has disgusted the people with the very ware of wickedness which he meant to recommend and which they were abundantly disposed to receive.

Each new revelation of documents that is made or extorted brings into plain view some new iniquity, or furnishes the strong suspicion of some other suppression or fraud. Among other, the last Message and its appendix afford, I think, strong reasons for believing that the whole allegation of Mexico’s failure to pay the last two installments of our indemnities is made entirely without proof, and merely to irritate the country against her. A very intelligent claimant, whose heavy interest in the thing has urged him to arrive at the real state of the facts, assures me that all proof of Mexico’s non payment is wanting:-that neither the Cabinet nor young Mr. Green (who is brought in to furnish the statement which they publish) knows anything positive and official of the matter. Mr. Shannon cannot directly assert it: there is no statement from our agent and receiver for the purpose; master Green has no official relation to it and the Mexican Secretaries, on the contrary-men of high character-directly declare that the money has been paid over. The policy of that government has been to give us no decent pretence of quarrel with them; from this they deviated only when, in the Spring, they had reason to look on themselves as already in a state of war with us. Then, it would have been absurd to be paying us money. But they withheld it no longer after they learned the rejection of the Treaty of Annexation. If it should prove really true that they have now again stopped the indemnities, it can only be in consequence of the hostile position take by the President through Mr. Shannon. The absence of these proofs which would scarcely have failed to be exhibited, if the fact were true, compels me to disbelieve it; but should I even turn out as they say, who can blame Mexico? Whose fault will it be but that of this Administration?

Mr. William Polk - brother to the elect of Gen. Jackson and Mr. Calhoun-had just appeared here. His errand is supposed, of course, a political one. Levees are said to be already attending him, and the whole valletaille [as Paul Louis Courrier calls it] the entire lackeydom of office-seekers and fawners is reported to be besieging him at the back door as well as the front. With what he is entrusted may presently appear in this Texas business. What if the Hero and the President to be should have sent him to speak out to the doubting democracy? Mr. Calhoun has certainly involved himself in one of those difficulties which, in tragedy, make the interposition of some supernatural being indispensable. I see, from the givings-out in some of the court organs, that he to is, in his consternation, anxious to make a scape-goat of poor Shannon. Such a piece of cowardice and perfidy is only fit to redouble one’s scorn of him, already abundant.



RWv22i1 p2c4 Jan. 3, 1845


The correspondent of the Courier & Enquirer at Washington, gives the following solution of the mad and reckless haste which annexation is pressed by the “Immediatists.” He may be right in part; but he may rely upon it that the ruling motive is, not to disembarrass Mr. Polk, but that the large party interested in Texas, know that delay is dangerous to their schemes if not absolutely fatal to them. Mr. Calhoun’s negotiations have inflicted a stab upon annexation which it will scarcely ever recover.

The impatience with which Mr. Hammett showed in common with the other zealous friends of annexation has been pushed to this outbreak by promptings from the Hermitage, instigated, without doubt, by the President elect and his friends, who wish to disembarrass the coming administration of this matter, for such is the purport of letters received here yesterday by the hands of Col. Polk, the brother of the President elect. He is the bearer of a letter from Gen. Jackson, pressing action at his session of the question of annexation, and urging, among other, the consideration, that if it is postponed to the next Congress, the composition of the Senate may be such as to give to Dallas the casting vote, a position of embarrassment from which he desires to see him freed; either because he may distrust him, or for the reason that, as the candidate of the party for the succession, his vote, howsoever given, may take from his political strength. The faithful here, are also referred to Col. Polk for further information as to the views and wishes of both the Ex-President and the President elect, the latter of whom, ever since his nomination, has, by a species of cunning purely “Democratic,” never been permitted to appear before the public but in a political Siamese connection with the old hero, which argues little for his individual worth and promises badly for the future; it shows him to be a man not self sustained, and liable to be made the dupe of the sinister influences of those who may be around him. Although he may have the best intention, he will in all probability be the slave of a back door influence as baneful as that which, in its control over General JACKSON, was so fruitful of evil to the country. It is rumored that Col. W. H. Polk is to be of the kitchen cabinet, but he is young and his appearance indicated inexperience of the world, and too great a constitutional proclivity to rashness to warrant his occupying the post of chef de cuisine.

You have doubtless seen the resolutions of instruction of the Legislature of Missouri as they have passed the Senate of that State. They bear the impress of having been shaped by the friends of Mr. Benton, so as to leave him free to act as he pleases in attaining annexation, which they resolve the people to that State are in favor of, and which they desire to see annexed as soon as “practicable,” and without endangering the “peace and harmony of the Union,” all which is perfectly compatible with the fullest discretion on the part of their representatives in Congress as to the time and method of accomplishing this object.

RWv22i1 p2c5 Jan 3, 1845

Keywords: Herrera chosen President

From the New York Sun, Extra:

FROM MEXICO.-By the Eugenia from Vera Cruz we have received our files of papers from Mexico to and including the 7th of December. Since the lat news was received, Congress was suspended by a proclamation of several of the principal minister, and Santa Ana appointed dictator with full power to act and do without advice or counsel from others. This was on the 1st of December, but on the 6th Congress met in defiance of the Government, being escorted by the people and soldiery to a man to their chambers, where they received, accepted and published the manifesto of the revolting general (Don J. Herera) and appointed him president of the Republic without more ado.

Herera immediately issued a decree calling upon the inhabitants to sustain themselves and him in their movements against a man who had assured his will to be over and above all, which was received with acclamation.-The National palace was then taken possession of - the ex-ministers, save Canalizo, who was arrested, fled and all was quiet as if my magic.

No blood was shed but it was supposed that the execution of Santa Ana if he should be arrested, would be called. One of his statues in the streets was broken down by the inhabitants, and then removed by the new President in order to prevent riot and disturbance.

RWv22i2 p1c2 Jan. 7, 1845 Washington, IL SECRETARIO

WASHINGTON, Jan’y 2, 1845

A press of occupations has for some days denied me the opportunity of writing either to you or to my venerable and cherished friend near you. I am sure that the perfect identity of his style and mine, and our plentiful lack in common of wit must have often led you to suspect that I wrote many of the Enquirer’s “leaders.” Why, then should I deny the “soft impeachment?” But, then, Mr. Ritchie and I systematize and subdivide our joint loving labors. He does the quotations, supplying all those gems of original learning and taste that glisten adown the columns, like orient pearls at random strung. He has mines of that sort of erudition, the astonishing man – no less than six quotations from Dr. Dodd’s “Beauties of Shakespeare,” three from a book that Mr. Jefferson sent him call “the Bible,” and two from a rare author called Cowper. One of them runs thus: “Oh for a lodge in some vast wilderness,” and refers, I believe, to certain farms of Texas. The other is something about “I am monarch of all I survey,” and is supposed to allude to some floating Land Grants in the same Promised Land. He furnished all the French, too; which, you know, is of a quality that has long kept all Gaul in astonishment. He likewise does the History; for I assure you that the splendid discovery that Colbert was Minister of France to Louis the XVI is his, not mine. The “fine writing” is also his, undoubtedly – though, occasionally, the imaginative powers of the elder junior and the fervid genius of Tommy erect themselves into a sublime that almost rivals the paternal. They, in short, do the fancy (which you know is the richest) the erudition (which is perfectly ponderous) the Abstractions (which are of the very thinnest) and the fictions generally, which for boldness of invention soar a little higher into the empyrian than ever Pegasus winged before except that immortal Subverter of all fact, the great Ferdinand Vendez Pinto, the acknowledged prince of prevaricator. But if you ever see such humbler things in the Enquirer as a little sound argument, an atom of common sense, a touch of manliness, a ray of charity, a bit of sincerity, a momentary gleam of honesty, or a joke that is not fitter to make on cry than laugh – lay your hand upon your heart or crook your arm and swear that I did it! So, now, having made my confessions, let us pass to matters here.

They have not yet taken a very decisive form. The Democracy is a little be-fogged on the great questions, Texas and the Tariff. On which side it will emerge, no eye can yet discover. They have a great longing, in both cases, to keep their promises; for they are religiously observant of their engagements to do ill. Here, however, they pause, apprehensive that they many hurt – not others (for that were a small matter) but themselves. Meanwhile, by way of solacing their love of mischief, they threaten a little from time to time, to break up the Oregon negotiation, or amuse themselves with efforts to worry brave little Rhode Island and pull down her government about her ears. They have been at the latter pastime to day.

As to Texas, they have held, on Saturday, one caucus, and are probably at brawls in another, to-night. In the former, there are said to have been many violent Southern propositions and speeches, met by as many cool Northern moves to make them all abortive. Finally, a postponement and a committee of compromise was resorted to – it is said, with no sincerity on the part of the North. The Report and final decision were to be to-night. You will perceive that they already have before them, openly , near a score of plans: probably as many more are yet to be divulged; for, it being taken for granted that rapine is a thing easily make acceptable to “the greatest land-stealers upon earth,” and that national robbery is a thing at which any knave is expert enough, every blockhead seems to have his Joint Resolution of Annexation. That single word, inasmuch as it avoids saying “Plunder,” dispenses with all other colorings of right or policy or sense or decency. Henceforth, if a man wants his neighbor’s house or wife of purse, let him ‘annex’ the same. If you have sold a thing, put the cash or other consideration into your pocket, button it up tight, and then “re-annex” it. Thus you see that the only difference lies in the Re-----: when you impudently say that you will have a thing without a title, that’s Annexation: and when you choose to say that you once had a claim, that’s Re-Annexation.

I have reason to believe, however, that the skilful doubler whom you celebrated the other day, Mr. Dromgoole, thinks that it is he who will bring matters about; and his crafty guesses at what can succeed may be much relied on. He. Thinks that all the positive measures will be defeated, and that a Resolution (to be moved by him) That it is expedient that Texas be annexed, will be the utmost that can be done. That, you see, will involve no action, and only be a declaration of opinion: and as the opinion of such a House is (as he knows) of no sort of weight with any body, the step will not be of the slightest consequence. The Globe, on the other hand, is positive that the thing will pass; but divested of all detail, in the simple and concise form that Texas be and is annexed.

The dynasty that is to be display an unexpected caution, amounting to timidity, as to committing itself to men or measures. Mr. Calhoun’s incredible follies have probably made them afraid of him and forfeited all the vantage he at first held. Never did any one of reputation exhibit such astonishing fatuity. What a rapid havoc he has made of such respect as was left him – that of ability

As I do not write to the Enquirer to-night, please let my loving friends know that when they can either write or fight or speak the truth, “the hero of the Liberty school” may conceive some little apprehension at the wrath or vauntings of “the Heroes of Hobbes’s Hole.” Dogs as they are, they may whine when I lash then: but let them bark at me, if they dare!



RWv22i2 p1c4 Jan. 7, 1845


The Democracy are reported to be in a “Snarl” at Washington – embarrassed by their very majority, and by their having ceased for the present, to be afraid of the Whigs. We heard many rumors from there which it is not worth while to notice in detail. The scope of all is, that nothing will be done at this session of Congress to disturb things as they are, either in our domestic policy or Foreign relations: that is, in other word, that the Tariff will not be disturbed nor Texas annexed.

This is news enough for present.

RWv22i2 p1c4 Jan. 7, 1845


The Mexican news will be found of great interest. It is now given in detail, and we believe can be as much depended upon as news from that country ever deserves to be.

RWv22i2 p1c6 Jan. 7, 1845


The Senate is not in session today, having on Thursday adjourned over until Monday next.


The proceedings this morning were commenced by an explanation by Mr. CHAPMAN, of Alabama, in relation to some comments in the Nation Intelligency on his speech, delivered a few days ********


Mr. PHOENIX, of New York, presented a memorial of the respectable society of Friends, in the State of New York, in opposition to the annexation of Texas, which, on his motion, the Clerk commenced reading. A part of the memorial was devoted to the subject of Slavery, and contained strong Abolition sentiments. When the Clerk arrived at that part of it, Mr. CAMPBELL, of South Carolina, rose and objected to the further reading of the paper.

He said that by the courtesy of the House Mr. Phoenix had been permitted to offer the memorial when the ruled would have forbid it. This was done under the supposition that there was nothing offensive in them, which now turned out to be a most violent Abolition petition.

Mr. McClernard then moved to lay the memorial on the table, and on that motion the yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote on laying on the table stood yeas 87, nays 87 – a tie.

 The Speaker then voted in the affirmative, and the memorial was therefore laid on the table.


Mr. Bailey, of Virginia, moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of going into Committee of the Whole, on which motion ninety-seven gentlemen voted in the affirmative – the noes were not counted.


The House then went into Committee of the Whole and Mr. Hopkins, of Virginia, took the Chair.

The proposition to annex Texas was taken up, and Mr. Bailey being entitled to the floor, said he would yield it to any gentleman in the opposition who desired to address the Committee.

 No one showing a disposition to speak, loud calls of “question question question” were heard from the Whig side of the Hall.

The reading of the amendment to the main proposition was then called or, and it was read.

Mr. DOUGLASS then rose and stated that as no one appeared to be desirous of debating the question at the present time, he would move that the Committee rise.

 Loud calls were again made for the question, when the reading of Mr. DOUGLASS’ amendment to the amendment was called for, and it was read.

Mr. RHETT rose and requested Mr. DOUGLASS to withdraw the preamble to his resolution and put his first resolution to the vote. That resolution embraced the simple proposition to annex Texas to the United Stated unconnected with any details. That course would bring the House to a test vote at once and would determine whether a majority were in favor of annexation in the abstract. He wished this point to be decided in the outset, and the details could easily be settled afterwards.

Mr. DOUGLASS agreed to the suggestion of Mr. Rhett and withdrew the preamble to his resolution. The vote was then about to be put on the adoption of the first resolution, when

Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL rose and stated that he was unwilling that the House should come to a decision on this question without a word being said in its opposition.

This movement of Mr. J. R. Ingersoll disappointed the Whig members very much, who were anxious that the question should put. It was, on the other hand, a relief to the dominant party, who were evidently much embarrassed by the position in which they were placed and would have come up to a vote unprepared and with the greatest reluctance.

Mr. J. R. INGERSOLL then proceeded to address the Committee in opposition to the measure. He was at so remote a point from the reporter as to prevent his remarks from being distinctly heard. It is therefore impossible to give a synopsis of his remarks.

Mr. PAINE succeeded Mr. INGERSOLL, and contended for the general policy of annexing Texas to the Union.- The leading argument advanced by him was that Texas was necessary to us for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the Union, and for its safety of defense in the time of war. He advanced other positions and strenuously urged the expediency of the measure. He was very indignant at the idea which had been advanced by the opponents of this measure, that it was a slave question and was to be resisted on that account. He became somewhat boisterous on this point, and before he got through, his hour expired.

Mr. WINTHROP, of Mass., then got the floor and as there seemed to be disposition to adjourn, he moved that the Committee rise.

The motion was carried, and at 3 o’clock the House adjourned.

RWv22i2 p2c3-4 Jan. 7, 1845

Vive la Bagatelle,”

We have no objection to amusement even when it is at our expense in art, and therefore publish the report from “Salt River” extracted from a City Correspondent.

Correspondence of the Whig

WASHINGTON, Jan’y 5, 1844

For the last two days, we have had here a strange jumble of Farce and Tragedy – a sorts of heroico-comic of politics, where the ridiculous alone atoned for the atrocious, and knavery was softened down by foolery obviously incapable of performing it. In short, we have had, in happy juxtaposition, Dorrism and Annexation, the one made almost as respectable by all the nonsense of Mr. Burke of New Hampshire, as the other moral by all the ingenuity of Mr. Charles Ingersoll of Philadelphia.

Never, unquestionably, have met, by any grace of those gods who, after dinner, look down for their sport, upon human foolery, so sad a piece of diversion, as these two questions, hobbling along together, must afford. The contemptible and the odious never before so embraced each other, nor the words of Freedom, Law, and all that should at its very sound raise in one’s mind noble and pure ideas, every before were so joined with the senseless, the pusillanimous, and the ruffianly.

Than a freedom which, for the slightest grievance, easy and quick of natural redress, would break down all law and aim for mutual destruction peaceful brothers of the same soil, than a freedom like that of Dorrism which teaches, under airy doctrines about Natural Rights, every thing that is fittest to plunge a land in desolation and blood without end, I can imagine no greater curse The freedom of the bad is the most dreadful of all the scourges that were ever let loose upon any land. I can imagine no sign more woeful to any country than when none are so loud for Liberty as the fools and knaves – when servile fools like Ritchie are pealing that sacred name in an eternal clamor, and every idle echo of ignorance or every mimic cry of fraud voices back the sound.

 I believe the Democratic party will pass Resolutions directly, affirming all the principles of the Dorr insurrection, and teaching in effect that mere tumult is the only Government, the only law; that the constituted order of things, even without, oppression, has no sacredness, no reverence, but that a majority, real or pretended, formed of no matter whom or what – aliens; felons, refugees, or anything else – is entitles, al all times, to overturn whatever is pleases and demolish a State, as soon as you can count, or pretend to have counted, a majority of one.

One can conceive that such wild doctrines would be resorted to among nations denied will gifts of freedom, and maddened, by severe oppression, in the very fury of Liberty. But how in a land where equality is native, accustomed to mild laws shaped all the while by a ready conformity to the public which, such horrid principles of mere confusion should spring up on all sides, it is difficult to imagine. We enjoy already, confessedly, the freest system of government upon the earth: and yet the cruelest despotism in existence or that ever did exist has never displayed so wild, and so restless an impatience to subvert all authority.

It is, too, not a little remarkable to see in how small a degree any thing that ever before commanded among men admiration or its opposite any longer acts upon the public mind. The rapscallion array that assailed the Rhode Island Arsenal or fled at Chepachet were scarcely so seemly as Falstaff’s recruits nor their leader an atom more heroical than that doughty Knight himself. Never was there such a burlesque of freedom, such a travesty of valor. Naturally, where all thought was not lost but of the mere buffoonery of whatever was fit to rule men, an attempt so marked with every thing that was pitiable and grotesque could only have excited an universal derision: yet this miscreant fugitive, with a heart as white as he meant that his hands should be red with fraternal blood, is by a party who forget his cowardice in his crimes, erected into the hero – the martyr!

Consider, too, the strange contrast presected by the very action which they are obliged to apply to this Rhode Island Case. Just a twelvemonth since, these very men held, as legislators, that it was competent for any State to dissolve, by its contumacy, any law that Congress passed, even upon a subject specially confided to it: and here they take it upon themselves to pronounce upon the validity of the constitution and lawn of a State, in matters as strictly of State authority alone!

As to Texas, after many fluctuations, it begins to look as if that grand iniquity and folly was about to be consummated. The prevailing opinion begins to be what mine originally was, that it will certainly be carried in the House and may probably prevail in the senate also. To bring it about – to stir the flagging zeal of the Northern democracy, the direct rescript of Gen’l Jackson has probably been necessary: but the younger Polk has no doubt intimated to them the hero’s pleasure: and it is now probably that they will go on to cumulate upon the glories of the 8th those of Annexation. Methinks they might have found a yet more appropriate era for the fact – that of the trial of Louallier for his life or the “shopping” of Judge Hall.



RWv22i2 p4c5 Jan. 7, 1845

Keyword: Rebellion in Mexico against Santa Ana

From the N. Y. Courier & Enquirer

FROM MEXICO AND CHINAThe bark Eugenia, Captain Biscoe, arrived yesterday morning at this port from Vera Cruz which she left on the 12th of December, Capt. B. informs us that the principal towns, and indeed all the country, have declared against Santa Ana, who, with a small force was at Yucrefaro. The revolution passed off very quietly, no blood having been shed: the former revolutions being carried on by one party of military against another resulted in much loss of life, but this movement coming from the people was well as the soldiery, makes it general, and hence the commotion was not of a sanguinary character – Santa Ana has but little chance of overcoming this rebellion, and it was a matter of conjecture, whether he would attempt to escape or deliver himself up; he will probably endeavor to win over the opposite General by bribery or other corrupt means, but in this it is thought he will not succeed. IN case that he is take prisoner the people will probably demand his execution, as they deem his liberty dangerous to the public safety.

The markets were in a very bad state, with little prospect of improvement.

There were at the Island of Sacrificio, Br. Frigates Spartan, just arrived from New Orleans, Inconstant, and two French brigs of war, but no U.S. vessels.

The American Minister to China, Mr. Cushing, came passenger from Vera Cruz in the Eugenia, and has furnished us with the following sketch of the events of the revolution as they came to his knowledge while in Mexico. It will be found interesting and instructive:-

The revolution of Mexico is rapidly approaching a decisive crisis, and the utmost confusion and disorder exist in all parts of the Republic.

The great object of the revolution is to decide whether Santa Ana shall be precipitated from power, of whether, on the other hand, he shall be the permanent dictator and arbitrary master of the Government.

In order to understand well the actual state of tings, it is necessary, in the first place, to give a brief explanation of the previous things.

At the head of the Government in 1841 was General Anastasio Bustamente under the constitution which then regulated the Mexican Republic. In August, 1841, General Paredes and the Department of Jalisco pronounced against the Government of Bustamente.

A civil war of brief duration ensued, which was terminated on the 28th of September 1841, by an arrangement in virtue if which the pre existing constitution was abolished, and General Santa Ana was invested with the powers of dictator, for the purpose of reorganizing the Constitution and the Government.

This temporary arrangement is known by the name of the Basis of Tacubaya and the agreements of La Estanzuela.

Under the auspices of Santa Ana, a Congress assembled in June 1842, and proceeded to deliberate on a new Constitution. Santa Ana himself retired to Manga de Clavo, leaving General Bravo as President ad interim; and the proceedings of Congress not being agreeable to Santa Ana, it was dissolved by General Bravo in December 1842, and a National Junta, or Assembly of Notables, was convened in its place.

On the 12th of June, 1843, a new constitution was completed and made public, by which (among other things) the supreme power was lodged in the hands of a President, to be elected for five years; of an elective body called the Council of Government, and of a Congress composed of a Senate and Chamber of Deputies; and Santa Ana himself was immediately elected President under the new Constitution.

During this period the republic had been distracted, not only by the civil war which displaced Bustamente and elevated Santa Ana to power, but also by the insurrection of Yucatan and the long civil war which ensued in that quarter,- by incursions of the Indians in the North – by controversies with foreign powers – by the question of Texas, and above all by incompetency and corruption in all members of the government.

By the 6th of the Basis of Tacubaya it was provided that ‘The provisional Executive shall answer for his acts before the first constitutional Congress,’ and this was confirmed by the agreement of La Estanzuela.

Nevertheless by a decree of Santa Ana issued on the 3d of October, 1843, before assuming the office of constitutional President, it was declared that as the power exercised by him under the Basis Tacubaya was, by its very tenor; without limitation, the responsibility referred to in the 6th of the said Basis, was merely a responsibility of opinions that all the acts of his Dictatorship were of the same permanent force as if performed by a Constitutional government, and much be observed as such by the first Constitutional Congress.

The new government was completed and installed in January 1844, when the first Congress under the new institution assembled. Its early acts seemed to have been in accordance with the views of Santa Ana, for it voted an extraordinary contribution or four millions with which to prosecute the war against Texas.

But, on his requiring authority for a loan of ten millions, the Congress hesitated to give its assent; though it was notorious that but a small portion of the extraordinary contribution had been realized, and the Treasurer, so far from being competent to supply the means for carrying on a war against Texas, was in fact incompetent for the ordinary daily necessities of the government.

Meanwhile, as affairs proceeded, a heavy opposition to Santa Ana began to manifest itself in congress and through out the Republic. He had been raised to power, though apparently with great unanimity, yet, as the event has shown, by a military revolution, rather than by the spontaneous general choice of the people.

For, on his expressing a wish to retire a short time to Manga de Clavo for the care of his private affairs, (as he had done in 1842,) in which case the new Constitution required that the Senate should make choice of a President ad interim, to officiate during his absence from the seat of Government, the ministerial candidate, Gen. Valentin Canalizo, prevailed by one vote only over his opponent, General Rincon.

Such, then, was the position of things in October 1844: Santa Ana being Presidente propietario; Canalizo Presidente interino, and Congress assembled in special session, occupied with the foreign relations and the financial embarrassments of the Republic, when the revolution broke out in the large and powerful Department of Jalisco.

On the first of November, 1844, the Departmental Assembly of Jalisco adopted a published what is called an Initiative, being an act provided for by the constitution, in virtue of which the Assembly submitted the proposition following:

The National Congress will make effective the responsibility of the Provincial Government, to which it was subjected by the 6th of the basis of Tacubayba, which it swore to and caused to be sworn to by the nation.

2.  The law of August 21, 1844, imposing extraordinary contribution, is repealed.

3.  The Congress will occupy itself by preference in reforming the articles of the constitution, which experience has demonstrated to be contrary to the prosperity of departments.

This act was adopted by all the authorities of the Department, civil and military, and made known by public documents issued under the signature of the civil governor Escovado, and of the commandant general Galindo, with his principal officers; and thus far it was in Mexico a constitutional and not a revolutionary act – for in Mexico the military participate equally with the civil authorities in all political proceedings.

But, though nominally a constitutional act, it was in reality a revolutionary one, skillfully arranged and combined for the overthrow of Santa Ana.

To this intent, General Mariano Paredes, who had commenced the revolution in 1841 in the same Department of Jalisco, and who had since that time acted with Santa Ana, was pitched upon to be the agent of his overthrow.

The secret movers of the new revolution obtained for General Paredes the command of the department of Sonora, to reach which it is necessary to march through that of Jalisco.

On the way to his Government, Paredes stopped at Guadalajara, the capital of Jalisco, with the troops under his command, and there pronounced openly and directly against Santa Ana and assumed the functions of military chief of the revolution.

The four departments of Zacatecas, Aguascalientes, Sinalva and Sonora concurred at once in the pronunciamento of Jalisco; and thus the five Northwesterns departments were in arms at once against Santa Anna. Between these and Mexico, there intervene the two departments of Guanajuato and Queretaro.

Paredes advanced to Lagos, on the frontier of Jalisco, and there 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 Ana himself prevented Cortazar from joining Paredes (if he had the intention) and compelled him (for the present at least) to declare for Santa Ana.

For, instantly on hearing what had taken place in Guadalajara, Santa Ana, who was then at Manga de Clavo, in the Department of Vera Cruz, and in whose neighborhood was a large body of troops, professedly collected for an expedition against Texas, set out for Mexico, being invested by the President as interim with the conduct of the war against Paredes. He set out from Jalapa on the 7th of November at the head of 8500 men, crossed rapidly the Department of Puebla, where he received some additional troops, and on the 18th arrived at Guadeloupe, a town near Mexico, where he fixed his head quarters.

He had left the Departments of Vera Cruz and Puebla full of professions of loyalty to his government; and he found the same professions in that of Mexico, and similar professions came to him there from Queretaro and Guanajuato; and, he prepared to march from Guadaloupe, and to assemble at Queretaro a force of 13,000 with which to overwhelm the little army of Paredes.

But, even at this moment, all powerful as he appeared, at the head of a great army, and with all the departments behind him loyal, symptoms began to appear of the uncertainty of his case; for though the Congress did not professedly support Paredes, yet it insisted that Santa Ana should proceed constitutionally, which the latter was unable or indisposed to do.

The Mexican Constitution provides expressly that the President cannot command in person the military force either by land or by sea without the previous commission of Congress. Santa Ana had taken the command without even pretending to ask the consent of Congress; and in so doing had himself performed a revolutionary act quite as positive and serious and that of Paredes.

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

On arriving at Queretaro, Santa Ana found that, although the military authorities were professedly in his favor, yet the junto departmental had pronounced for the initiative of Jalisco. Therefore, he made known to the members that if they did not repronounce in his favor, he would send them prisoners to Perote.

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 immediately summoned before the Ministers of War and Government, to know whether they had authorized General Santa Ana to imprison the members of the junta departmental of Queretaro.

This subject occupied the Chambers on the 29th and 30th of November; and their attitude had now become so menacing, that the President ad interim Canalizo (after consultation with Santa Anna) took the high handed step of deciding to close the session of congress by force, and declare Santa Anna Dictator of the Republic.

Accordingly, on reparing to the Palace on the 1st of December, the members found the doors shut against them and guarded by soldiers; and on the 2d appeared the proclamation of Canalizo as Presidente lnterino until otherwise ordered by Santa Ana.

For some days, this forcible demolition of the constitutional government by the creatures of Santa Ana remained without producing any apparent effect in Mexico. But on the very day when the news reached Puebla, General Inclan, commandante general of the department, in concert with the civil authority, pronounced against Santa Anna; and in a few days (on the 6th) the garrison and people of Mexico rose against the government, imprisoned Canalizo and his ministers – Congress re-assembled – the President of the Council of Government, General Herrera, assumed the exercise of the functions of 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 [Dec. 12th] affairs stood thus:-

The departments of Sonora, Sinaloa, Jalisco, Zacatecas and Aguascalientes were in a state of revolution, and in military possession of Gen. Paredes.

Gen. Santa Ana [with Cortazar] had military possession of the departments of Guanajuato and Queretaro.

Santa Ana’s President interim, Canalizo, and his Ministers were imprisoned in Mexico. Congress had reassembled, and a temporary constitutional government was installed there, composed as follows viz:

General Jose Joaquim de Herera, President of the Council of Government, charted temporarily with the supreme executive authority.

D. Luis Gonzaga Cuevas, Minister of Foreign Relations, State and Police.
D. Mariano Riva Palacios, Minister of Justice, Public Instruction 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 of Vera Cruz, had declared their adhesion to the provisional Government; and there is no doubt that most of the other Departments will also support he congress.

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

If he refuses he becomes undoubtedly a rebel and a traitor; because the new provisional government in Mexico is constitutionally constituted. If he consents, he ceases to have an troops for his support: he is placed at the mercy of his enemies.

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

If any sufficient 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 on the one hand, and Mexico, with its concurrent departments to the Gulf, against him on the other hand:

He may recover himself by some new turn in the wheel of Fortune, and resume his place as the constitutional President proprietario of the Republic; but this is hardly probable, as te public sentiment is almost unanimous against him in nearly all the Departments.

It seems more likely that he will have to yield to the storm: and if not deprived of his life, he may escape to the United Stats by a sudden march on Tampico, or to South America by way of the Pacific.

RWv22i3 p1c1 Jan 10, 1845


“Il Secretario says that the probability of annexation is increasing, and he said it before the great news from Mexico, which will probably put more weight into the Texan scale.

The “Globe” inclines to the same opinion – the Globe so much opposed to annexation in may and so much in favor of it in January!

That paper of Monday evening says-

“It is well ascertained now, that a majority exists in the House, and probably in the senate also, in favor of re-annexing Texas to the Union. The conditions alone remain to be adjusted. The treaty scheme of last session, as presented in joint resolutions, it is understood will not pass in either branch. The proposition of recognizing 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 met 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 come form or other; submitting the alternatives to the discretion, and the confirmation of the next congress. We think the simpler mode will be found the best.

The National Intellegencer of Tuesday did not com, and we know not therefore how to correct “our longitude at sea!” but we still hold it to be impossible that the Texas iniquity can be perpetrated with a Whig Senate: To say nothing of the unconstitutionality of the mode of annexation by joint resolution, which is the porpular fashion with the “Democracy” and the entire unlawfulness of which Mr. Callatin has so conclusively show, we hope that the Whigs of the Senate, if no others, will never consent to legalize plunder and constitutionalize fraud. The “signs” are more adverse than we imagined they could be, but we have yet the hope and faith that the Texas jobbers will be routed, and public opinion have the time and opportunity for full and fair play allowed it.

RWv22i3p1c2, Jan. 10, 1845


To the People of the Congressional District of the counties of Albemarle, Nelson, Bedford, Amherst, Orange, Madison, and Greene, in Virginia


As the term for which I was elected will expire on the 3d of March, next, I deem it proper, having received numerous letters on the subject, to make known to you my purpose to decline being considered again a candidate.

It is known to many of my friends that my private affairs, neglected as they have been by an almost continuous service in Congress and the State Legislature, for about eight years, will demand my constant personal attention, and that a withdrawal from public life can alone accomplish what is required at my hands. With me the highest considerations, and a due regard to the wishes of friends, have induced personal sacrifices heretofore; and now even, gratitude towards those who have given so many evidences of their friendship, would, under other circumstances, require that these sacrifices should again be made on my part; yet there are obligations and duties, apart from such relation as those which I now bear to you, that no man can, with propriety, disregard at all times. The nature of my engagements and pursuits are such, that, on my return home in the spring, I could not enter actively into a canvass under any circumstances. Living, as I do, in the extreme Southern county of a district two hundred miles in length, I am almost barred the pleasure of personal intercourse with many of my constituents; and the time and the labor required to canvass the district, as now arranged, can only be estimated properly by myself, having devoted to it the last two years; in both of which, It will be recollected, was held a Congressional election, as well as the general election last fall, in which also I participated. Every consideration has been given the subject, and with a desire on my part to comply with the wishes of my friends, I had hoped that some of the obstacles would have been surmounted by arrangement which I had in contemplation; but in this I have been disappointed, and I therefore am not a candidate for your suffrages at the ensueing election. I make this annunciation, this early, that some other individual my be selected to be voted for in my stead, who shall have my most hearty support, if he can come recommended by an unflinching attachment to the great principles and measures for which, in the late canvass, I, in common with others, contended. There are in the district many such men, as able as they are patriotic.

Let it not be supposed that my withdrawal has been caused by disappointment, consequent on the defeat sustained by my friends in the late presidential election. - That my disappointment was great is the general result, I admit, yet I am not the less devoted to the policy which we then advocated, not less desirous to see the principles, for which we exerted ourselves, permanently established – than I was previous to the first Monday, in November, nor less confident of their ultimate triumph. I proclaimed myself, as you well know, the friend of a discriminating Tariff, what would afford sufficient protection to American labor, while it primarily supplied the revenue of the country – the advocate of a we regulated U. States Bank, that would give us a sound, safe, and uniform currency, while I should afford every facility for the collection, safe-keeping, and disbursement of the public money – a friend of a distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, which, while it would withdraw a fund from the general purposes of the Federal government, would, at the same time place it under the control of the States, to be applied to the special benefit of each State, and of the people within the same – and that I was also the friend of Mr. Clay. If these declarations made a Whig, when I had the honor to represent another district; if they constituted me a Whig when you voted for me last spring, as well as the spring preceeding; if they were the tests of my apolitical faith in the canvass last fall, they are, now and they constitute me a Whig still.

In regard tot eh annexation of Texas, which, since my election, has been much discussed, in some portions of the District, I feel it to be but due to candor to declare, that, as your Representatives, I consider it my duty to oppose it. Though elected without reference at all to this question, it is my business to consider, and to meet it fairly. When first presented to me I felt inclined, without examination, to favor it – subsequent reflection has tended to fix my opinions against. It. The annexation of a foreign Territory to our own was, I think, never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. If the power, however, was beyond doubt, I deem the project, if carried out, as likely to endanger the Union, itself – as unwise and impolite in the existing state of our own, as well as the relations of Texas with those of Mexico.

We have, too, in Virginia alone, more land than is sufficient to maintain thirty millions of inhabitants. – We are possessed, also, (besides the lands of all the other twenty-five States) of a rich and boundless domain in the west, that must remain unpeopled, great portions of it, for ages to come. Whey, then, it may be asked, shall we covet that which is our neighbors? – Why need we acquire more, (and that, too, by aping many millions of dollars for it) when we have already an abundance, and to spare, even to the foreigner, at one dollar and a quarter per acre? Why, in grasping more, should we diminish the value of that which we already possess? For this must be the effect. Bring into market with our own, the lands of this foreign country; tempt the Virginia slave owner with the prospect of immense profits in the Texas cotton fields, and his Virginia lands will soon be offered for sale; he will be induced to sell at a low price, because he can buy more, where his slave labor will, as he supposes, be better remunerated. But the man with a small farm, and limited means, who has to perform all his labor himself, wishes to remove to the West or Northwest, to some free State, and he, to, offers his land for sale; but he finds his more opulent neighbor competing with him, finally underselling him, and thus reducing the value of his farm, until it is made almost worthless. The man of wealth will not buy out the small farmer, because he is going to Texas, and the small farmer does not purchase the land of his opulent neighbor, because he has not the means to do so, and has already, perhaps, determined to go in another direction. The lands of each and every class of our citizens will thus be lessened in value, whether the wish to remove and to sell, or to remain in the Old Dominion. That it would, in all probability, add a few dollars to the value of each slave in Virginia for at time, I think, may be conceded; yet this advantage is small in comparison with the evils to which I have but adverted.

In these views I may be mistaken, yet they are candidly entertained, Now, as I am no candidate for office, I trust I shall not be suspected of a want of sincerity. I earnestly desire to see this Union preserved – to promote its blessings and to aid in establishing, on a firm basis, the institutions of our own free and favored land. My humble efforts while I have had the honor to be a representative in Congress, have been directed to these objects, and I shall retire from the station, at least with the consciousness of having done nothing to forfeit any claim which I may ever have had, to the good opinion of my fellow citizens.

Whigs of the Fifth Congressional District, I shall ever be grateful for your past and continued kindness; no service of mine can repay your confidence. I sever the relation which has existed between us with many feelings that you will appreciate. To say that I shall always recur with pleasure to the period when I was elected as the representative of such a district, would be but feebly to express myself, in the kind remembrance of a constituency, honored as you have been by the associations of the brightest intellects that Virginia has given to the Union, taken from your own limits, in her Jefferson, her Madison, her Monroe, her Crawford, and her Barbours.

Democrats, neighbours, and friends – to you I return my thanks, also, for your uniform courtesy and politeness; and, I may well say, that in all the heat of party excitement, you have given me abundant cause to believe, that we differed only in our political views. I take leave of you, also, as a portion of my constituents, with no unkind feeling towards any one, but with a sincere desire to see always a continuance of individual friendships and to feel an assurance that political conflicts, however fiercely waged, cannot with us dissolve the ties of the social circle.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,



RWv22i3 p2c1 Jan. 10, 1845


The news from Mexico to-day, by way of New Orleans, is of the highest importance, and bears the stamp of authenticity. It seems clear that the fall of Santa Ana’s long sustained power is no longer a matter of Doubt, and that he, who for a period of 20 years has been “ the arbiter of others’ fate, is now a suppliant for his own”!

What shape the Revolution will assume – whether the interests of Mexico and of Civilization will be promoted by the termination of Gen. Santa Ana’ ascendancy – or whether that event will lead to increased disorder and a darker anarchy – can only be ascertained by time. That the successful party will profess unbounded devotion to Liberty and the People and a determination to effect all that the People wish effected, we have no manner of doubt. That they possess the inclination to perform what they promise, is possible too; but that they can control events, enlighten at once a half civilized People, and make those worthy of Liberty, who are too ignorant to know it’s value or to use it wisely, **** ***** ***** ***** Mexico will continue the prey of intestine disorder and anarchy, until some chief crises with the adequate energy and vigor to impose his joke upon her population – fitted as they are, to be Slaves, and unqualified to be freemen.

A nearer question – near to this country – remains to be considered: how will this new revolution in Mexico affect the United States? How will it affect the question of Texas annexation, now and for six months past so prominent and absorbing?

We can but express our fears that the revolution is Mexico, will strengthen the Immediatists,and operate unfavorable to the party comprising unquestionably an immense majority of the American People, who regard annexation at all as of doubtful benefit, and the Annexation which the Tylerian Dynasty proposed, as involving and comprehending robber. We understand that the “Immediatists” consider the fall of Santa anna as highly favorable to their iniquitous views.

RWv22i3 p1c5 Jan 10, 1845


“Il Secretario” writing to the Philidelphia North American on the 3d of Jan’y, says:

“In the debate of to-day on Texas, there was, of course, little in the speeches to command much interest. When, after (as he says) years of thought on the subject, the Chairman of the Committee (foreign Relations) which has had it many months in charge, can give no better reason for it in law than Mr. Ingersoll’s [ . . . ] impotent one of the [ . . . ] of right has been reduced.

I have told you the sort of dilemma to which the party had brought themselves, when the House broke up yesterday. Again, to day they seem to stuck in the caudine forks of a like difficulty; be were, for the time, extricated by a speech, into which Mr. Joseph R. Ingersoll (I think injudiciously) allowed himself to be drawn.

Just yesterday, they offered the floor to the Whigs: Mr. Bayly of Virginia, who had it by right, signified his disinclination to speak, and tendered his opportunity to any one in the opposition. Again the Whigs, anxious to see them brought to vote on their own propositions, declined to speak, and called for the “question”! The vote being about to proceed, Mr. Rhett, of S. C. rose and signified that, to test at once, by the simplest measure, the disposition of the House, and to let it be seen who were and who were not the sincere friends of Annexation, he would move that at once, without any details or encumbrances as to the manner, it be declared that “Texas is annexed.” His proposition was adopted in this form, by the member whose Resolution was before the House, and thus brought in at once to be acted on. He had, also, in propounding it, the morality to signify that large part of the body were ready for the thing in the gross, and were only revolted when they came to examine the details, so that clearly the best way to omit the details, pledge them to the thing, and they would be sure then to reconcile themselves to the particulars that must follow. In a word, he knew that, in frosty weather, men are very averse to wetting their feet: but that, once over shoe-leather they plunge on easily up to their ears.

At this point, when half the democracy shook in their shoes, Mr. Ingersoll rose and went into the discussion.- Of course, he could not avoid touching upon the slave question, and putting gone of his strong objections to the thing of that ground. This was doubly obliging the Democracy – the Southern, by affording matter for resentment in their quarter, and this making the matter more popular – the Northern, by getting the Whigs to fight for them a question on which they dared not (though pledged by their support of Mr. Polk) come boldly up, either pro or con.

 You will easily imagine that great fault was found with Mr. Ingersoll. Yet it seems that many of those who blame him are about to repeat the indiscretion. If they do, they stand condemned by their own complaints, for why, it if was wring, copy it?

Of Mr. Payne’s speech, which came next, I need say nothing, but that it a Southern, to a high degree of wrath and violence.

It seems now admitted, by some of the acutest observers that the vote of Annexation will probably carry in the naked form proposed by Mr. Rhett. And the truth no doubt is that the Imperial Mandate to that effect from the Hermitage has been brought by that minor hickory, the younger Mr. Polk. As I do not possess his confidence, I cannot aver the fact; but I do not question that he has brought (as I expected somebody would bring) the Hero’s high behest.

Monday will give us a new discussion, and I fear an unfortunate one, only fit to excite local passions and endanger the issue. Several Massachusetts Whigs seem anxious to speak, among them, I fear, will be Mr. Adams, whose severity will, I fear, act more strongly on the South than any arguments in favor of the thing. If he would be, for once, conciliatory, he might do good.

RWv22i3p2c3, January 10, 1845


On Wednesday in the senate of Virginia, Mr. WALLACE (of Faquier) from a Select Committee on the appropriation of the Governor’s Message, made to the Senate the following Report:

“Whereas, by the Treaty of Louisiana, it was expressly stipulated by the United States that eh inhabitants of said Territory should be incorporated into the Union, and admitted as soon as possible according the principles of the Federal constitution to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United 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:-

Resolved therefore, That it is the right of the people of Texas to be admitted into the Union, and the duty of the people of the United States to perform in good faith all their obligations assumed by them in the purchase of Louisiana.

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

Resolved, That the Senators from this Commonwealth in the Senate of the United States be instructed to effect that object.”

Than this report, not yet acted upon by the Senate, but which, or course, the faithful in that body will swallow, as they would swallow an other noxious medicament which Demagogism had prescribed – than this report, politically speaking, as reprehensible a document as ever issued from men who were placed under and felt their obligations to Law and Constitution – nothing has ever been offered to the consideration of the country from official sources, so detestable and revolting.

Let the country remember this fact, and with it, the obligations of common honesty.

IF Texas was admitted by Mr. Jefferson’s treaty in 1803, as a part of Louisiana, first to territorial an successively to Sovereign State Rights – Texas was as certainly ceded to Spain by Mr. Monroe’s treaty of 1819! [approved by Monroe, Crawford, Wirt, and last and least, Calhoun!]

IF Jefferson had a right [as he confessed he had not!] to negotiate with France, for the purchase and acquisition of Louisiana, (comprehending Texas,) Mr. Monroe had as unquestionable a right to swap Texas, as he did, [Mr. Calhoun approving!] for Florida.

It was an exchange in the way of business and national convenience – not perhaps strictly regular on either side, but in which the American and the civilized world acquiesced. Nobody was aggrieved, and nobody was interested to raise abstract points and questions of international law, and strict right.

We still retain Florida for which Texas was swapped. Neither Spain, or Mexico who succeeds to the rights of Spain, lays any claim to that Territory! We hold securely and without dispute, the territory of the two Floridas, which by solemn and ratified treaty in 1819, the U. States agreed to accept for Texas. Neither Spain, or Mexico, standing in the shoes of Spain, has pretended to put in any adversary claim to our right to the Floridas, for which in 1819 we exchanged Texas!

Observe now the atrocity of the policy urged by the immediate Annexationists, and gravely recommended to the Senate of Virginia, by a select Committee of that body!

The U. States who have been paid for Texas, by the two Floridas, are urged to receive Texas, claimed by Mexico (standing in the shoes of Spain) as a revolted province, which by the laws of Nations she has an undisputed right to reconquer and repossess if she can – the U. States we say are urged and invited, still holding the Floridas, to seize and appropriate to themselves Texas, for which they exchanged the Floridas!

We will not stop now to debate the Constitutional power to effect this violent iniquity which, if the events of the times did not concur to produce the effect, ought of itself, if consummated, to steep American national character in odium. Without raising that question at all, where is the RIGHT, the right of common honesty, to retain the Floridas for which the U. States exchanged Texas, and then to appropriate Texas too!

Such a proposition is now unblushingly advanced, under the influence of Texas pecuniary interests (not that we mean that Gen. Wallace is any thing more than the cat’s 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.

RWv22i3 p2c3 January 10, 1845

Wednesday, Jan. 8th, 1845

SENATE (of Virginia), Session of


Mr. McMullen reported a bill concerning the Price’s Gap and Cumberland Turnpike Company.

Mr. Wallace, from a select committee, made the following Report on so much of the Governor’s Message as related to the Annexation of Texas, and the Resolutions of the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and the same subject:

Whereas, by the Treaty of Louisiana, it was expressly stipulated by the United 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 the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and whereas, the people of that part of said Territory known as Texas, have expressed their desire to be received into the Confederacy according to the terms set forth in said Treaty:-

Resolved, therefore, That it is the right of the people of Texas to be admitted into the Union, and the duty of the people of the United States to perform in good faith all their obligations assumed by them in the purchase of Louisiana.

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

Resolved, That the Senators from this Commonwealth in the Senate of the United States be instructed to effect that object.


On motion of Mr. Dennis, the Senate adjourned.

RWv22i3p2c3, January 10, 1845


“Lilburne” the correspondent at Washington of the Philadelphia Morning Post (late the “Forum” and a paper most worthy of Whig support) says:

“WASHINGTON, January, 5, 1845.

The nonchalance with which the Locofoco orators speak of “blood an carnage,” is a caution to “Old Hickory,” – Mr. Payne, in his last “thundergustical” upon the subject of Texas, spurned Mr. C. J. Ingersoll’s plan of paying for her; he would annex her, and then fight for her. If the Mexicans, or the English, or anybody else did not like it, and chose to try the fate of war, they would find another New Orleans, &c.

This overflow of Locofoco valor, at a distance is a little ridiculous it appears to me in men who have seen no service. What do Mr. Payne, and such as he, know about war, that they are ready to appeal to the last argument? – Have they ever looked the “grim visaged” god in the face, and is his glance so captivating, that they desire a closer acquaintance? Where are the proofs that they are more valiant than their neighbors? Do the means themselves, to shoulder their knapsacks and march to the field of glory, or death, or do they eschew, entirely, such a vulgar position of the “[ . . . ] Military” as the giving and receiving wounds, running bayonets through the bodies of their enemies – or, what is not quite so agreeable, getting them through their own? If they have tried these things, and are fond of them, why, then, I have nothing more to say; if they have not, it would be at least becoming to do first, and to talk afterwards.

It seems to be the opinion of many, that the Annexation is reserved for Mr. Polk, and that the “party” do not intend to allow that honor to the present administration. For my own part, now that the instructions to Col. Benton have turned out to be no more than a direction to him, to use his own pleasure in the business, I begin to incline to the same opinion. I wish, if such turn out to be the fact, that Mr. Pollock’s plan for taking the sense of the people directly upon the point would be pursued, or some other, calculated to have the same effect. Let the question be stripped of all extraneous matter, such as Presidential electioneering; and let it come directly before the people. Their vote would then decide, whether or not, we are to be styled, as Mithridates styled the Romans, “Latrones gentium” – that is the “robbers of nations.”

My letters have been so filled with this subject, that I have not found room for more than an allusion to the insolent proceedings of the Democracy in Congress, relative to Rhode Island and her constitution. Was there ever any thing like it? The Congress of the United States undertaking to prescribe a constitution to one of the sovereign States of this Union! It will be received, no doubt, in that quarter, with all the contempt due to such insolence; but what say our flaming State Rights men, our McDuffies our Rhetts, &c? They will say no doubt or will think if they do not say, that the Rhode Islanders are Yankees and not entitled to the benefits of their abstractions.

I hear little speculations, worthy of notice, on the subject of the Cabinet appointments under the new Dynasty. Mr. Calhoun, however, it is generally thought, has so effectually done himself up. Since his acceptance of the office of Secretary of State, that he seems to be entirely out of the question. Never did any man in so short a time so completely undeceive the world as to his abilities. He is an example of the fact, that a man who plumes himself upon splitting hairs, and shopping logic, makes the very poorest of Statesmen, and will always fritter away the best cause, by running it out into immaterial points.



RWv22i3p2c4, January 10, 1845

Correspondence of the Whig. (Il Secretario)

WASHINGTON, January 8th, 1845.

In spite of the Heroites and all their appliances, we have weathered the appointed day of Annexation, and that mighty “consummation, devoutly to be wished” by all who have no piety nor faith in them, is yet unaccomplished. As your neighbor, of as many quotations as principles, might say, “the ides of March have come” – yea, and gone also.

The day began, in the House, with the offer of a Resolution, by Mr. Adams, granting the use of the Hall, for two successive Wednesday, to the elder Owen (him of Lanark, the founder of Socialism, not his son, the M. C. of Indiana, or which by and [ . . . ] for the delivery of lectures on his system of society.

I presume that Mr. A. – who surely knows better or who perhaps would gladly lecture in reply – thinks Owen’s reveries too idle to do any harm. I cannot say I think so for I have learned to believe that no folly, however monstrous, can be propounded to the good people of this country, without a very strong probability of its spreading like wild fire. It is true that Owenism has not lazed up yet: buy why should it not? If it fail to take, its absurdity is certainly not the hindrance. It is quite as rational as Millerism, as religious as Agrarianism, as practical as Fourierism, as honest as Mormonism, as intelligible as the Emmersonian Transcendentalism. One error, however, my fried the philosopher has made, that will probably more than all else bar his way to a vast proselytism: he proposed no immediate plundering; his system offers no “spoils,” no offices; and the men of new ideas, the Progressive Democracy, will therefore not flock to him. He promises nothing but justice, peace, and universal good-will – though a goodwill without a God. The godlessness they like exceedingly; but then the good-will is by no means to their taste.

Accordingly, one of the Democracy, Mr. Hammett, (descended, perhaps, from the sage in Cervantes, Sid Hammet,) signified his distaste for Owenism. Its’ object being to uproot Society – which Democracy can do without it – and to pull down Religion, he evidently thought that Loco Focoism needed not the auxiliary. “He was opposed [he said] to granting the use of the Hall to any Lecturer or Theorist, who might wish to give to his speculations the sanction of that House.” As to the degree of authority which any opinion could borrow from the sanction in question, Mr. Hammett is perhaps more alarmed than there was any occasion to be. However, one cannot dissent from his closing proposition – “there were other places more suitable and where information could be imparted more agreeable.” I certainly know few places where information is less to be expected or is less agreeably imparted than in that Valhalla of barbarous and dissonant Democracy.

The Owen resolution was laid on the table. But if the father could not get the floor, the son soon did; and considerably the worse man of the two is he – as much more dangerous as a certain Jacobin editor of seven principles is worse than his Tory father.

It would seem, after all, that the magnetic pole to which change as it may, the needle of Mr. Dromgoole’s opinions [true to the majority] ever points, must have shifted a little again [as it is known often to do] since I told you that he expected to propound a Resolution declaring Annexation expedient. He to-day brought in a bill fro directly introducing Texas as a State. What has changed his steadfastness of notions – whether the prospects of Annexation are taking that aspect when your neighbour cries out “skies bright and brightening” – or whether the Heroic behest from the hermitage has shaken him – or, lastly, whether the hope of a certain Senatorship, dependant somewhat on Calhounite votes, may not have modified him, I undertake not to say.

Next came a new effort to impeach or indict the State of Rhode Island before Congress. It was in the shape of a series of Resolutions by the Legislature of New Hampshire, stigmatizing the conduct of R. I. towards the far renowned Dorr, as illegal, unconstitutional, inhuman and all that. They arraign R. I. as having condemned him by a packed Jury, and as having punished him barbarously, by putting him in the Penitentiary, where, by the by, he stays (as every body knows) only ‘till he chooses to swear allegiance to his State. That, I suppose, will seem a very hard condition to your Virginia Democracy, as you too have a like oath in your State constitution: for New Hampshire, that is so outraged, has just the same. She will presently, I suppose, fly out against some State for inflicting disabilities, upon Catholics!

These Resolutions failed to be brought in, the rules standing in the way, and but 113 of the Democracy voting their suspension.

Thus the House returned to the Texas question; and Mr. Caleb Smith, of Indiana, made against that business a very animated and strong speech – the best, certainly, that the debate has yet afforded, except that of Mr. Winthrop, of Massachusetts. Though the range of the one hour rule is utterly disproportionate to such a question – so great and so complex – yet he selected so well the strong topics and enforced them each to so just an extent, that his argument was a highly efficient one. He took, among others, the Slavery question; but while he urged its main points well and boldly, took on it ground so just; so faithful to all the subsisting obligations between the States, that no Southern man could take the slightest exception to either his positions or his language.

To him succeeded his colleague, Robert Dale Owen. – I was glad to hear that citizen of the world, - renegade of country as well as faith – a teacher of Platonic politics and of loves only made platonic by artificial methods of avoiding their consequences (ask not for the detestable explanation: it is in his book, published in his name – “Moral Physiology”) take the floor, to explain Right, Morals and all that, such as could sanction this national depravity. I wanted to hear what one of the associates of Socialism would say of laws, what the hater of the land that gave him birth would prate of patriotism, what the Agrarian editor of the “working-man’s Advocate” would tell us of Land-titles, what the author of a series of popular tracts against Christianity would say of the public faith. Honest and gentlemanly in private life, well-informed, acute, he is, with all that, every thing that is only the more dangerous for advantages which leave him but the more pestilent demagogue and subverter. We dislike, we justly fear the gross, the licentious gangs of the worst populace, that Europe casts, from her encumbered lap, upon our shores: but there is one thing yet worse than all their ignorance, all their depravity – the deadly hostility to all society of educated English Radicalism. A Cobbett, a Callender, an Owen, a Fanny Wright, is worse, in his or her single person, than all the scum or dregs of foreign debasement.

I must leave you to find, in his reported speech, how this Optimist, this Perfectibilian proved, from good and noble old Grotius, the rightness of national robbery and perfidy. Texas is probably that Perfect Commonwealth which his philosophic dreams have long sought in vain.

In the Senate, the Smithsonian Institute occupied nearly all the sitting. That you may see in the speech of Mr. Choate, beautiful as well as strong.

I would gladly, had I time, tell you of the sublime self-complacency of the inane with which that martial Judge Bayly yesterday delivered himself of a series of the most triumphant abstractions. Gossamer was solid in comparison with his reasonings; adamant unsubstantial in comparison with his confidence in their solidity. I could give you some pretty specimens: but where’s Punch? He should be here to report the General.

The debate is evidently to run on, until the Texans think they can carry their measure – now probably Gen’l Dromgoole’s. My news of to-night leads me to think that Santa Anna is really upset: a great misfortune, I fear, to Mexico. He is their ablest and I think their best man, stained as his earlier career was. My compliments of the day to him who said General Jackson would be a curse and a scourge to the country. There is a foreigner here collecting our different grape vines: couldn’t’ he furnish him with one of a very particular sort?



RWv22i3 p1c6 Jan. 10, vol. 22



The debate on the Texas question was then resumed.

Mr. Yancy of Alabama, was entitled to the floor, and proceeded to address the committee in favor of annexation. He devoted the first part of his speech to a reply to some of Mr. Clingman’s remarks, upon the practices of the “Democratic” party in the late Presidential election. He then argued at length in favor of the right to bring Texas into the Union. He stated that news had this morning arrived in Washington that Santa Anna had been deposed and banished from Mexico. He spoke out his hour.

Mr. Bayly of Virginia, rose next, and after complimenting Mr. Yancy for his forcible speech, supported the same side of the question. His first position was that it was competent in congress to admit Texas by joint resolution. He derived the power from the clause in the Constitution which authorized Congress to conduct a war, and to do those things which are necessary to make the war successful. Texas was necessary to us to make a war on defense successful, and therefore we have a right to bring her into the Union. Texas could also be annexed by virtue of the Constitutional authority to introduce new States. He enlarged on these points, and afterwards argued the question as the right of Texas to agree to become a part of the U. States. He contended that she had.

Mr. Stetson, a “Democrat,” of New York, spoke next, and said he had difficulties about the constitutional power to carry out this measure. He was in favor of the expediency of annexing Texas, but would go against a simple joint resolution of a few lines, without settling the details. He seemed to be opposed to all the plans before the House, but at the same time inclined to the opinion that a proposition might be brought in to effect the object constitutionally. There was a great deal of confusion in his arguments, and it was difficult to arrive at a certain knowledge of what his precise opinions were. He was understood to maintain that annexation could not be effected by act or resolution, and that if it could be done at all, it must be done by treaty. He said he was alarmed at the disposition be saw among the advocates of this measure to enlarge the powers of the Congress by constitutional construction. He was alarmed for the fate of that principle of strict construction which the democratic party contended for.

At the same time that it was difficult to get at this precise views, it was manifest that he was more opposed to the measure than in favor of it.

At the conclusion of his remarks Mr. Caleb Smith , of Indiana, got the floor and the Committee rose.

Mr. A. V. Brown reported bills for admission of the States of Iowa and Florida into the Union, read, ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee of the While.

Mr. McKay reported a bill making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the next fiscal year.

The Clerk to the House submitted his report of expenditure, &c. Various executive and other communications were read and properly disposed of.

Mr. Adams moved that the use of the Hall be given to Mr. Dale Owen for four nights for the purpose of delivering lecture. Before the question on the adoption of the resolution was decided the House, at ** before 4, adjourned.

RWv22i3 p2c6 Jan. 10, 1845, vol. 22

House of Representatives, the “State” of Texas,


Mr. Dromgoole, by general consent, introduced a bill to form a State out of a portion of the Territory of Texas, and for its admission into the Union on the 4th of July next. The bill was read twice and referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr. Dromgoole again rose and called the attention of the House to two precedents in the history of the United States, favoring the adoption of his bill. He stated that Kentucky and Vermont had been admitted into this Union in the same way he now proposed in reference to Texas. Those States had been created by acts of congress, out of territories not within the limits of the United States, and admitted at the periods specified by those acts.


Texas Question

Mr. C. Smith, of Indiana was entitled to the floor and proceeded to address the committee in opposition to annexation.

He made a very favorable and eloquent speech. He said there were a great many points involved in the question, and he could allude to but few of them.

He maintained that the constitution did not authorize annexation of foreign territory. If Texas could be annexed as a state, England, France or any other foreign nations could with the same propriety.

It was clear that nothing could be done by joint resolution and the only question that would admit of dispute was whether the Treaty making power could be brought into requisition. Besides objection on the score of right, he saw equal objection on the score of expediency. It was said this measure was necessary to extend the area of freedom. If Texas is now a free State, as is alleged by annexationists, she could not be made more free. “The area of freedom” would not therefore be extended by making her a State of this Union.

Our relations with Mexico furnished one of the strongest objections to the measure. Another great objection arose out of our assuming the immense debt of Texas, whose amount no one knew. He contended that there was no right to assume that debt.

His opposition was strengthened by the proposal to postpone the settlement of the Question of slavery until Texas was brought into the Union. It was dangerous to the Union not to settle that question in the outset. A great deal had been said about making this a sectional question. He thought the responsibility of giving such a character to the measure rested with the Southern members.

At the conclusion of Mr. Smith’s speech,

Mr. Owen, of Indiana, got the floor and delivered a constitutional argument in favor of the measure. His considered this a question of vast importance, which rose above all party considerations. One of the gentlemen who had preceded him, on the other side, having deprecated the indulgence of party feeling.

Mr. Hamlin, of Ohio, then got the floor and moved that the committee rise, which motion was carried and the committee arose accordingly.

RWv22i3 p2c6 Jan. 10, 1845

“From Texas,”

By the arrival of the Steamer Republic we have received our files of Texas papers to the 28th alt. Inclusive. They contain President Jones’ annual Message to Congress.- He remarks that the Republic has arrived at a crisis in its affairs fraught with deep and absorbing interest, but that the capacity of the people for self government, and for the maintenance of their independence have been tested and proved. He observes with pleasure the tide of emigration which has set in towards Texas – the uninterrupted administration of justice; the urgent necessity under which they were first put forth no longer existing. He further urges the utmost economy in the administration of the Government; the imposition of proper revenue duties by a Tariff; the passage of a law for classifying the debt of the country; the establishment of the seat Government at a proper place; the protection of the frontier, a revision of the penal code; the enactment of laws for perfecting the titles of settler, &c, &c. The Message is ably written and will command attention.

The House of Representatives have passed a bill changing the Sear of government to Austin. Its fate in the Senate is doubtful. [N. O. Bee.

RWv22i3p4c2, January 10, 1845


From the N. O. Bee

On Saturday the schooner Ventura from Vera Cruz arrived in our port bringing dates from that city to the 13th inst., and from Mexico to the 9th. The news is of the highest importance, and is as serious as unexpected, since previous advices had induced every one conversant with Mexican affairs to believe that Santa Ana would succeed in quelling the insurrection headed by General Paredes. – It appears, however, from the tenor of our intelligence, that the outbreak in question was not merely one of periodical seditious movements to which that country seems subject, but was the earliest symptom of deep felt and pervading dissatisfaction at the administration of the Dictator. The revolution which had commenced at Jalisco, spread almost simultaneously throughout every department; the popular feeling sided every where with the insurgents and so rapid and overwhelming was its course that in an incredibly short time, nearly all Mexico had joined in the movement, the administration was displaced and Santa Ana hurled from power and transformed from a dictator to a skulking fugitive. A singular and satisfactory feature in this revolution is the comparative peacefulness with which it has been effected. Scarcely any where was the radical change in the Government attended with bloodshed. It seems on the contrary a perfect revolution of public opinion, so universal and overpowering that resistance became at once altogether hopeless and unavailing.

For the following copious details we are in a great measure indebted to the polite attention of a Commercial House from which we have frequently acknowledged similar favors. We have also received several particulars from the Mexican Consul.

In the city of Mexico the disturbances commenced by a formal denunciation of Santa Ana by both branches of the Mexican Congress, whereupon Gen’l Canalizo, who during the absence of the president at Queretero, fulfilled his functions ad interim issued an order commanding Congress to dissolve, and for the purpose of preventing the publication of the decrees of that body, forcibly closed every printing office in the city, save Santa Ana’s immediate organ, the Diario del Gobierno. The order in question was signed by Canalizo and his ministers, Rejon, Haro, Barande, and Bayadre. As soon as this tyrannical decree was promulgated, great excitement arose; the news was rapidly spread about, and the garrison and people of Puebla, on the 3d inst., declaiming against the Government [ . . . ] offered an asylum to the members of Congress.

In the meanwhile, both the Liberals and Clergy in the Capital united in the revolutionary movement, and began to make preparations against the common enemy. Congress, as well as the Ayuntamiento, succeeded, in spite of Canalizo’s decree, in having secret circulars printed, which were actively disseminated among all classes. The government troops about the Palace, seeing symptoms of the coming storm, began to waver. After a few days of intense though quiet excitement, Congress and the party attached to the Constitution, assembled at the convent San Francisco, and a large number of young men, belonging to the middle and better classes, armed themselves in defence of the outraged Legislature and violated Constitution. – From the convent of San Francisco they marched to the National Palace, in which are situated not only the Military Barracks, but the halls of Congress, and called on Canalizo to surrender. The Provisional President at first endeavored to offer resistance, but his troops exhibited strong symptoms of irresolution and faithlessness, and Canalizo perceiving that no dependence could be placed in them, fled terrified into the interior of the Palace. At 2 o’clock P. M., Gen’l Herrera, leader of the Constitutional party, sent a message to Canalizo requiring him to issue orders recognizing the Constitutional Government and acknowledging the full exercise of its powers. Canalizo consented to deliver up the garrison upon condition that his person and those of the four Ministers should be respected. One of our letters states that Herrera and his troops forced an entry into the Palace, but that Canalizo in the confusion managed to escape. Another account declares that he was captured and detained a prisoner in the palace, together with [ . . . ], the Commandante General; Rejon and Haranda fled, while the Ministers of War and of the Home Department were set at liberty upon giving security for the observance of the laws, and their acknowledgment of the Constitution.

General Herrera next issued the following Proclamation:

“Jose Joaquin de Herrera, President of the Council of Government, to the inhabitants of the Capital:

“Mexicans: - A blind and audacious Government had violated the laws, believing that society was wholly dependent upon its decree. But I, having been invoked by all classes and by the principal commanders and chief of the Garrison, have re established constitutional order, and am proud of having spared to Mexico and her vast population the anarchy and dissentions arising out of merely isolated efforts. I therefore invite every patriot to rally around the legitimate government which I represent through the Constitution; and the national Congress, which has assembled within a few hours, will accomplish everything which the safety of the country requires from it. Thus will this momentous event be rendered worthy of national pride – a hope which is sincerely shared by your fellow citizen,


Mexico, December 6th, 1844.

On the 7th inst. a new Government was organized. – Gen. Herrera was constituted Provisional President of the Republic. His Cabinet consists as follows: Don Pedro Echeverria, Minister of Internal Affairs; Don Luis G. Cuevas, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Don Marian Rivepalacio, Minister of Justice and Public instruction; Gen Pedro Garcia Conde, Minister of War and Marine. The new ministry, we understand, in composed of the ablest and most honest men in the Republic. Around it are arrayed all the power, wealth and influence of the nation. Echeverria is a member of the firm of Widow Echeverria & Sons, well known in the commercial world for its respectability and influence. He was educated in and England is a man of enlightened and sagacious intellect. Senor Cuevas occupied the post of Minister for Foreign Affairs during the French contest, and acquitted himself with signal agility. He was educated for a diplomatic career, and figured once as Minister to Prussia. Conde is chief of the engineer corps; he is the son of a Spanish General and said to be a clever young man. We have reason to believe that under the new government no alternation will take place in the foreign relations of Mexico, but that on the contrary they will be maintained with increased vigor and energy.

No sooner was the revolution in Mexico completed than the city appeared to be filled with rejoicings and festivities. Every trophy of Santa Ana, his portraits and statutes were torn into shreds and shattered to pieces. His amputated leg, which had been embalmed and buried with military honors, was disinterred, broken to pieces and kicked about the town with every mark of indignity and contempt.

The revolution at Vera Cruz is best described in the following letter from a correspondent:

VERA CRUZ, 11th Dec., 1844.

Political affairs in this country have since taken a rather violent turn, but as yet, without blood being shed. The States of Queretaro, Zacatecas, Aguascalientes and Sinalda had joined already in Parades plans, when Santa Ana, at the head of about 10,000 good troops and 25 pieces of artillery marched on Queretaro on the 22d ult., where he arrived soon after, demanding that the “disponiencias,” but which, although the authorities were entirely left as Santa Ana’s mercy, was not complied with; on the contrary, the Junta Departmental, notwithstanding Santa Ana having threatened to send them in case of a refusal to the Castle of Ulloa, persisted firmly in their resolutions.

In the meantime, on the 29th ult., the deathblow to Government was truck by the latter itself. Gen’l Canalizo, as President as interim with his ministers, issued a decree on that day, by which the sittings of the Congress were put an end to for an uncertain period, the Executive declaring itself invested with unlimited power to decide any question, without consulting the Congress. This bold step created an immense sensation and excitement. First, Puebla rose, declaring against the Government; then Mexico followed, which had in its consequence the immediate overthrow of the government, the restitution of congress, and the formation of a new government, with Gen’l Jose Joaq. de Herrera, Presidente del Conseja de Gobierno, as Provisional President, who constitutionally had to take the chair in case of vacancy, or a temporary absence of the acting President of the Republic. On the new of the pronunciation of Mexico being received here on the 9th, the authorities of this place immediately determined on following the example, acknowledging the new order of things, as established at Mexico, after the pronunciation there.

The removing of Congress, although not openly dispersed by Santa Ana, yet it may be taken for granted has been done at his desire, and with this view of thing; at Mexico, Puebla and here, every thing bearing the name of Santa Ana or relating to him, his statues, portraits, &c., have been completely destroyed by the people, who, it may be said, hardly ever before showed so much interest and enthusiasm for their just cause. I am happy to advise that no excesses have been committed, at least not any of moment; here every thing passes of very quietly.

According to the last information, Santa Ana remains captive at Queretaro. Congress, it is said, has outlawed him in case he should not lay down the command of the troops, which latter it may be expected will gradually abandon him, and then he is doubtless done for. Appearances are quite against him.

Trade is, under such circumstances, not much thought of. Several robberies, to some extent have been committed on the road to Mexico and further in the interior, by which some merchants loose considerably.

We have likewise seen several letters from various parts of Mexico, all of which speak in glowing terms of the pacific accomplishment of the revolution, and of the beneficial results which are likely to flow from the establishment of a firm, vigorous, and above all, honest government, in lieu of the military despotism and grinding exactions, which have been under the dictatorship of Santa Ana crushed the people for the last few years.

The escape of Santa Ana is highly problematical. At the last advices he was at Queretaro with about 2,500 men. His troops were daily thinned by desertions. There is every probability that he will be ultimately left alone and that he may be so hemmed in by is enemies, as to leave him no chance of quitting the country. Should he succeed in escaping, he will proceed, as we are informed, to Cuba, where with his princely revenues he can still live in his accustomed splendor. His private fortune is estimated at some four millions of dollars. For the last twenty-three years, Santa Ana has with very brief intervals wielded the destinies of Mexico, but his career appears now to be really drawing to a close, leaving him the alternative of a disgraceful flight or an ignominious death.

We have been favored with a copy of the various protests and documents connected with the rise and progress of this revolution. We do not publish them in full as they have merely a local interest, and we have given so comprehensive an account of the whole affair, as to render their insertion unnecessary.

Jan. 14, 1845, vol. 22, is. 4p1 col. 1

“Texas – Rhode Island,”

A reference to the Congressional reports, will exhibit to our readers the two subjects which now engross the attention, and illustrate the character of the “Progressive Democracy” – a most benefiting title! – for they are ever progressing from bad to worse. Mr. Tibbatts introduces a series of resolutions pledging the protection of the United States to Texas against the hostility of any Foreign Power – in other words, Mexico. And Mr. Burke, the gentleman, if we are not mistaken, who voted against the reception of General Washington’s Sword, moves for ten thousand extra copies of the Locofoco Report on the Rhode Island controversy. In this one day’s proceeding we behold a true type of this extraordinary party: Every intent on disorganization, they foster Rebellion and opposition to constituted authority, whether manifested at home or abroad. With a question of Annexation pending before the Nation, these men would violate every principle of international law, by aiding and abetting a rebellious province against its parent Government. Promising neutrality towards Mexico, they would fight the battles of Texas – and in a spirit analogous to that of the old Spanish rule which hung first and tried afterwards, they would to war with Mexico – wrench her possessions from her, and then employ the Diplomatic skill of our Talleyrand and ****, J. C. Calhoun and Wilson Shannon , to test the independence of Texas, and exchange ultimatums on the subject of boundaries! How bright will be the glory of our arms. The veteran of the Seminole campaign may gain fresh laurels on the banks of the Rio Bravo. Military fame will again be in the ascendant and some future Democratic candidate for the Presidency will demand our favor in the name of a tawny scalp taken in the marshes of Florida, or some brilliant skirmish in Mexico where the numbers were only two to one in his favor!

Every effort at revolution extols the admiration of this order-loving democracy. The gloom of Dorr’s prison is confirmed by a promise of Legislative reaction! And should he muster courage enough hereafter to stand one round of his own Artillery, he may count upon the aid and comfort of this “fierce Democratic” in establishing that darling maxim of their hearts-

“That they shall take who have the power/And they shall keep who can.”

Jan. 14, 1845, RWv 22i 4p1c 4

“Annexation- Mr. Rives,”

The Washington correspondent of the Charleston Mercury, appears to think that the question of Annexation at this session is in the hands of Col Benton: why should that correspondent intimate a doubt as to the course of Mr. Rives? None that we have heard, is felt by Mr. Rives’ friends in this quarter. It is not imagined, we suppose, by any, that he so lightly made up his mind six or eight months ago, as to be prepared to change it already, or that he has been cajoled by those who only forget to abuse and learn to flatter, when they have a point to carry!

The Mercury’s correspondent says:

“The Whigs fear, and with reason, that a large majority of the House are now prepared to go for annexation in the abstract; and, after going thus far, they cannot split upon details.

“Most of the New York Democrats in the House are opposed to the measure, and two of them will speak against it. On the other hand, three or four Southern Whigs go for it, and the great body of the Democratic members.

“The Senate is now already divided on the question. Mr. Foster, of Tennessee, will go for annexation, and so will Mr. Johnson, of Louisiana, if instructed.

“Mr. Atherton, Mr. Fairfield, and the New York Senators go for it. Mr. Hannegan, who was absent when the vote on the treaty was taken, will now add his vote. Mr. Tappan and Mr. Allen will follow the lead of Mr. Benton.

“So, with Mr. Benton’s concurrence, I make twenty-eight votes for annexation,- leaving out Mr. Rives.

“The question is, will Mr. Benton take the responsibility of defeating the measure?”

Jan. 14, 1845, RWv22i 4p1c4

“General Assembly, Senate,”

Excerpt from Jan. 11, 1845

Mr. Thompson of K. offered the following resolution, which he would move to lay on the table, and consider on Wednesday nest.

Resolved, by the General Assembly, that the Annexation of Texas 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.

Resolved, that the Governor be requested to communicate a copy of the above resolution to each of the Senators and Representatives of this common wealth in the Congress of the United States.

Jan. 17, 1845, RWv22i5p1c2


 The Senate of Maine (largely Democratic) by a vote of 24 to 7 refused to instruct their Senators and Representatives in Congress to vote for annexation! An ugly sign for that holy brotherhood.

Gov. Wright, of New York, [Mr. Van Buren’s right hand man, and the next “Democratic” attempt to make him a party to it.

RWv22i6p1c3, January 21, 1845


This gentleman is a man of high reputed talents. He is a member of congress from Ohio – a very warm friend of Mr. Van Buren. – Cool, collected, able and sagacious (as report runs).

His speech upon the Annexation of Texas, we understand, is regarded as the most weighty, comprehensive and significant in its views which has been delivered – surpassing each side of the House by its sentiments, and impressing each side very decidedly, in favor of the Statesmanship and ability of the speaker.

We are therefore induced, not being able to publish the entire Speech, to publish the synopsis of it, furnished by “Oliver Oldschool,” the Correspondent of the U. States Gazette.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 1845.

“The debate proceeded in the House, and was carried on by Mr. Tibbatts, of Kentucky. Mr. Brinkerhoff, of Ohio, and Mr. Chappell of Georgia – the first and last in favor, and the other against it. Mr. Tibbatts, argued the question of Constitutionality somewhat at length, and Mr. Chappell spoke generally upon the subject. Mr. Brinkerhoff’s however, was the speech of the day, and told with more effect, perhaps, than any one that has been made, owing to his position, being an ardent of Van Buren, and one of the Ohio delegation who foresaw and proclaimed to their constituents and the country, through the Globe, the intrigue that was on foot to defeat the nomination of Mr. Van Buren.

Mr. B. treated the question as a southern, and a sectional one, as he said it had been proclaimed to be, by the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations. He contended that it was unjust to the North, to add so much slave territory to the United States; it would destroy that equilibrium of power which had ever been preserved in the Senate between the free States and the slave States. – But some gentlemen argued that as many free States as slave States would be formed out of the territory. Then why not provide now that it shall be the case? Why leave it as an adjourned subject of dispute, to be settled when surrounded with much greater difficulties than it is now?

Under some circumstance, he would be in favor of annexing Texas to the Union – he would be in favor of it, because he knew the advantage there was in having a “West,” as a field for the young and enterprising men of the country, who, owing to the influence of old and extensive families, accumulated wealth, associated capital, &c., in the old settled parts of the country, found themselves, unless they occupied, by birth, a certain position, cramped by these influences, and their energies repressed. He was in favor of it, on account of the additional trade and export that it would give to this country; but he was not in favor of annexing it merely for the purpose of extending “the area of freedom” to one race, who were to enjoy the privilege of freedom at the expense of another race being held in bondage. Never, never should it be annexed by his vote in this way. He noticed various reasons that had been urged in favor of annexation, some of which he contended were mere humbugs, while one or two, he admitted, had some plausibility and weight in them. One argument urged by him in favor of declaring, at this time, what portion of Texas should come into the Union, if at all as slave States, and what portion as free States, was, that if these were not determined upon, the freemen of the North would not emigrate to that country – they would not go there to labor beside the slave, and thus in the eye of the slave’s master, put themselves on a equality with them. They would do no such thing. Draw a line between slavery and freedom, and on one side of it would settle the hardy, independent yeoman of the North, and on the other, the planter with his slaves.

Again, if this line were not now drawn, if Texas were annexed unconditionally, how would it be hereafter? One State is admitted as a slave State; another knocks at the door of Congress for admission, and is told she cannot come in as a slave State. But they will reply, why not? Texas was a slave country when you annexed it, you said nothing about prohibiting slavery in any part of it then, and we have settled it with our slaves, which are our own property, and with which we cannot part. What will you say to these men then? Is it not easier to prevent this evil now, than to get over it then? “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof,” say some men. This is better scripture than statesmanship. Wit statesmen, evil should be foreseen and guarded against, or prevented altogether, not no engendered, as they would be if annexation took place without settling this question.

The administration seemed to be [ . . . ] solicitous on the subject, very anxious to regain what they allege once belonged to us and was unjustly parted with: but there was the territory west of the Rocky Mountains, which nobody doubted our [ . . . ] title to, which [ . . . ] under British jurisdiction and British laws. Whey was not the same anxiety felt to obtain possession of [ . . . ]? Why not the same means employed? Why, when [ . . . ] this question, they reply, we are “negotiating.” In reference to Texas, they play the gasco and the bully to Mexico most bravely, because the latter is weak and unable to resent it; but when they come to look the British Lion in the face, why they roar as gently as a [ . . . ] dove! Mr. Chairman, said Mr. B., I can tell you why this hot, this feverish, this impatient hast to get possession Texas, and is cold indifference in regard to Oregon, is because the first is to be settled by planters and the latter by farmers.

Mr. B. noticed the taunt which came from Mr. Yancy, that no Northern man had ever been re elected to the Presidency. It was well that that taunt had come from the quarter it had; it was needed:  we needed to be reminded of our vassalage to the South – we needed the stinging last supplied to our backs to remind us of our duty to obey our masters. We needed to be reminded of the defeat of one of the wisest statesmen the country possessed, (Mr. Van Buren,) by those who possessed all the patriotism in the country! We must of course bow our necks and bend our back to our masters!

This strain of irony and sarcasm, in which Mr. B. indulged for some minutes, produced a very strong sensation in the House. He had spoken with great [ . . . ] and vehemence, but when he came to notice the [ . . . ] his manner and emphasis gave peculiar force to his words while he thus rebuked the craven spirit of the North, he made the Southern Locofocos feel the sting of his bitter irony.

We have been told too, said Mr. B., that we are not a generous, warm, patriotic people at the North, - that these qualities belong South; there, and there only, is to be found that “enlarged patriotism” which extends over the broad prairies of Texas, and takes in every country that may tempt the cupidity of man, - that we are selfish. Yes, the North is selfish because she asks for half; while the generous South will be content with nothing less than all. She is extremely disinterested in demanding the whole, while we are taunted with selfishness when we ask our share only!

Mr. B. noticed the aid which his colleague (Mr. Dean) had generously lent the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Yancy) in berating the North and especially New England.  Well, this was a matter of taste in his colleague – if he chose to turn his battery against New England, he did not know any one who had a better right as he believed he was himself a native of that country. (great laughter.)

Mr. Dean desired to explain – he [ . . . ] that he was a Yankee [renewed laughter] and explained what he had said. In done this, he became so earnest and his manner was so vehement, that, taken in connection with his language, the scene was irresistible ludicrous, and the House was convulsed with laughter for some minutes. Mr. B. then went on a short time, in noticing the arguments urged in favor of annexation, and closed. He was followed by Mr. Chappell, and afterward Mr. Holmes, of S. C., obtained the floor, and at four o’clock the committee rose.”

RWv22i4p2c3, January 14, 1845

Last Orders from the Hermitage!

Gen. Jackson is again cracking his whip over the heads of the faithful, and requiring them in a letter to “my dear Mr. Blair” of Jan. 1st,. to admit Texas, instantly and without delay!

When will that old man think it becoming in him to retire from the stage and prepare for other scenes? And when will those who have so long degraded Republicanism and debased human nature by their servile submission to his rescripts, conceive that they have a right to dissent from his mandates and to think and act upon their own judgments?

He has again lugged in England, designing by doing so, to make an appeal to ignorance and anti-Anglican prejudice, and to introduce Texas, not through any argument of the value of Texas to the U. States, or of their right to annex, but that by her introduction England may be disappointed and circumvented! This is exactly the argument which Demagogism would address to ignorance and stupidity.

Gen. Jackson’s letter is this:

HERMITAGE, January 1, 1845

MY DEAR Mr. Blair? I cannot forbear, on this first day of the year 1845, 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 re-annexation of Texas. This argues want of unanimity in the Democracy upon this great national and most important subject. I have just received from Major Donelson, a letter dated at Washington, in Texas, from which I would infer, that if Congress expect to annex Texas to the United States, 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 Texans, 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 upan a treaty that Engilsh manufactures shall be free of duty, is gaining a party in Texas. – General Houston is still the leading star; and his influence can alone be counted upon to resist the present influence of England and its increasing power. How long this influence of England can be successful withstood in Texas, is becoming a very questionable matter. I have taken a view of the whole ground, given to all information its due weight, and I say to you that, unless Congress acts upon this subject promptly, Texas will be beyond our grasp, and lost to the United States forever, unless regained by the sword. What will be the situation of our country, with Britain manufactures introduced duty free into Texas? Comment is unnecessary.

I hazard nothing in saying that, if the present Congress do not act promptly upon the 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 Donelson’s letter, and other sources of information, the danger of losing Texas seemed so imminent, that, although feeble, I could not forbear to say this much to you, that you might communicate it to my friend. May God bless you and yours


Against Gen. Jackson, we quote the authority and opinion of Jno, Minor Botts. Jackson we know will carry the day with the ignorance and prejudice of the time; but Botts will carry it with the reflecting, with posterity, and in the judgment of the future historian.

In publishing Mr. Botts’ letter the other day, some sheets of it were omitted to be sent by him the Press. As it happens, they treat of this same question of English influence, and are a most conclusive reply to Gen. Jackson:

Mr. Botts says:

Another argument has been urged, with some apparent sincerity, particularly in letters signed by and said to have been written by Gen. Jackson, to wit: that we must take Texas into the Union to prevent a connexion being formed between that government and Great Britain – or, in other words, if we do not take Texas, Great Britain will! To which I answer, in the first place, that nothing is more unlikely than that Texas would be disposed to form such an alliance, even if it were desirable to Great Britain; but, in the second place, I answer, that Great Britain does not want it, if respect is to be paid to the most solemn and formal declarations made by the representatives of a powerful and honorable nation. Such a purpose has been disclaimed by the Ministry in Parliament, and formally disavowed by her Minister at Washington, and it rests only in the fertile imaginations of the mischievous, the interested and designing. Let us ask ourselves, what does Great Britain want with Texas? It would be only for the production of cotton, the cultivation of which she knows, as well as we, is adapted only to slave labor, and that she does not tolerate. As for her desiring to hold it for any useful purpose in time of war, it is to my mind all fudge. I pretend to no particular military science, but a knowledge of the geography of the country, satisfies me, that an appropriation of the establishment of a suitable naval depot and fort at Pensacola would give us the command, the lock and key to the gulf of Mexico; and then, with our inexhaustible supplies of timber on the Mississippi, and with the hardy sons of the great valley of the West, we might throw at any time, such a force of armed steamers upon the Gulf, (to say nothing of recent important discoveries in regard to harbour defences, as would entirely exclude Great Britain from all intercourse with Texas – even if she were in actual possession of it – she could, in that case, no more reach Galveston, or communicate with Texas, than she could send her fleet to the base of the Rocky Mountains: but if we were to take Texas, Great Britain could devise no more plausible pretest for grasping at Cuba, which would prove far more advantageous to her, than our possession of Texas could possible prove to us, and far more injurious to us, than her occupation of Texas – this argument, therefore, has o weight with me, and like the rest, is used only to gull the unthinking.

If, then, the question is put to me, whether there is no mode of annexing Texas to the U. States, provided they People of both countries desire it, I say, that Congress has no such power, under the Constitution, and cannot enlarge its own powers, even by the mighty authoritative and newly ascertained mode of settling grave national and foreign questions by joint resolution. If they desired to amend the Constitution for this purpose, it would first require a vote of two thirds of both Houses to submit the question, and then it would require (until Dorrism is successfully established) three-fourths of the State Legislatures to ratify it: therefore, I say, if the present Congress are anxious for annexation, let them, by a vote of two thirds of both Houses, pass a law submitting the question either to the People or to the State Legislatures – and if such a proportion as would be required to amend the Constitution, (to wit, three fourths,) should vote in favor of the measure, there would be some reason and plausibility for its adoption, though, in my opinion, no right – because, in a partnership concern, when there is no previous understanding or agreement for the admission of new members into the family, I cannot suppose that the sanction of three-fourths could take in a partner or partners against the will of the other fourth; but, according to the principles of common law and common sense, it would require the assent of the whole. But this would be showing a slight shade of respect for the People, by those who seem to regard the Government now in some degree under their control for the next two months, when their little brief authority will terminate, as actually belong to themselves.

But when they talk about annexing Texas to this government by the adoption of a joint resolution as now proposed, to with: “Resolved, (Texas assenting,) That it be and it hereby is, re-annexed to the United States” – it can only be regarded as the most impudent and ludicrous piece of foolery and jugglery that has ever been practiced or attempted. Pray will those gentlemen tell us what force there is in a joint resolution of such a character – how such a power as Mr. Jefferson thought could not be exercised by the only branch of the government, of whom it was ever claimed – I mean the President and Senate – is now to be carried into full effect in a few hours by a joint resolution! There is no contract in that joint resolution, and no power to make such a contract if there were one, and of course it is liable to be rescinded or repealed at any time hereafter: Then suppose the next or any future congress were to adopt another joint resolution, as follows: “Resolved, That Texas ought not, and, it is hereby declared, is not annexed to the United States” – what becomes of Texas – is it in or out of the Union? – or is it in to-day and out to-morrow?

Have the people lost all interest in and affection for their Government, or have they surrendered it into the hands of the Destructives and Disorgainzers, to be trifled with as a toy in the hands of children?

RWv22i4p2c4, January 14, 1845

“IL SECRETARIO” is no great admirer, it would appear, of General Ventose! No! Not of him who claims the right to annex Texas, under the exercise of the power of making war upon Mexico, and conquering Texas, if we should so make war? Not admire the author of that most profound discovery in Abstractionism? Does not the confession argue a great defect of taste in “Il Secretario”?

As to the “Impracticables,” respecting whom “Il Secretario” apostrophizes us, we hope we have seen the last of that pernicious sect, who traded in principle, and have proved there, as they have proved before, and ever will prove, Cow Boys! We place, and this community placed, no faith or confidence in men, professedly too honest to act with any party of their countrymen, but not too cringing and designing to sure for office and to accept it from either.

There are no Impracticables now!


Jan 17, 1845, RWv22i5, p.1, col. 3.

“Congress, Proceedings of Today, Senate,”

Excerpt from Mon, Jan. 3, 1845

Mr. Foster of Tennessee rose to present certain resolutions in reference to Texas annexation and prefaced their presentation with remarks of the following tenor, viz:-

That he had long entertained great anxiety upon this subject, regarding it as one that involved the harmony and integrity of the Union. He had not consulted with a single member of this body in the course he was about to pursue; nor had he ever said so much as he would now say, which was, that his social feelings had always been in favor of Texas. Had he no other reason for this?

He was but a man and could not but remember that at least one tenth of the citizens of Texas had been citizens of his own gallant State. He had not concluded upon any form for the annexation of Texas. On this point he had great doubts; but one thing he would say, viz: that he would never consent to the annexation of foreign territory unless it can be done upon the broad basis of our noble Constitution.

Mr. F. then sent his joint resolutions to the Chair, which were read and referred. The resolutions authorizes the preliminary steps to bring about the ultimate annexation of Texas to the United States.

Jan. 17, 1845, RWv22i5p1, col. 5
Keyword: Jackson’s 1819 cession of Texas to gain Florida

Texas – Mr. Adams – General Jackson – Mr. M, &c.

It would be superfluous now to say, for what length of time and with what acrimony and virulence Mr. Adams has been assailed by the Jacksonian myrmidons, and the whole tribe of Democratic party back, for having relinquished Texas by the Treaty of 1819, when he was Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe. It has been in vain that the obvious and conclusive defense was made for him, that he acted as an instructed agent and not as a principal – that he obeyed the directions of President Monroe, and did not pursue the inclinations and conviction of his own mind – that the revolutionary, if there was any, did not attach to the subordinate who negotiated the treaty with Spain, but to the superior who dictated his instructions.

In other cases, this defense would have been entirely sufficient and invincible! But not so in that of John Quincy Adams! His was an unpopular name! He was an unpopular man! Party could make capital for itself, by attacking him, however unjustly; and Demagogues were never yet known (and American Demagogues especially, the most odious of their kind) to be restrained in their pursuit of an end, by any consideration of liberality to persons or regard to justice. Mr. Adams was not only hated by the crew of whom we speak, but they identified him with the Whig Party, and proposed (as they have succeeded in doing!) to injure that party through his want of popularity in the South and West.

Equally vain was it for Mr. Adams to declare as he did formally that of Mr. Monroe’s cabinet (himself, Crawford, Calhoun, and Wirt) he alone was opposed to the surrender of Texas! The Democratic prints would never take the least notice of this most singular and important statement! They affected deafness, and pretended not to have heard it at all. It is no doubt so, as MR. Adams’ veracity has never been questioned, and his wonderful accuracy is proverbial. He has not been tripped up in any statement of fact that we are aware of, from Jonathan Russell down! Mr. Calhoun, the only surviving member of Mr. Monroe’s Cabinet except Mr. Adams, has not, that we are apprised, ever denied his statement. No one has denied it – and yet throughout the late canvass, and for years before and now, Mr. Adams is invidiously held up in the South and South West, as the Traitor who surrendered Texas in 1819, through his enmity to the South, to Southern interests and Southern institutions, and Mr. Calhoun has permitted this gross calumny still to circulate and to injure an innocent man when it was in his power, and as we conceive was his duty to have averted it.

But this is not all, or by any means the darkest part of these transactions: All the abuse of Mr. Adams for the surrender of Texas in 1819 has endured to the benefit of Gen. Jackson, his party in the country, and his two protégés and dictated successors, Mr. Van Burn first, and then Mr. Polk!

What will the country think – what will the world think – what will history think, when after the subsidence of party spirit, it comes to narrate the events of the time in which we live – when they all come to know, that while Mr. Adams was actually opposed to the surrender of Texas, JACKSON was in favor of it, and approved the whole Treaty of 1819, the boundary lines and all! We confess our own astonishment at the discovery of this fact, and how much more ought the Antediluvians to be astonished at it, if perchance they ever hear of it!

We affirm the fact to be so, and as we fully believe, beyond the possibility of a doubt or a cavil.

In May 1836, Mr. Adams, in his place in the House, made the following detailed statement :

“The treaty was signed on the 22d of February, 1819, and he presumed it was in the recollection of many members of the House, the General Jackson was at that time in this city, and that was the celebrated session during which is proceedings in the Seminole war were subjects of deliberation both Houses of congress; and General Jackson was here during the consideration for that subject, and was here at the time of the conclusion of the treaty.”

“But to come to the precise point. After the Treaty had been framed, and ready to receive the signatures of the contracting parties, but before there was any obligation upon our part to sign it, by the express direction of Mr. Monroe, he (Mr. A.) took the treaty, drawn up as it was, to General Jackson, not as to the military commander of the army of the United States, but as to a highly distinguished citizen of the United States, whom, being here at the time, the then President of the United States thought proper to consult upon a subject of such great importance. He took the treaty to him at his lodgings, which were in a house at that time kept, he believed, by Mr. Strother. He took and delivered that treaty into the hands of General Jackson, with the particular request from Mr. Monroe, that he would read it over and give his opinion upon it. He would state further that General Jackson kept the treaty some time, possible not more than one day, but he kept it a sufficient time to for a deliberate opinion upon it, and that he (Mr. A.) called upon him after a day or two, and that he returned the treaty, with his approbation of that particular boundary.”

Gen. Jackson (then President) authorized the Globe to state, when this revelation was made, that he had no recollection of the circumstances, and that paper attempted to show by circumstantial proof, that Mr. Adams lied!

Mr. Adams, as usual, permitted the matter to rest there, too proud to vindicate his veracity.

Recently Mr. Governor of N. York, son in law of Mr. Monroe, published an article in the national Intelligencer, under the signature of “G,” which contains this statement:

“It is eminently due to the memory of Mr. Monroe explicitly to state that, in the execution of the high duties involved in this measure, he did not fail to avail himself of all the lights which patriotism and experience would shed upon it. Its provisions were the subject of friendly consultation with Jefferson and Madison, names identified with no concession unworthy of their country: and the policy dictated, especially as to boundary, has the written approbation of Jackson, well verse in the localities of a territory to which they refer, then lately the scene of military service distinguished by high personal responsibility, which gave him new claims to the grateful recollections of his country.”

A few days ago in the Texas Debate, Mr. Kennedy, of Baltimore, thus spoke in the H. of Representatives:

“In this part of his argument, Mr. K said that the treaty of 1819 was approved of by the people of the U. States, and that Gen. Jackson himself gave it his unqualified approbation. He begged the reporters to notice this assertion, that Gen. Jackson approved of the treaty of 1819 in the broadest and most extensive terms; and asserted that, if the friends of Gen. Jackson denied it, there were letters of his extant to prove the truth of what he asserted.”

There is no longer any doubt at all, that among the Monroe paper in possession of this son-in-law, Mr. Governor letters from Gen. Jackson, expressly and unqualifiedly approving the Treaty with Spain, and the surrender of Texas in 1819 – that act for which Mr. Adams has been exposed to so much obloquy, and for his assumed opposition to which the “Hero” has been so much glorified!

“Truth crushed to earth, will rise again!” Aye! but when? That is the question! When the evils which might have been averted, are hopelessly fixed upon the country! Truth we know will prevail in the end – at the day of judgment, if not before! But why not let her prevail as soon as possible, and why should Mr. Adams have withheld this curious history and the proof of its reality, and suffered the Whigs to be bestrode and redden down by this Texas matter and its history, when it was in his power all along, to have unhorsed the hobby riders? What will it avail now, save only to ascertain fact to the future historian. We hope Mr. Adams will now come out with a fell expose!

Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p1c4

“Correspondence of the Whig, Jan. 16, 1845,”

Writing, you know, chiefly to keep you well, or at least informed, I must sometimes take up my pen for but as single event, if it seems unlikely to be borne to you by the papers of the morrow.

Such is likely to be the fact as to the passage through the Senate of the Chinese treaty; which is reported to me to have happened to day, in secret session. I do not doubt the information, though derived from no positive source – because there could be little doubt of the confirmation of the treaty.

In my very rapid glance, last night, over the probabilities of failure of the Oregon negotiation, I find that one possibility was not adverted to, which may, at first view, appear of consequence:- that, I mean, of a reference of the disputed rights to some high arbiter abroad – an European Sovereign.

It seems to me unlikely that any such umpirage has been arranged; and though there is not telling what foolery a man of metaphysics, like Mr. Calhoun, may not have committed, I am sure that, if He was assented to such a thing, the public of this country will not. Inflammatory councils on one side, and the certainty of their success on the other, will forbid any toleration of such a resort.

We are, in a word, as it seems to me, about to be made to taste the disastrous consequences of these far-stretched pretensions, difficult to achieve and useless when achieved. They are any thing but a wise or right policy for a system like outs. Of it, there remote possessions, incapable of union, not to be retained except as dependencies, to be as such defended only a great cost, can never be a proper part. To us, for full a century to come, Oregon can be, at best, only a colony, to be reached by the circumnavigation of cape Horn. Can the obtaining it serve to us any purpose of aggrandizement? Can distant and therefore insecure colonies aggrandize us? Can they aggrandize any people that cannot command access to them by the seas? And why would a people with a whole border of fertile wastes, with vast unoccupied tracts in their very midst soliciting population, run thousands of miles off, and plant the remote and insecure in vain and foolish contempt of the contiguous?

I say, therefore, that, in mere national vanity, we have grasped at what we cannot take and yet must no quit. How are we to wrest it from Great Britain? Only by marching forces whither even bands of hunters can hardly pass, over a space and through difficulties to which Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia was but a morning’s walk. I am firmly persuaded that with but the marines which England can land from her navy already commanding that sea – with but a thousand soldiers – she can repel any force that we can ever march across the rocky Mountains. To talk of our dispatching a thousand me thither, is ridiculous, whatever western vaunts may say of it. Is an army to hunt its way to the Columbia?

I but suggest these ideas, because I am in the habit of saying to the public truth, whether it chooses to relish it of not. The last is its affair, not mine. It strikes me, then, that we have, most prudently, involved ourselves in a contest from which was will not and cannot recede, for that which we have no hope of obtaining, and which would be worse than useless if we could obtain it. In a word, w may take Canada – at least Upper Canada; but Oregon we cannot get. Nevertheless, understand me as only uttering what I generally abhor – a political speculation; for, as I have said, I now that we are involved, by a false policy, and by the mistaken public passions which it has engendered, in a thing from which there is no retreating. I think you may consider it certain, that we are now to have in the next Senate, Webster, John M. Clayton, and Reverdy Johnson. The former will succeed Mr. Choate, the two latter, Bayar and Merrick.

The Globe – either seeing that the demand for General Jackson’s Texas Letter of 1819 to Mr. Monroe cannot be evaded, or perhaps unaware of its precise tenor (which the Hero himself perhaps has forgotten – some people you know have proverbially had memories) – has challenged the production of that remarkable epistle. I fancy that the call will not long remain unanswered.

The final development of the McNulty business may be expected tomorrow – that is, if this worthy does not run away or get shot in the meantime, as he was very near doing, last night, in a brawl down at the Steam boat Landing, where he and a gambling companion of his got into an affray with the tavern-keeper, who rid himself of Mr. Banks (the company) with a pistol, wounding him with two buck shot.

We have an intermission of Texas today.



Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p1c6


The news from this distance country is again important, and will again strengthen the hands of the Piracy meditated in the United States against her rights and the laws of nations.

Little doubt, we presume, can now be entertained, that Gen. Santa Ana is overthrown, and we presume finally, and without the power of rallying.

Santa Ana’s personal fate from the effect of the Revolution, is still in obscurity.

We confess our regret at this unexpected Revolution in Mexico, and for two reason; 1st, We how not the remotest idea that the people of Mexico are fit for self-government, and firmly believe that they require a master who will hold a tight rein over them. We are not aware that they possess a citizen more competent to this task than Gen. Santa Ana, whose energy, vigor and talents are unquestionable. 2d, The Revolution in Mexico, it is obvious, strengthens the Texas party in this country. Violently opposed to ‘annexation, and transference of the reins of government from the hands of Santa Ana must be regarded as an indirect relaxation of that principle on the part of the Republic or Mexico. The Texas party in this country will not be slow to avail themselves of it.

Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p1c6

“From Texas and Mexico,”

By the arrival of the steam packet New York, Capt. Wright in 42 hours from Galveston, we have been put in possession of Texas papers to Tuesday the 7th inst., inclusive. The most important intelligence in these journals is that of the progress of the Mexican Revolution, and retreat and defeat of Santa Ana by General Paredes. It appears that the sloop H. L. Kinnedy, Capt. Lewis, arrived at Galveston on the 4th, direct from Corpus Christi, bringing the news which had reached the latter place from Matamoros through letters. These communication state that Gen. Paredes at the head of 8000 men marched against Santa Ana, who at that time had 13000 troops under his command. On the approach of Paredes, Santa Ana immediately retired, great numbers of his soldiers deserting his cause. His retreat extended to the city of Puebla, where he was attacked by Gen’l Paredes and defeated.

Gen’l Santa Ana, 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, says the Galveston civilian, the victory was achieved by Gen’l 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’l Canales in conjunction with Arista, were marching at the head of a large force against Gen’l Woll, who still held out in favor of centralism.

The revolution broke out in Matamoros on the 19th, ult. On the reception of the news in Matamoros, 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. Cela the commandant of the city was seized and imprisoned – the shout for liberty and down with centralism became general in all quarters; until the revolutionist had proved 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’l Jose Ortega, Governor of the city of Monterey, who was publicly butchered for his faithful adherence to the cause of Santa Ana.

We give the above intelligence was we find it in the Texas papers, though we do not very well understand how Santa Ana could have had 13000 men under his command when attacked by Paredes, if the accounts be true which stated that his troops had been reduced to a mere handful by desertion.

On the night of the 27th ult, upwards of fifty horses were stolen from Corpus Christi. The Caronkawa Indians are likewise committing depredations upon the property of the inhabitants, surrounding Aransas Bay.

The Gazette gives a rumor that Gen. Duff Green, U. S. consul at Galveston, has been harshly treated by the Executive, but knows nothing of the particulars.

 It is stated that the bill to remove the Seat of Government to Austin, has passes both Houses and will become a law. -N. O. Bee

Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p2c4

“Gen. Houston of Texas,”

Gen. Jackson in his last letter, ordering the instant annexation of Texas, having re-endorsed the character of his Protégé, Houston, late President of Texas, and a worthy disciple of such an instructor, and alleged in effect, the incredible statement, that it is owing to Houston alone, that England has not acquired Texas – we think it appropriate to counteract the effect of the Hero’s letter, by the following charges from a Galveston paper, avouched to be true by Wm. L. Coneau, an officer in the Texan army, represented as a gentleman of character and veracity:

“I charge Sam Houston with a misapplication of $20,000, appropriated for frontier defense, and used by him for dismantling it.

I charge him with willfully neglecting to carry out the law appropriating $15,000 for the relief of our suffering countrymen in the dungeons of Mexico.

I charge him with abstracting from the State Department a law prescribing the manner in which the elections fro chief Justice should be held in the counties of Goliad, San Patricio and Refugio.

I charge him with the issuing of a draft on the custom House of par funds to Anson Jones for the purchase of the newspaper Houstonian, now Democrat.

I charge him with corresponding with the national enemy, Seguin and Antonio Parez.

I charge him with a cowardly desertion of the seat of government established by law.

I charge him with ordering out an armed force to effect an illegal object, at the risk of civil war.

I charge him with thwarting and defeating the retaliating campaign against the Rio Grande, from the mean dread that some REAL hero might arise to eclipse himself.

I charge him with submitting to the grossest insults from Mexico, and bringing contempt and disgrace on the national character for the same base reason.

I charge him with having caused the dissemination of the Mier prisoners.

 I charge him with abstracting from the mail a letter addressed to Col. Jones, of Travis, from Col. Watson, of this place.

I charge him with having connived at breaking the seal of a private letter, in conjunction with one of his meanest tools in this city – a private letter address by Judge Morris, of Galveston, to Mr. Tankersby, of Houston, with the President himself acknowledged having read.

I charge him with having permitted Dr. Anson Jones to draw 4270 for traveling expenses, from Austin to Burleigh, in visiting his family, and back, at eh rate of 30 cents per mile, transportation, and $4.50 per day horse hire, and call upon the auditor to deny the charge.

I charge him with paying Captain Read, of steamboat Mustang for the transportation of his furniture, out of the money appropriated by congress for conveying Government Expresses.

I charge him with having attempted, through his Commissioners, a treasonable armistice with Mexico, based upon the surrender of our nationality.

I charge him with having inhumanly denounced the navy of the country as pirates to the world, while gallantly engaged in combat with the enemy’s fleet.

I charge him with the unmanly persecution of the commander of the navy for defending his country, conduct which he has the meanness to envy, without the courage to imitate.

I charge him with disgracing the first office in the nation by habitually mendacity.

Jan. 19, 1845, Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p2c7

“Correspondence of the Whig,”

Again, on yesterday, the business of the House of Representatives consisted of little but a very bad attempt at performing the duties of a criminal court. They once more arraigned their defaulting and now deficient clerks for that worthy only appeared “vicariously” (as Mr. Benton hath it) through his agent, Mr. Kershaw, and is now gone, where the public money went before him. Never mind: we shall soon have him: annex away, and we shall recover him, along with quantities of other citizens equally valuable. Who knows? Why, by the time we get Texas in, he may be Secretary of the treasury there! Nothing more likely: for did not Mr. Hollingsworth embezzle the Government funds as U. S. District Attorney for Tennessee? And didn’t he, when discovered, “put out” for the land of the Lone Star, [so called, no doubt, because of the many who travel thither by starlight?] and, as soon as he got there, the fame of the exploit having traveled before him, didn’t they make him Chief Justice of Texas? I cede did they. I have the history from the surest source.

Well, the worthy member from Lexington, in your State, Chairman of the committee on Accounts, rose, after some little progress in the calendar of Private bills, and told his tale. Mr. McNulty, according to his wont, and aided by the discreet measures of the House, had not appeared before him at the hour indicated. He had waited, as they wait who have much faith, and as they must sometimes perforce wait who have none. The latter, I fear, was Mr. Taylor’s predicament; for be is a man of sense, Vain, however, were his expectations! Mac was missing!

“He comes not, ne’er will come again!”

In a word, he found it more convenient to appear in that House, as the people does, by deputy, so he produced himself, by proxy, in the shape of another, perhaps almost as fit to be laid by the heels as himself, that is, his missing and cashless cashier, Mr. Kershaw: who, to save blushes, presented himself in lieu of modest Mac, bearing with him an epistle from his principal. When asked something about the desired object, the chink, this excellent accountant replied, with a most engaging simplicity, that after the very luminous exhibit which his superior had bade, he himself would not presume to attempt any further to illuminate a House already so radiant with Democracy. So, after [I suppose] quoting Pope’s panegyric on pot hooks,

“Heaven first sent letters for some wretch’s aid,” he drew forth another missive from his chief, in which that ingenuous person (who eke n the Ohio Legislature, applauded the mobs that pulled down and rifled Banks, and who now claims to leave deposits in all sorts of Rag-mills) assured the Committee that he had some 20 or 30,000 dollars (no matter which) in the vaults of the Bank of North America in New York.

For my part, I am only puzzled so imagine with what sort of looks Mr. Taylor and his associates received these impudent communications, or how he could help picking up a chair and knocking the fellow on the head. I presume however, that when the committee walked off to communicate the very satisfactory results Mr. Kershaw went after them that impressive salutation which is performed by joining the tip of the left hand thumb to the summit of the right hand little finger and then applying, with sundry graceful flourishes of the unemployed digits, the right hand thumb to the apex o the nose. Possible to he breathed that significant interrogatory which sometimes aids the gesture, “Does your mother know you are out?”

Well: upon the Report, the House, now somewhat indignant at the facility with which their friend had played upon them, proceeded to break them: but not, as you will perceive, ‘til he had first broke them. For he has probably left them more bills to pay than money. He has also attained a glory which I had never expected to see any man arrive at in that House – a glory reserved, like so many others, to the Progressive Democracy – the glory of uniting all voices; for the vote to dismiss him was unanimous. Even the metal of Mr. Weller, who yesterday assured the House of his innocence, and pledged himself and his fellow sureties to make good any minus that might appear against the clerk, gave way. He still stuck to his persuasion that nothing would be lost; but avowed that he had been deceived in his expectations of yesterday and placed in a very embarrassing situation. I do not find, however, that he took the trouble to reduce to any available form the guarantee which he before offered.

The other Resolutions brought in by the committee were afterwards adopted; that directing the Secretary of the Treasury to proceed against his sureties; and that directing the President to cause him to be persecuted criminally. In the latter Instruction, they were far less scrupulous than they had shown themselves about punctilios as to arresting and detaining him.

At any event, this strange facility of leaving him at large has rendered their present zeal of persecution somewhat nugatory. He was sought for, by the Police, all last night, but “the place that knew him shall know him no more,” and Texas hath one more patriot.

For my part, I took it upon him as a persecuted individual, the martyr of his principles. Such was his reputation, that the House might just as well have trusted him after the fact as before it. He was the perfection of a Jacobin, and would have made Mr. Ritchie a first-rate head man, if haven had only given him Richmond as his residence. He had some demagogue talent and was, I think, one of the most unabated blackguards I have ever seen. But certainly, upon the principle established by the Democracy, in the famous Mississippi case of the Land Receiver, his removal is a grievous hardship: for was it not then settled that when a man becomes gorged with embezzlement, he is at once safer than all others as a depository of the public cash, inasmuch as he that already has hi skin full cannot devour or guzzle as they would do who are yet empty? Such was the philosophy of Messrs. Woodbury and Van Buren.

But mark! This man, who thought Banks so dishonest that it was right for mobs to plunder and sack them, and who, in half a year, besides other frauds which will yet appear, has made way with probably 50,000 dollars of public money, was last summer detected, at a Congressional mess, in cheating at Brag. He was kicked down stairs; and, almost with the prints of that shoe leather in his flesh, was within a week or ten day, haranguing a democratic assemblage here, about Mr. Clay’s fondness for cards! He was again detected, beyond question, in hiding bullets and braggers, during the Christmas holidays! These things were known to many members of congress, and the utter laxity of his principles, his debaucheries and vices of every sort, notorious.

But when, alas! Is the league of those who are esteemed virtuous merely because they always prate of virtue, patriotic because they always have the words of freedom in their mouths, and statesmen because they can theorize, to be broken? The people do not take men to be the most religious, who profane the name of god the most frequently: why, then, should they think those most zealous for the public good, who give no proofs of it but by their incessantly desecrating its divinest words with their foul lips?

Il Secretario


Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p4c5


The department of Tabasco has pronounced against Santa Ana’s Government. On the 9th ult, Gen’l Ampudia published a proclamation to this effect, and the same day the Ayuntamiento and the garrison followed their leader’s example.

We have been shown an intercepted letter written by Santa Ana to Valentin Canalizo, and dated Queretaro, the 6th of December. This letter is a reply to a dispatch addressed to Santa Ana by Canalizo, and dated the 4th. The following is the substance of the letter, which is will be perceived, was written the very day on which the revolution broke out at Mexico.

“However disagreeable may be the defection of Inclan, it is of little consequence, if met with firmness and energy.

“The army is all on the march, and as it was necessary to divide the forces in order to effect a decisive stroke, I am preferring for Paredes, who does not budge from Aransas, on the route to Guadalajara, it is impossible to order a countermarch of the 2,500 men of which you speak, as it would occasion entirely too much confusion.

“I have, however, given orders to dispatch to you the 8th regiment of infantry and the active squadron of Tlaxcala, which I had left in garrison for reinforcements. The two will constitute an effective force of 600 men, you may augment the eighth with the battalion of recruits which may be prepared before hand, as the battalion will arrive in six days and the squadron in four.

“You may likewise assemble the squadron of Tula, which consists of pretty good troops, and a few detachments besides in the vicinity of the capitol.

“I am of the opinion that not a soldier should be allowed to leave his post until the arrival of these forces – you know the petty officers of the army – they cannot be lost sight of with safety.

“I am in hopes that the Commanders Gaona, Mendoza, Ullarte and others will arrest Inclan. Should I be disappointed it will be of little consequence, as without arms and munitions they can accomplish nothing.

“Only preserve the capital with 3000 faithful men well stationed, and the revolution at Puebla will prove of no importance. There may be some few outbreaks which will cease as soon as Paredes is beaten, and this will be done in eight or ten days. I have already informed you that Zacatecas is tranquillized, and the surrounding departments, though filled with agitators, are free from turbulence or commotion.

“General Juvera is well disposed towards the government, and is in command of this place with 600 men and three pieces of artillery.

“Although timorous, General Cortazar is in the right path, and serves the cause of the government.

“It is indispensable to secure Pedraza, as well as the petty chiefs of the revolution, in order to disconcert their plans. The dissolution of the factious assemblies such as the Ayuntamiento and Junta Departmental, is not important, as they will be forced to submit when they behold the denouement of the drama.

“The election of the Command of Puebla appears to me certain, and likewise that of second in commandcMendoza. This will aid the government, and produce a good effect.

“The news from the squadron at Puebla is satisfactory. It is probable that Inclan has been arrested. In one word, comrade, resolution, and exemplary chastisement for all the chiefs of the conspiracy! Do not stop halfway. Nothing is more fatal in critical moments than weakness and indecision.”

In a letter to Rejon we find the following passage:

“Energy, no pausing before the means necessary to be employed. In crisis like the present firmness and blows settle every thing.” -N. O. Bee.

Jan. 28, 1845, RWv22i8p1c1

“From Washington, Fate of the Texas Movement,”

Let us be permitted to caution the country as to the statements which appear in the papers devoted to the immediate annexation of Texas, and which represent that event as certain or next to certain.

Those statements are probably in every case, from the pens of partisans and interested persons, me whose wishes are fathers to their thoughts, and whose purses control their thoughts and wishes both. They are bold speculations intended to bring about the end desired, not faithful representations of fact.

We believe we can assure the Public, that Texas will NOT be annexed, and that whatever the House may order, the Senate, by a great majority, composed of both great political parties, will arrest the movement to annex by Legislation; the most unqualifiedly profligate violation of the Constitution ever yet attempted.

The people, in truth, do not desire annexation now, all at once, in such hot haste and tremendous hurry, if eve. They have got along without Texas, for two hundred and thirty years, and think they can manage to do so still. It is the Texas Land mongers and Scrip-speculators only, who are in this wonderful hast to CLUTCH THE SPOILS.

Jan. 28, 1845, RWv22i8p1c3

“Passage of the Resolutions of Texas Annexation,”

As we thought probable, the resolutions annexing Texas passed the House of Representatives on Saturday, ayes 120, nays 98. Eight Whigs voted for them, viz, Messrs. Peyton, Senator, Ashe, and Milton Brown, of Tennessee; Messrs. Clinch and Stevens of Georgia; Dellet, of Alabama; and Newton, of Virginia. Their votes reversed, would have produced nearly a tie.

Towards the close of the debate, Mr. Rayner, of North Carolina, rose and said: “He called upon the reporters to note it particularly, that no Southern Whig, who was in favor of the annexation of Texas, had been allowed to address the House during the debate. By some system of management, Southern Whigs had been deprived of the floor and thus prevented from explaining their position and giving their reasons for the course they intended to pursue.” [Mr. Hopkins, of Virginia, who occupied the Chair, called Mr. Rayner to order, and said he could not permit reflections to be made upon the Presiding office.”]

The forms of resolutions adopted, was that offered by Mr. Milton Browne, of Tennessee, and Mr. Foster of Tennessee, in the Senate, (providing for the adoption of one Texas slave state and one Texas free state) providing for the adoption of one Texas slave state now, and four hereafter, if the people prefer slavery.

Mr. Hale’s proposition for making two States of Texas received but 16 votes.

By the resolutions, as adopted, slavery in the States to be created out of Texas, is to exist or not, as the people may prefer.

The debts of Texas are not toe assumed by United States, but provided for out of the Texas public land fund.

(This if sustained by the Senate, is a great measure, the consequences of which, foreign and domestic, remote and immediate, commercial political, and religious, can be foreseen not even guessed at by human ken! It may produce a dissolution of the Union as it exists, and new confederacies among the States, war with Mexico and possibly England, and civil war; or it may produce none of these and result in strengthening and enriching the American People, in extending the area of Liberty and civilization, and the Anglo Saxon tongue, religion and civil Institutions. We have always dreaded the consequences more than we hoped from them, because knowing that this great measure sprung from a political intrigue and the cupidity of speculators, we would not feel justified in the expectation that what was born in iniquity could lead to glory and happiness. But Providence chooses its instrument by rules hidden from mortal eyes, and we humbly trust that such may be the case now, and that what appears to us of so doubtless and alarming import, is yet destined to effect final good.)

But the measure has yet to pass the fiery ordeal of the Senate, a body very different in constitution and character from the House. Our information leads us to the firmest assurance that the resolutions cannot pass the Senate. That body will not consent to be goaded on by the system of “overseeing,” so successfully practiced against recusants in the other House: they will certainly take time for the widest enquiry and the most mature consideration. Nearly every Senator will desire to address his constituents, and this will very probably bring the 4th March: But there is supposed to be decided majority against annexation, by legislation in any shape, in not by treaty, too.

Jan. 28, 1845, RWv22i8p1c3

“Santa Ana and Mexico,”

The news from Mexico is so important as well as so curious and unexpected, bearing too upon the fortune of movements in the U. States that we insert it to the exclusion of a press of other matter of much interest.

(This news is crowded out by Foreign news.)

We shall not speculate upon the circumstances so ably reviewed and lucidly collated by the Picayune, farther than to express the decided conviction that if Santa Ana has really approached the Capital so near as five miles and at the head of so large a force, that the contest has been decided in his favor.

Jan. 28, 1845, RWv22i8p1c3

“Texas Vetoed by the Legislature of Louisiana,”

We have omitted to state what we hear is the fact, that the Legislature of Louisiana have rejected resolutions in favor of annexation by a vote of 48 to 46.

The explanation is of more importance than the fact. That we do not doubt is contained in the present ruinously low prices of the great Southern staples of sugar and cotton.

A correspondent of the National Intelligencer writes:

New Orleans, Jan. 11, 1845,

“I find that the very low rates of both sugar and cotton are already beginning to open the eyes of some of he strong advocates for the annexation of Texas, and will no doubt make many pause in their exertions to attain that object. I do not consider that he question of annexation can come into the next Presidential canvass, but that it must and will be settled definitely, on way or the other, at the next session of congress, or, at any rate, within the first two years of Mr. Polk’s administration. I ought, therefore, not to be any longer considered as having any party bearing, but should both by Whigs and Locofocos, be taken up on the pure merits of the question; and I most sincerely hope it will be discussed in this spirit at Washington.”

It has ever been a subject of surprise to us that the planting States of S. Caroling, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama and the Floridas should favor a step so fatal to their prosperity if Texas be the Egypt in fertility represented. An ultimate and extensive reaction much take place in popular opinion in those regions, and it was to give time for nation reflection upon a subject of such immense import, that we have ever chiefly opposed Immediate Annexation. If immediately annexed and the measure should prove disastrous, it would also be irreparable.

Jan. 28, 1845, RWv22i8p1c3

“Lashing them in,”

From the N. Y. Tribune:

The Richmond Enquirer closes an article on the Annexation of Texas as follows:

“We rejoice that those deserting Democrats, who oppose this vital question, which Mr. Polk so anxiously desires to be settled at this session, will have nothing to expect from his Administration. Those Northern Democrats, who avail themselves of this critical contest with our great Trans-Atlantic rival, to indulge their fanatical hatred of the South, will find themselves mistaken in their calculations – marked by a great national sentiment in their turn – and we dare to say, that if they should defeat us, we shall have at least the consolation of knowing, that they will be hereafter defeated in their own aspirations.”

‘Boys, do you hear that?’ ‘No song, no supper.’ You must go Texas, or you get no offices from Polk! They didn’t talk so before Election.

RWv22i8p2c1, January 28, 1845


From the N. O. Picayune.

By the arrival yesterday of the ship Hermann, Captain Welch, from Vera Cruz, we have dates from that city up to the 2d inst. To give a full account of all the occurrences in the distracted Republic since our last would occupy our entire space – we must therefore, as briefly as possible, detail the principal events which have transpired.

From all we can gather, by our files of papers, our correspondence, and verbal accounts, it would seem that Santa Ana is still in the field arrayed against the new government, and with a force far from inconsiderable at his disposal. – The report of his being defeated by Paredes, at Puebla, as we anticipated, was entirely without foundation.

A friend at the City of Mexico has sent us a supplement of the Diario del Gobierno, dated on the 27th January, which contains a long correspondence between Santa Ana and the new President, Herrera, the substance of which will be found below. Santa Ana’s last letter was written on the 25th at Huehuetoca, a small village but a few leagues from Mexico. Verbally we learn that the dictator was within five miles of the city on the 28th, that the roads leading to it in every direction had been cut up and barricaded, that the citizens were under arms, and the Gen. Paredes, with a force of 6000 men, had gone out to meet Santa Ana. The force on the latter we have no means of ascertaining. One account places it at 10,000, of which 2000 are said to be splendid cavalry; but other reports make out the entire strength of the tyrant as much less. Our readers will understand that but little reliance can be placed in some of these rumors, when we state that the Courrier Francais of the 25th December mentions that Paredes, at last dates, was at Lagos, a small city some ten or fifteen leagues northwest of Guanajuato, with a force of 3000 men, and was expecting reinforcements from both Zacatecas and San Luis. It may be that Bravo had gone out to meet Santa Ana, as he had arrived at the city a few days before and had taken sides against the tyrant.

But in order more fully to give our readers an idea of the present situation and prospects of Santa Ana, we must take them back to the time when he first hears of the Revolution in the city of Mexico, and the imprisonment of Canalizo. Want of room prevents us giving other than a mere synopsis of a correspondence which occupies pages of the Mexican journals.

On the 18th of December, Santa Ana addressed to Gen. Herera a letter from Celaya, in which he states, that while on his march to put down the rebellion of Paredes, he received at Siloa, the intelligence of the insurrection of the 6th December, by which Canalizo was hurled from power. He had waited for this intelligence to be communicated to him officially, and to be invited to take charge of the Government as the Constitutional President. Upon learning afterwards, that the command of the army had been intrusted to Gen. Cortazar, he determined to address the government to know if it would then commit to him the public authority to be administered according to the Organic Bases, in order that he might accordingly regulate his line of procedure. At the same time, he protests against the imprisonment of Gen. Canalizo, as contrary of the Bases, while acting as President of the Republic. He then declares himself at the head of an army full of spirit and enthusiasm, and determined to march upon the capital to re-establish order.

The Foreign Secretary, Cuevas, replies to this under date of the 21st December. Without deigning to reply directly to Santa Ana’s demands, he rebukes him for calling that an insurrection which is in fact a unanimous manifestation of the national will. He justifies the course of conduct pursued by the Government towards Canalizo, and then enters upon an enumeration of the acts of tyranny of Santa Ana in violation of the Organic Bases. He then orders him to give up the command of the army to Gen. Cortazar, to suspend his march upon the capital, and to place himself at the disposition of the government, to be tried for alleged offences by the two chambers. A warm appeal is made to his magnanimity, his sense of the honors showered upon him by the country, and the absolute powers at times entrusted to him, to prevent the effusion of blood and yield with dignity. At the same time the safely of his person is guarantied. This letter is written with ability, but, we think, betrays a natural apprehension of the tyrant’s power, and a praiseworthy desire to avoid bloodshed.

The first letter of Santa Ana was accompanied by a private letter to Herrera, written with the utmost apparent cordiality, but in which he expresses views not unlike those of his official communication. At the same time he demands that, upon his approach to the capital, Herrera would grant him an interview, that hey may consult together upon the best means of re-establishing and confirming public order. Gen. Herrera accompanies his secretary’s official reply with a private letter, in answer to this, as cordial as Santa Ana’s, but he declines the interview.

This letter was preceded by a decree dated the 17th of December, by which it is declared that the Government no longer recognizes Santa Ana’s authority as President of the Republic; all his acts, as such, President, are pronounced null and void, and the army under him is required to submit at once to the constitutional authorities.

Santa Ana continued his movement upon the capital until he reached Huehuetoca, from which place, on the 25th of December, he addressed another long communication to Gen. Herrera. It is written haughtily, and in defending himself he does not hesitate to attack the Government. He states that he was ordered to put himself at the head of the army, to suppress the outbreak at Jalisco. He hastened to do so – it not being his duty to inquire into the legality of the order, but to obey. He was the more ready to obey, in consideration of his elevated position and his influences with the army. He then asserts that he could and should readily have crushed the outbreak, but for the insurrection in the capital and the order given him to transfer the command of the army. He then discusses the acts of the Congress – declares their disposition of Canalizo illegal, as he had neither resigned his command nor been allowed a trial; he refuses therefore, to acknowledge Herrera as President.

He then defends the act of Canalizo suspending the sessions of Congress, and contends that if was, at the least, no more a violation of the Bases than the act of Congress deposing Canalizo. The former, he urges, was an act of necessity – the latter, a seditious movement to wrest power from himself; but whatever was the character of the act, it was that of Canalizo, not of Santa Ana. The latter not being responsible for it, he contends that the decree of the 17th of December, virtually deposing him from the Presidency of the Republic and disavowing his acts, is in itself illegal, beyond the competency of Congress, and revolutionary.

He takes up in detail the several charges made against himself by Cuevas – (for a synopsis of which we cannot find room to-day) – and, one after the other, he pronounces them false and calumnious. He then solemnly declares, that not having failed in this obedience to the laws, that being determined that no one shall overthrow them, and that being resolved to maintain the Organic Bases, he feels bound to protest against, and does protest against, the revolutionary deposition of Canalizo, and the act of accusation against him. He protests against the audacious disavowal of his own authority, as beyond their constitutional powers [ . . . ] an act unknown to the law, and contrary to the [ . . . ] of the government he declares that he has sought to exercise no authority not conferred on him by law; that he has not thought, nor does he think, of dissolving the legislative body, but that he is determined, at every hazard, to maintain the Organic Bases. Finally, he protests against the act of accusation directed against himself, as beyond the pale of the authority of Congress, and the work of personal enemies seeking to bring about a revolution.

He then boldly demands that Herrera should give up to him the power, to the exercise of which he had been called by the nation. He next asserts that he is on his march to the capital, for the purpose of assuming the reins of Government, not for wreaking vengeance on his foes, and that the army is with him in sentiment. He characterizes the indignities with which were treated the remains of the limb he lost in “a day of glory” as brutal and cowardly; says something of his public services, and concludes with some sever reflections upon Cuevas.

This official letter is again accompanied by a private one, in which, in a more bland manner, Santa Ana urges upon Herrera to lay aside his own authority and acknowledge that which he himself claims. He intimates that as he is at the head of troops, it is unnecessary to say, to an old soldier like Herrera, what the consequences must be, if the latter refuse to comply.

The reply of Herrera to this note, which is dated at Mexico on the 27th, two days after, is friendly yet firm and dignified. He stands by the letter of his Secretary of Foreign Relations, and exhorts Santa Anna to submission. – Gen. Bravo, too, who had been called to the command of the army, on the 27th December, addressed Santa Anna, apprising him of his command, and urging him to suspend actual hostilities and spare the effusion of blood. We can not get more at length into this correspondence. Upon reading it, it is somewhat difficult to form an opinion as to the relative positions of the three generals. Santa Ana may have assumed all the audacity which characterizes his portion of it; but his marching upon the capital looks as though he were in earnest. On the other hand, the milder and almost supplicating tone of Herrera’s in some passages, may be dictated by real humanity and patriotism, not unmingled with a magnanimous regard for the fortunes of an old fellow soldier, whom he allows to have deserved well of the Republic. We think that Santa Ana’s superior craft and dexterity, coupled with his great energy, are more dreaded by both Herera and Bravo than they physical forces under his command.

The Mexican papers of the 25th December state that for some days previous nothing was to be heard but discharges of artillery and the ringing of bells at the joyful announcement of the progress of the revolution. The surrender of the constitutional Government of the castle of Perote, with twenty thousand stands of arms; the declaration of Tanpico against Santa Ana; the adhesion of the garrison of Guanajuata to the government, under the command of General Liceaga – the events, as the new successively arrived, filled the city with joy. This, it should be recollected, was before the news had arrived that Santa Ana had arrived at Huehuetoca, and had sent his bold note to Herera. The papers of the day, after its reception, have not reached us.

The city has been declared in a state of siege, and the inhabitants are obviously afflicted at the near prospect of bloodshed. Their shouts and rejoicings must, therefore be taken with some grains of allowance, and should Santa Ana succeed, they may hurrah as loudly for him.

General Bassedre who it was said at the North was to supersede Santa Ana in his command, has been accused by the unanimous vote of the Congress, and will undergo a trial. He was Santa Ana’s Secretary of War.

Senor Llaca, a distinguished Deputy from Queretaro, and a leader of the opposition against the late government, is dead. His funeral was attended by Congress, and an immense throng of citizens.

On the 25th of December, Senor Cuevas, Secretary of Foreign Relations, addressed a letter to the governors of Departments, congratulating them, among other things, that the vessels of war, just returned from the U. States, had been placed at the disposition of the actual government. He announces Santa Ana’s march upon the capital, but says it has been put in a complete state of defence, and he expresses perfect confidence of triumph. Gens. Valencia, Guzman, and Morales, have declared for the Government, and the first named appointed second in command of the army – general Bravo commanding in chief. The citizens of Mexico were rapidly enrolling themselves, and all hands were at work digging trenches and barricading the streets to prevent the advance of the tyrant.

The downfall of Santa Ana, was at one time deemed so certain in Mexico, that the poets plumed their wings, and commenced their lampoons, and affected lamentations over the fortunes of the late President.

It is a strong indication of the dread entertained of him in Mexico, that the roads leading to the capital, had been torn up to retard his march. At the same time, the sisters of charity, in anticipation of a desperate conflict, and with their characteristic piety and humanity, had tendered their services to the War Department, to be employed in the hospitals.

The Commandant general of the Department of Vera Cruz, under date of December 31, addressed the inhabitants, indicating to them the probability that Santa Ana might attempt to establish himself in Vera Cruz, with the view of securing the means of escape in case of emergency. He calls upon the citizens to take up arms and prevent his entering the city. A small force, he says, will suffice for this purpose; but we learn verbally that the stores of the city were closed daily at 4 P. M., that martial law has been proclaimed, and that inhabitants mustered with arms in their hands daily to be drilled. This looks as thou they though it would be no easy matter to stay his approach.

General Ampudia, of barbarous notoriety, declared against Santa Ana in an address to the inhabitants of Tobasco, in the 16th of December. One might think him, from its tenor, a true friend of human freedom.

The mail due at Vera Cruz the morning of the 1st inst., brought nothing from the capital. Letters from Puebla, date the 29th ultimo, were received, which state that there was a small force of cavalry on the route, under command of Senor Torrejon, to intercept communications with the capital.

It would seem an easy matter to form an opinion upon the issue of his revolution in Mexico, as the country has declared itself so unanimously against Santa Ana; but it should be recollected that the press of the cities is devoted to the acting government; represents its strength in the strongest light, and scouts at the weakness of its adversaries. Again, the acting Government, as we are informed verbally, has avowed itself in favor of disbanding the army so soon as order is restored, with a view to reduce the expenses of the Administration. This must necessarily disgust the dissolate and idle soldiery, and more especially the aspiring or profligate among the officers, and perhaps to an extent that will aid effectively Santa Ana if he can hold out against the first shock of the disaffected, get a little breathing time, and the opportunity to bring his mbney to bear upon the leaders of his foes. Then, too, he is a man of determined resolution and fertile in resources, and it would also seem that he is determined to fight it out to the last. We mention these considerations, not because we think he is to succeed – the chances, so universally is he hated, are all the other way – but because, so far as we can see, the contest is not to be so easy a one as had been anticipated. The inhabitants of the cities, though they talk bravely, are evidently fearful of his approach. Had he but a handful of men, as has been represented, it would be impossible that he should inspire such dread, and these circumstances lead to the belief, that the revolution cannot be terminated with out a desperate struggle. Had the acting Government a General at all a match for Santa Ana, the issue would not be doubtful for a moment.


Feb. 4, 1845, RWv22i10p1c1

“Chances of Annexation by the Senate,”

We hear from Washington in different ways, favorable intelligence as to the fate of the monstrous measure of annexing a foreign State to the Union, by the least solemn and most informal of all modes of legislation – that of resolution! Since representative legislation was systematized by the wisdom of British Statesmen, there never has been so reckless, frontless and desperate a proposition; and defeated now, as defeated it will be, its proposers, advocates, and sustainers, are destined to be consigned, when public opinion rights itself, to certain obloquy and reproach. It will stink in the nostrils of the Country worse than ever did the Yazoo speculations. Mark it! “Il Secretario” writes as follows, on the 27th, to the Philadelphia North American and his information is corroborated from other quarters:

“The transactions of the day are not interesting in either House, but that I may for a moment postpone them to what is of much greater concern – the changing probabilities of the fate of the Annexation bill in the Senate.

I have to-day arrived at such information as makes me much easier as to the issue. It may now be considered strongly probable that three Whig Senators only will vote for the bill, and that four Locofoco ones will vote against it. To this may be added an absentee on their side, Mr. Dixon Lewis, of Alabama, whom ill health has detained. They are said to have written off for him in haste, since Saturday; but should he even be in a condition to travel, for him to do so with expedition is no joke – at least not to the horses that sweat, and the coaches that groan under such a load. For any man less ponderous than he, there might be time enough, for the Report on the subject, from the Committee of Foreign Relation will probably not come in until this day week: and the debate will no doubt consume some ten days more. Thus, though Mr. Lewis is not precisely the man one would choose to “back” in a race against Time, be may arrive in time, thought a good deal out of breath and learning much with his grease the roads along which he shall hurry. Counting him, therefore, in a full Senate, I am now somewhat confident that the vote will be 24 for the bill and 28 against it. If thus lost, it will probably be entirely through the opposition, on the part of four or five Senators, to the strange, the enormous usurpation, by the House, of a right to do that which is of the competency of the treaty-making power alone.

With all that, the Annexationists are confident and rely upon a majority of 5. They obviously reckon on losing none of their men, and on getting more of ours than they can obtain. In both particulars, they are like to prove mistaken. They have shown that they can count the House, but they have equally shown that they cannot the Senate.”

Feb. 4, 1845, RWv22i10p1c4

“Texas Debate in the House,”

The session of the House of Delegates, Saturday, extending to a late hour in the evening, was entirely devoted to the discussion of Annexation and kindred topics. They Select Committee which had been appointed, in the expectation of bringing in a compromise report, stated that they could not agree, and requested to be discharged. The resolutions from the Senate were then taken up; and the 1st one (although a Democratic proposition), being found more palatable to the Whigs than to the Democrats, was agreed to. The Democrats then proposed a farther amendment – in substance endorsing both the expediency and the constitutionality of the Joint Resolution passed by the House of Representatives. To this the Whigs could not subscribe and they proposed an amendment simply declaring that a majority of the people of Virginia are in favor of Annexation by any constitutional mode; but forbearing, in express terms, to give any opinion of this constitutionality of the mode of joint resolution. This amendment was adopted. The effect of this proceeding is, and was designed to be an is so declared, to leave our Senators free to act as to them may seem best on the Joint Resolution. A resolution instructing them to vote for the Joint Resolution was subsequently voted down.

The Locos, we rather think, made but little capital by this Texas agitation. When they come to reckon with the People for the time and money wasted in the discussion, they will find that their political speculations are quite as barren and profitless as their Texas scrip is likely to prove. They are like the gentleman who went out in quest of wool and came home shorn!

Feb. 4, 1845, RWv22i10p1c6

Keyword: constitutional argument

To the Editors of the Whig:

Messrs. Editors – I read in your daily paper of the 28th ultime, a letter addressed to me, by some one signing himself “B,” criticizing my late latter, published in your daily paper, of the 22d, ult. It is made my duty to answer this letter. I very much regret the necessity thus forced on me, again to appear in the *** *** of a newspaper – for in all seriousness, I have a decided distaste for such notoriety.

“B,” is entitled to my thanks, for his kind and flattering acknowledgment of the purity and integrity of the motives by which I was actuated in the expression of the views contained in the letter which he so courteously comments on. While I accord to B none other than a patriotic and laudable desire to convince me, by his letter, of the suicidal effect of my position and arguments, as expressed in my letter if the 15th of January, he will, I am sure, pardon me for eth expression, that his arguments and conclusions present an perfect non sequitur.

B, I am well assured, neither designed to involve me in a needless controversy, or to rest his conclusions on a sophism; and yet, such are the scope, tendency and conclusion of his own argument, that both of these undesirable ends have resulted as a consequence from his letter.

B quotes, at some length, from that portion of my letter in which I argue to establish the position that – if it is constitutional to annex Texas by joint resolution, it would be equally as constitutional to cede away as State – by the same mode of legislation – there being no higher exercise of sovereignty required, in cession that there would be in annexation.

But it should not have escaped the astute intellect of B that he (unintentionally, I am sure) over looked the previous position of which this argument was based, as the constitutional proposition, on which the correctness of my conclusion rested. In the quotation which B gives from my letter, he merely confines himself to the secondary proposition resulting as a consequence from the previous position distinctly laid down, and carried out, that so long as Texas was a separate, independent sovereign power, fully invested with all the prerogatives of sovereignty, no internal legislation on the part of the United States, could reach or control either her soil or citizens: That Texas must first part with her sovereignty before her territory or citizens could be rendered amenable to the jurisdiction of the United States: that to accomplish this, a Treaty stipulation between the two high contracting parties was necessary and indispensable, and that any mere internal legislation on the part of the United States, must leave the act of annexation a dead letter on our State books until it was perfected by Texas.

Here then is an essential and radical misconception and misstatement of both my position and argument. I now call the candid attention of B to this unintentional breach of argument manifest in his letter. If he will impartially review it, he will at once perceive the injustice which his conclusions have done my position.

That portion of my letter quoted my him is as follows;

“For one as an American citizen, I will not consent to violate every rule of Constitutional propriety, that Texas may be annexed. I am now, as I have even been, a devoted and sincere friend the measure when it can be fairly, honorably and Constitutionally accomplished. In no other manner will I ever yield my assent to annexation.

“There is yet another view of this monstrous and daring infraction of the constitution. If it is constitutional, to annex a State by joint resolution, is it not equally as constitutional, by the same means, to deed away a Stare? Is there any higher exercise of Sovereign power required in cession, than would be in annexation? I would seem not. If then, by joint resolution, Congress can annex a foreign State to the United States, may it not by the same means cede away a State? Apply this principle – carry it out and what might it not lead to? Congress might then [ . . . ] by joint resolution annex Texas, and at its next session cede away Texas and Louisiana.

“With these views I must be pardoned for declaring, in all seriousness, that, under no circumstances, can I ever agree, so far as my vote is concerned, to see Texas annexed to the United States by joint resolution. I am in favor of annexation – by treaty with Texas – under the provisions of the constitution – when it can be fairly, honorable and peaceably accomplished – taking care, in the Treaty provisions to settle the question, as a National one, above all party or geographical prejudices.

From this language b drown the forced inference that I must dither give up the question or admit the monstrous proposition that by treaty the United States could cede away one or more of the States of this Union.

Here, then, is the manifest unfairness of his position and conclusion. He entirely overlooks the previous position and utterly excludes it form his consideration. Allow me to recall his attention to it.

In my letter of the 15th of January, I distinctly use this language:

“Texas is either in independent, sovereign government, or she is not independent. If she is an independent Republic, then is she a Sovereign Power – and under the international law, regulating the intercourse between sovereign powers, she can be divested of the Territorial possessions, in but one of two ways, either by conquest of by treaty cession. If she is not an independent, Sovereign Power, then she has no territory at her disposal. No secondary dependent government, without the exercise of sovereign powers, can treat with Sovereignty. Treaty stipulations, to be binding, must proceed from a sovereign power – to an equal, in the scale of National independence. Sovereign powers can enter into compacts between each other by Treaty stipulations alone. This is the only means by which Independent nations can ratify a compact entered into between them.

The question here presents itself – “can the mere legislative action of the U. States, bind either the citizens or the soil of Texas?” If so, then Texas is already a part and parcel of our soil – and any act of annexation, whether by treaty, or joint resolution, would be a mere legislative supererogation. There can be no constitutional – extra territorial legislation. No statue, or law, can be obligatory, beyond the ascertained boundaries of the government which passes it. It can only operate on foreign territory, or the citizens of a foreign government, by international comity. To secure this, a compact between the two Sovereignties is necessary. This compact must be entered into, and ratified by a Treaty: no internal legislative provisions can either create or enforce any such reciprocal privileges.

Let us apply these views to the case in point. Texas is certainly a few, Independent, sovereign power. She is endowed with all the prerogatives of sovereignty. This being the fact, she must first part with her sovereignty, before her Territory can be at all subject to our Legislation, or her citizens amenable to our laws. Now, can the United States Legislate Texas out of her Sovereignty? I humbly think not. How, then can the mere Legislative volition of the United States, lend into on e Government, two republics wholly independent of each other?

There is a very spurious argument advanced in and out of Congress, that Congress has the power to admit “new States” into the Union. From this granted power, the strict constructionists imply the devised power, of admitting “foreign States” into the Union. It is indeed melancholy to witness such willful perversion of the Constitution, by men in high places, and who profess to be literal construers, of every specific power vested by the Constitution in congress.

The 3d section of the 4th article of the Constitution, from which this implied power is thought to be filched, gives and related to “Territory of other property belonging to the United States.” How, under this clause, can congress exercise any supervisory control over “Territory” not “belonging to the United States.”

To allow of Legislation, the “Territory or property” which forms the subject of legislation must “belong to the United States.” Now does Texas “belong” to the United States? If so, annexation is useless. The Territory of Texas, is physically already annexes to the Territory of the United States. What is proposed to eh done, contemplates a social and political incorporation of the people and institutions of Texas, with the Government of the United states – thus merging of the lesser Sovereign power into the greater. If this can be done, by joint resolution in Congress, then can one sovereign power Legislature over and divest the chartered rights of the citizens of another Sovereign power. The thing is impossible.

Suppose that any of the various series of resolutions or bills now pending before Congress, were to pass both Houses unanimously – What would result? Would not this law of political gravitation thus created, be suspended in its operation, until the Government of Texas – per gratia – allowed it to exercise its limited powers of attraction within her Territory? Would it not require the legislative action in some form of Texas before the law of annexation could operate? The very terms and provisions of these resolutions or bills admit the fact. What then is proposed by these joint resolution? They might pass in congress here, and be spurned in the congress of Texas. What a political farce!

(to be continued)


Feb. 4, 1845, RWv22i10p2c4

“The Texas Senate, Texas,”

The principal topic in the Senate yesterday was the Texas Resolutions, as amended in the House by Mr. Witcher.

Mr. Wallace moved to strike out the latter clause, which waived any expression of opinion on the constitutionality of Annexation by joint resolution. This was agreed to, after debate, ayes 19, noes 9.

Mr. Thompson of K. offered further to amend, by declaring, in substance, approbation of the Joint Resolution, as a lawful and constitutional mode of annexation, and one which would be approved by the People.

In vain was the authority of Mr. Jefferson sited by Messrs. Carter and Gallaher, and delay asked by Messrs. Stanard and Caperton, for the purpose of eliciting light on the latter branch. Messrs. Wallace, McMullen and Thompson of K., considered the constitutional point sufficiently clear, beyond all question, and urged prompt action, in which they were sustained by the Senate; and the Resolutions, in their amended form, were forthwith sent back to the House.

The latter body, being engaged upon the Tex bill, did not consider the amendments of the Senate to their amendment on the Texas resolutions.

The subject will doubtless be taken up in the House today, for probably the Democracy will consider, as Mr. Wilson of Botetourt did in relation the Expunge, that “the people are suffering” for action on the subject.

What becomes of old fashioned State rights, Strict construction notions? Texas is wanted, and the means of getting it are of no moment in the opinion of the dominant party. Mr. Jefferson’s practice is deemed better than his precept – and, as he can be found on both sides, the convenient opinion is always most orthodox.

Feb 4, 1845, v22i10p2c5

“Correspondence of the Whig,”

Washington, Feb’y 2, 1845

In the legislation of the last week, as in that of the preceding ones of this winter, one question has stood up, far above all others of the present day, perhaps far above any which the country ahs witnessed for above a quarter of a century. It is a question not only of the present peace; but of all he future honor of the land, and (we greatly fear) of its very Union. That question has been decided, as far as the action of one of our legislative bodies can decide it. The only hope of rendering void this most portentous decision lies in that great body whose well-organized superiority to the tumultuary movements of the moment, whose calmer temper, whose less rash or partisan counsels, whose higher responsibilities, have, on many other occasions, frustrated the ill that threatened us and saved the nation from measures that could scarcely have been less than disastrous in the extreme.

Ina word, the wild measure of Annexation has been carried, in the House of Representatives, not only in defiance of constitutional limitations the most imperative and in the face of whatever precedents and authorities they who perform the thing have professed most to hold sacred, but in utter contempt not merely of all the methods and reasons which they last year held to be the true and valid ones, but of many which they themselves have subsequently advanced, and in total disregard of the many terrible consequences for the peace, the concord and the institutions of the country, which may well attend upon a decision at once so unjust and so imprudent.

I must be pardoned if, upon a matter of such magnitude and such peril, I speak with a large abandonment of reserve. Where the question is one of which the momentousness so totally effaces all ordinary rule, it becomes all, whose part it is to speak, to deliver themselves, certainly with decency, but nevertheless with the utmost freedom.

I look, then, on the measure, now half-consummated:

As in entire derogation of all the rights of the separate members of this confederacy to repel the admission into it of new associates who suit them not:

As totally beyond the competency, at best, of any but the Treaty making power:

As therefore, a direct and subversive usurpation, by one branch of the government, not only upon the coordinate ones, but upon the inherent rights of the individual parties to this league – the separate States that compose it:

As clearly, in this double usurpation, a blow so deadly to whatever has heretofore been of constitutional limitation, that it must be considered as nothing short of a demolition of all our Organic Law:

As warranting, by Congress, the alienation, no less that the incorporation, of what or whom it shall please, near or far:

As thus authorizing a simple legislative vote to divest, transfer or extinguish the sovereignty, or the independence, not only of foreign countries, but of each of these States and even of all together: for whatever of the sort a mere majority of congress can do, as to a country be joined our laws, it may surely do yet more legally where it has a jurisdiction:

As thus trampling on all that is safe or respectable at home or abroad, in order to commit a nation crime to which we have no real temptation, and on which swift vengeance will surely descend with the plagues of fierce domestic dissension, or of foreign war, or the double horrors of both.

Could we, as if by the mere blindness of Fate, escape that bloody atonement which national acts like this entail, usually by their heinousness, and invariably when they are as foolish as they are wrong, what will at best ensue? What but the shame of having plundered an unhappy people who were incapable of resisting us, and of having done this in the mere wantonness of an aimless lust after what was not ours, of what we do not want, of what it would be wiser to avoid, could we even acquire it justly?

But will nations heretofore jealous enough of our legitimate career of greatness, of peace and of justice – will nations, that dreaded the example of our Liberty, endure to see the Freedom whose contagion they have feared, arm itself, in addition, under that potent name, with every thing that is aggressive, every thing that is faithless, wild. During and rapacious? Will not Despotism, compelled by the opposite spectacle of our institutions to learn humanity and justice, rejoice at an outrage so fit to bring Republics into discredit, and seize with eagerness the occasion to punish the past and the present, to tame what was a mischief to them while it was good, and what will become a plague to the earth when it grows bad?

Already the abominable doctrine is preached throughout the land, not merely to popular ears, but in grave Legislatures and even from cabinets, that , all the Continent being destined to be ours, is idle to talk to any adverse right of the present – that from Canada to California, from Oregon to the Isthmus, our eagles, as little to be arrested as those of Rome or of Napoleon, must fly. While, with these daring pretensions, we tread upon the weak, we affront the strong and teach them that, if they too would be safe, they must make common cause with those feebler nations whom we would now oppress. It is

“Nunc in ovilia – mox in reluctantes draconis” -

If the dragons are wise, they will assail at once the young bird of prey, that will presently turn with disdain from the harmless sheep-fold and rend their own scaly strength? But what, on the other hand, would be fit to be said of the prudence of the eagle who should make proclamation that now, while but half fledged, he means only a war upon hen roosts; but that presently, when his claws and beak shall be grown, he will swoop down upon the shepherd and his flocks? Would he not be apt to call up, for his early destruction, all who could send an arrow or point a gun?

He who, intent on plundering the feeble, announces, when he goes about it, that he designs, with those added means of offence, to assail the strong, is certainly like to draw upon himself both the weak and the powerful. The conduct then, which there seems some danger that this nation shall be led to adopt, is surely as impolitic as it is unjust, granting even that the object at which it immediately aims, is worth the injustice. If we mean to trample upon Mexico, is it not the part of prudence, not to tempt British interference, by taking of seizing without ceremony, upon Oregon, and of annexing all her possessions North of us? Why provoke her to take part against us? Will that course render our success easier, or more bloodless? Surely, if we want territory, the less the expense of life and money at which we get it the better; and if, on the other hand, it is, (as many in the madness of the day shockingly suggest,) mere war that we want, it will be better to begin with a small one, get ourselves a little in practice for that humane diversion, after 30 years disuse, and when we have trained and enlarged our armies and our fleets, then help ourselves by due aggressions or insults, to such greater foes as, in our fighting propensities, promise no easy victory, scars enough, ravage in abundance, a plenty of desolation to suffer and inflict, and in a word, blows by the belly-full.

But let us see what quarters of this country are thus interested in a war, and will draw profit or honor (whichever be the object) from it.

Maine seems to be keen for it. Is it then, for the benefit of her foreign lumber trade, almost her only resource? Or is it because, lying next to the enemy, she will taste superior advantages in the way of having desolation spread over her fields?

New Hampshire seems unanimous for it. Is it because she, too, is greatly exposed? Or is it because she has large shipping interests, that must be destroyed in a naval warfare with Britain?

Vermont has less to lose: and therefore seems less bent upon the strife. Imprudent Vermont!

Massachusetts, though likely to gain in her great interests, the Manufacturing, seems quite averse to the contest. But Massachusetts is a very selfish state!

Her case is nearly that of Rhode Island.

Connecticut is martially disposed. What has Connecticut to gain? I know not.

New York will, we suppose, profit in her vast foreign trade, in that of the Lakes; in her upland contiguity to British regiments and the exposures of her great city to bombardment. Having so little at stake, she may well like a war.

New Jersey lies equally exposed, in a long line of coast.

Pennsylvania has a great stream, by which there is access for a force of war-steamers to her great **** and into the very heart of her wealthiest region. We see what she may lose: we conceive not what she can gain, except in perhaps, tunes to pay her debts.

Delaware and Maryland can suffer equally, but are less pleased with the prospect.

To Virginia, so agog for the contest, the inducement must lie in the annihilation of her tobacco trade.

As to north and Sough Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee – the cotton-growing states – one easily conceives the present advantage in the market for their staple, and the prospective benefit of raising up the growth of cotton *** Egypt, **** and Brazil.

Missouri and Illinois, I admit, will be benefited; for there’ll be a great demand for lead.

I see, however, no State so safe, so remote from attack, as Kentucky. Her [ . . .] will [ . . . ].



Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p1c1

“The Course of the Enquirer,”

The course of this paper, is beyond all question, the most uncandid and disingenuous that ever yet conferred a discreditable distinction upon any press. It seems to proceed, and evidently does, upon the postulate, that there is no limit to the gullibility of its peculiar readers, and that they are incapable of detecting the grossest frauds upon their understandings, the most palpable distortions and misrepresentations of facts known to the whole country, and the most obvious suppressions of truth. Never did any man, connected with the public, make such heavy drafts upon its presumed stupidity.

Texas we all know, is and has been for months, the absorbing and almost the exclusive theme of that paper. Aided by Senator Walker, and other speculators in Texas Lands, bonds and scrip, its columns groan under editorials essays, letters and appeals, in favor of the acquisition of Texas, containing, we will venture to say, an amount of perversion, false reasoning, violation of history, suggestion false and suppressio vori, unmatchable in the same bulk in all American Political discussion or polemics. Texas! Texas!! Texas!!! It is Texas first, Texas last, and Texas all the time! Nothing else is regarded as of any consequence in comparison: All other public affairs are thrown into the back ground: And to force Texas upon the Union now, this minute, at this session of Congress, before a new Congress can meet and the true voice of the People be heard – in other words, to suppress and strangle that true voice, which the complotters well know will be ultimately against Texas, North and South, is the simple aim and end. If the Texas faction are not afraid of the People, WHY this unseemly haste and furious hurry? Why this Jehu speed in an affair of infinite moment, the gravest question of the age, involving consequences which the wisest cannot foresee, and craving the profoundest caution and deliberation? Why ram it down the throats of the People now? At this very instant of time? Can it not wait ten months? Is there ay danger that Texas herself will escape from the continent? Will she not be forthcoming next winter, and as anxious then as she is now to come into the Union? Will not her lands, her bonds, her scrip, keep a few months?

Really, a comparison of the present with the pat, is calculated to fill one with astonishment at the extraordinary inconsistencies of our neighbors and many of their present allies. In 1837, in the administration of Mr. Van Buren, the question of annexing Texas was formally before the American People. It found favor with no party. It was resisted by Mr. Van Buren and most intemperately opposed by Mr. McDuffie then Governor of S. Carolina, and the proposition fell almost without a struggle or attracting any interest. Yet Texas was then what she is now! She possessed the same fertile fields, the same limits, the same independence, (for the battle of San Jacinto was fought in 1836) and we had precisely the same claims to reannex her as a part of Louisiana, that we have now! Yet then was witnessed none of this furious desire to possess her. None of this frantic haste to adopt her into the Union! None of these extensive combinations to write up a spurious public opinion in favor of the measure, and to make annexation absorb every thing else!

And why? Yes why? Is the reader so soft as to ask the question? There was then no large body of American citizens interested in Texas lands! She had them issued no bonds and scrip which American speculators ad bought up for a song, and which by annexation, they proposed and hoped to realize at par, for the outlay of a few beggarly dollars, to reap a harvest of princely estates! Work the problem as you will, and there is no other solution of the fiery ardor for Texas which prevails now, as contrasted with the utter indifference manifested for the acquisition in 1837. Far be it from me to intimate that the whole body of the friends of annexation are animated by interested motives. On the contrary we are satisfied that the Calhoun Party (and McDuffie himself) have come into the support of the measure on political grounds. They wish a Southern confederacy extending from Carolina, to the shores of California, and they have embraced annexation we verily believe, and are endeavoring to force it down, in order that it may induce the North to dissolve, and thus themselves evade the terrible responsibility of an act, which would damn them to more than Ca***inarian infamy!

But the country may rely upon it, that there is powerful and organized association of Texas land, bond and scrip holder, who are at he bottom of this whole Texas movement – whose views and ends are not political, much less patriotic, but selfish and mercenary only, and whose purposes are attained, when they get par for their investments, when their fortunes are made, and who do not look beyond that, to the incalculable and momentous consequences which are almost certain to flow from a measure so rashly conceived, and so recklessly urged in defiance of justice, the rights of other powers, and the laws of nations. We accuse not these men of wrong or wickedness: It is natural that they should act as they are acting: but we assert, that so great and vital a public measure, should not have originated in such merely personal and contemptible motives, nor be driven to a rash consummation, merely to put money in their purses.

To return to the Enquirer. That paper yesterday, engaged in the formal attempt to dragoon the Whigs of the General Assembly, into the support of Texas Resolutions! The attempt is bunglingly and confusedly executed, and if the Whigs retain their self-respect, if it have any effect at all, will have the contrary effect to that intended! Is it not enough that the Enquirer bullies its Democrats, and whips them into the traces – but must it come into the Whig camp and threaten and endeavor to intimidate the Whig Representatives of the People! Who has authorized is so confidently to pronounce that the public opinion of Virginia is for Texas, and the joint Resolution form of annexing Texas? Where is the evidence of the fact? Where are the petitions or the single petition? Where the popular meetings? Polk was for Texas and Polk got the vote of Virginia – and that is the whole proof offered to sustain the conclusion! Yet how many hundreds and thousands of Polk men are against Texas, and how many issues besides Texas were involved in the Presidential struggle.

We hope and do not doubt that the Whigs of the House will adhere firmly to their course, and the most firmly from this mingled attempt to coax and bully them! Let them distrust the blarney and despise the driving. In our simple judgment they ought to lay the whole ridiculous subject on the table, address themselves to the real business of the People and bring the session to a close. They know as well as we do, that is perfectly futile an way, and a mere loss of time, and that Texas annexation, at this session, is already a phantom.

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p1c1

“Annexation of Canada and New Brunswick!”

Petitions from New York and Maine were presented in the Senate on Monday, for the Annexation of these British colonies! Why not? We have just as honest a right to them as we have to Texas, for which we swapped with Spain for Florida, in 1819 – Calhoun and Jackson approving the bargain! There is an old adage that it is as well “to be hanged for an old Sheep as for a Lamb”! If the nation turns Rogue and Land Pirate, let it do so on a magnificent scale, and win Gold enough to gild the infamy!

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p1c1

“State Senate – Texas,”

The disagreement of the House of Delegates to the Senate’s amendments of the Texas Resolutions, was the subject of a pithy debate in the Senate yesterday. Mr. Thompson of A., a gentleman entirely too modest for the good of his associates, made a clear and powerful exposition of the constitutional difficulties involved in the wild, latitudinarian proposition of the Democracy; and Mr. Caperton followed up the positions of MR. T. with great vigor.

Messrs. Thompson of K, McMullen and Wallace supported the unlimited power of congress on the subject, as being clear and indisputable – and one of them as least claimed the power to annex China, Great Britain, Cuba, &c.

Mr. Standard, we learn, will reply today – and debate of increased interest will probably yet take place.

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p1c2

“Mr. Barrow of Louisiana,”

The remarks of this gentleman as reported [from the Baltimore Patriot] appear detached and disconnected; but they are decisive and of the utmost importance. Taken in connection with the revelations of the “Missourian” [Col. Bedton’s organ] and the whole current of private opinion from Washington, we think them conclusive of the fate of the lawless and desperado scheme of annexation by Joint Resolution; at this session of congress at least! That atrocity will not succeed.

We at least shall thus gain all we have ever asked for: Time, deliberation, calmness, and the “sober second thought” of the people upon so vast and novel a measure. This opportunity for reflection allowed them, and we have never doubted that annexation would be frowned down as unwise, unconstitutional, unjust, and ruinous to the planning interest! Disgraceful to the character for probity of the American people, and most hazardous to this Union, the bond of Liberty and the ark of safety to the present and future generations, and above all to the South.

We tender in advance, our congratulations for the defeat by the Senate, of the predatory scheme of annexation now before that body, and we appeal to the Whigs of the General Assembly to stand firm! There will shortly be a hurricane of public opinion against the measure!

P. S. Since writing the above, we have looked into the National Intelligencer of yesterday, where we find the remarks of Mr. Barrow more fully quoted, and the occasion of them, stated. The reader’s attention is requested, and the whole country may rest satisfied that, thanks to the integrity and patriotism of the Senate, the Rob Roy scheme of annexation, is defeated.


“By Mr. Johnson: Certain resolutions from the Legislature of Louisiana, in relation to the annexation of Texas.

Mr. Johnson observed that he had stated before he had received these resolutions, that if the question of annexation could be presented free from constitutional objection he would vote for it, and he said so still. He had great doubts, however, as to the power of congress to provide for the admission of foreign territory into the Union by a joint resolution. He would give the matter the fullest examination and when the question came before the Senate he would vote on it according to the best lights before him.

Mr. Barrow would merely take this occasion to say that he was opposed to annexation in any and in every shape, at all times, and under all circumstances. The resolutions received from the Legislature of Louisiana, left the Senators at perfect liberty to act in the matter as they thought right.  He should always act, on this and every other question, as he thought right, whether under instructions or not. If he had been in favor of annexation, he should have opposed it in the shape presented to the Senate by the other House. He should be prepared, when the question came before the Senate, to prove that the annexation of Texas would be ruinous to the whole South, and particularly to the State of Louisiana.

He had not supposed that the people of Louisiana were favorable to annexation before the receipt of these resolutions. He was far from regarding the result of the late Presidential election in that State, as indicative of the people’s opinion upon annexation. He was convinced that, if that election had been fairly conducted, the vote of the State would have been given to Henry Clay. He did not undertake to say anything bout other States; but this he would say, that, if Mr. Clay had not been cheated, villainously cheated in Louisiana, he would have received the voted of that State. He was glad that the subject of the election in Louisiana was now under investigation by the Legislature, and he hoped that that body would ferret out and expose the imposture and the infamous frauds which were notoriously committed, and by which alone the vote of the State had been given the James K. Polk.

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p1c2

“Texas Again,”

The House yesterday disagreed to the amendments proposed by the Senate to its resolutions. That is the House persists in its refusal to say that he acquisition of foreign territory by joint resolution is constitutional. It leaves that question to the good sense of our Senators.

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p1c5

“Texas Again,”

In the State Senate yesterday, no progress was made on the pending question – which was the motion of Mr. Thompson of Kanawha to insist upon the Senate’s amendment to the amendment of the House. This amendment, it will be recollected, insisted upon the declaration by the assembly that the admission of Texas, by a joint resolution of Congress, was both lawful and constitutional.

Mr. Stanard made a speech of great ability against this assumption of power, and sustained himself by a train of reasoning and authority which seemed irresistible. Mr. Thompson, of K., did attempt an answer, but certainly made but little impression upon the logical fortress of his opponent. Other gentlemen entered briefly into the subject.

Mr. Wallace of Fauquier, with infinitely more of sagacity than his coadjutors, plainly foresaw that an adherence on the part of the senate would defeat the object of the party, and therefore suggested to Mr. Thompson a withdrawal of the motion to insist – admitting, as we understand, that it was the senate that first raised the constitutional question, which now prevented concurrence in the general proposition of favoring the admission of Texas. It will be recollected that in the original action, they had waived any expression on that point.

Thus the matter stands at present; and notwithstanding the rod held over them by the Autocrat who daily gives out his edicts to his liege subjects, we think it not improbable the party will be compelled to “back out ingloriously,” as one of their leaders feared they would.

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p2c4

“Texas – the Two Houses at Issue,”

The Senate yesterday was in a snarl for a while. Mr. Wallace wished to ask a conference between the two houses whilst the motion of Mr. Thompson of K. in insist upon the senate’s amendments to the House’s amendment, was pending.

Mr. McMullen objected to the motion as being out of order, and, in an appeal from the decision of the Chair, was sustained by the Senate, 15 to 9.

After an hour’s talk upon the point of order and other matters of difficulty, the motion to insist was divided, so as to take the question on the amendments separately, and decided in the affirmative.

The Resolutions having been sent back to the House, that body adhered to its disagreement to the Senate’s amendment – and no course now remains but for the Senate to ask a conference.

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p4c6

“From Texas,”

We learn from Capt. Peterson, of the brig Najade, arrived from Vera Cruz, sailed 6th ult, that Santa Ana had attacked, at the head of 4,000 men, 1500 of which were cavalry, the town of Puebla, but was driven back by the Revolutionists. Santa Ana, it is said, would endeavor to make his escape either by the way of Vera Cruz of Tuepan. The day previous to the sailing of the Najade, about 350 volunteers had arrived from Alvarado in the steamer Neptune, and 1500 more were momently expected from Campechy in the steamer Montezuma, which, with those already in the city, would present a formidable front against any force the dictator might march against that city. The revolutionists were in hot pursuit of Santa Ana, and certain death awaited him should he fall into their hands. A National Guard, similar to the French national guards, had been established by the revolutionists throughout all Mexico, and all foreign citizens were called upon to defend themselves, notwithstanding, the revolution was spreading with rapidity throughout the Republic. Santa Ana continued to have around him a number of influential friends. -Char. Courier

Feb. 11, 1845, RWv22i12p1c1

“Progress of the Texas Question in the Legislature,”

The rampant constitutional doctors if the Assembly, have cooled down a little in their pretensions. They have been compelled to ask a conference; and yesterday, on motion of Mr. Wallace, the Senate passed a resolution, inviting the House to appoint a committee to join its own committee in free and friendly conference on the subject of disagreement between the two Houses.

Accordingly, the House responded in an amicable tone, and the joint committee commenced its session about 2 o’clock yesterday.

The committee on the part of the Senate consists of Messrs. Wallace, Thompson of K., Stanard, Taylor, Carter, McMullen, and Caperton; on the part of the House, Messrs. Witcher, Preston, Edmunds of H., Bowden, Toler, Anderson, and Strother.

We anticipate no compromise on the subject. The House cannot give an inch, without yielding the whole question; which is a full and unconditional admission of the power of Congress to annex a Foreign State by joint Resolution – an absurdity, the discovery of which seems to have been reserved for this age of political empiricism and folly.

Feb. 11, 1845, RWv22i12p1c4

Keyword: Reasons for conquest of Mexico

To the Editors of the Whig:

Gentlemen: Is it not strange that our title to the Territory of Mexico, has been entirely overlooked in the zeal to acquire possession of Texas? I am at a loss how to account for such neglect on the part of an administration so distinguished for industry and acuteness in the discovery of nation claim, as the present; and especially when I remember that the great personification of Southern jealousies occupies the Department of State.

I shall not enter at large upon the subject of our claim – for that is altogether unnecessary. It will suffice to touch upon one or two prominent points, to refresh the memories of your readers in regard to it, and to stimulate our Legislators to immediate action upon a subject which has so long interested the American people. It seems to me important that some bill, to this effect, should be forthwith referred, with the necessary documents, to the Committee of Revolutionary Claims.

Nature has evidently marked out this continent as a unit, designed to constitute a single empire. Rivers and mountain lines are artificial creations. They are the fictions of mere convention, and violate the great law of nature which has indicated the true and just limits of sovereignties by great seas and narrow isthmuses, which are not subject to the mutations of time. It is obvious therefore that the Rio del Norte cannot constitute the limit of the United States any more than the Mississippi or the Sabine, without insulting Nature, and exposing ourselves constantly to mutilation by some foreign invader. These remarks may be applied hereafter, with justice, to the British and Russian possessions and to Central America; but we are only concerned now about the re-annexation of Mexico, and I must insist that the present is a most favorable juncture for its accomplishment, owing to the revolution now pending in that country. We must have Mexico at all hazards, and now is the time to secure it the least possible expense.

The records of history attest that that territory was improperly surrendered to Spain on the occasion of several treaties between Great Britain and that power, and subsequent treaties between the United States and the same government, when the weakness of the latter afforded ample opportunities for its acquisition. As those treaties were entered into by the aforesaid governments without the deliberate sanction of the Democracy, allow me to deny that they are of any binding force upon us, or should weigh a feather in our deliberations. Thus has been lost to us a noble empire, not mildly war merely, like Texas, but deliciously hot, producing perpetual crops of gold, and commanding from its geographical position, the sovereignty of the Seas. Shall we not immediately vindicate our title tot this fair domain, so shamefully and repeatedly thrown away?

Should it be objected that we cannot entertain this proposition without violating our faith with Mexico, let it be answered that Mexico has been long indulged in her efforts to establish a right to self-government, and has signally failed. Her nation existence, like her war upon Texas, is merely nominal, and the United States have as much right to govern her mongrel races as Santa Ana or any other usurper. Indeed nothing is wanting but a bold military demonstration on her frontiers, to induce her whole confederacy to unite with us, and thus consolidate the continent.

Constitutional objections may be disposed of with equal facility. We have no sympathy with that narrow principle usually called strict construction, which would forever confine us to the mere latter of the Constitution. But it is unnecessary to violate even the letter in the present case; for provision is made for the admission of new States; and surely Mexico cannot boast of age, when half a century has not yet passed since her independence. According to the laws of nations, three or four centuries seem to be necessary to bring them to maturity, and as many more to their decline, and we may therefore safely repose our consciences upon the express words of the sacred Charter under which we act. Admit her as a new State, and Mexico will occupy the same consistent position now held by Louisiana, Missouri and Arkansas.

It only remains to notice briefly the benefits which may be expected from this great enterprise. Among the first in importance is the indefinite extension of Slavery, not only of the African race, but also the seven millions of Mexican, Creoles, Mestizos, and Indians, whom we propose to conquer. Consequent upon this the Slave States must acquire a lasting ascendancy in the Government, and the principles of Free Trade become the settled policy of the country. The great champion of Southern rights will be elevated to the Presidential chair by the acclamations of millions, and the theory of Nullification will be taught in his messages to posterity and the world.



Feb. 11, 1845, RWv22i12p1c5

“Annexation – Col. Benton’s Project,”

The new bill of Col. Benton has evidently has the effect of a subterranean explosion on the ranks of the Democracy. Fearing and hating him, and hating him because they fear him more than any other man, the Calhoun and Tyler “Chivalry”, assuming as we must, the Madisonian to be their exponent, evidently view his scheme with the greatest distrust and alarm: And it is rather singular too that they should – for it indirectly proposes to make the United States the paymaster for Texas debts, which the joint resolution passed by the House declined to; and if we understand rightly, most of the bond, scrip and Texas Land mongers belong to the Calhoun Wing! So far those gentlemen exhibit the Phenomenon of a Texas Speculator being opposed to the interests of his own purse! – But the country must not too rapidly come to conclusion! They have, there is no question, substantial reasons for opposing col. Benton’s plan – interested reasons. 1. They distrust Benton, and fear the Greeks though they bear gifts! 2. They foresee that it may [if it was not as they allege, so designed] defeat annexation at this session, a circumstance fatal to the whole piratical design, for if defeated now, it is defeated eternally! The American People if they happen to be consulted, will never agree to it. 3. Their calculations as to the Texas debts which they own is this – let us get Texas in first, with, or without an assumption of her debts by the United States – when in, that act alone will greatly enhance Texas lands, bonds and scrip, and we have little doubt of ultimately prevailing on congress to pay off her obligations!

Let the people watch with close and jealous eye, what is now transacting at Washington! We firmly believe that all the corruptions of 60 years would kick the beam if placed in the scale against those of the last 18 months.

Feb. 11, 1845, RWv22i12p2c2

“Correspondence of the Whig,”

The day has brought forth in the Senate an impartial and an unexpected event, as to the Texas question, it is a change of position by Col. Benton, in the withdrawal of his bill of last year, and the substitution of it of another, directing, in effect, as negotiation through commissioner, with Texas alone, for the adjustment of the terms of Union between the two countries. Fro the expenses of such a commission, $100,000 are appropriated.  They are to settle all the terms of the incorporation of the two countries, as to boundaries, debts, and every thing else, except that the bill provides in advance that Texas is to be represented at once by two members in the House as well as in the Senate. When the conditions are settled they are to be submitted by the President to Congress, either in the form of a treaty or otherwise.

If, with the commentary of the Missourian’s speech, I understand the purposes of the plan, they are as above. I comprehend if as abandoning, in effect, the reservation in his previous bill for the consent of Mexico. I perceive not, as far as the details could be collected from merely hearing them read, that Mexico is to be consulted even about the boundaries to be established. If something did not escape me, the commissioners (plenipotentiaries in truth) would have no power to deal, or even consult with others on the part of Mexico; and if it were otherwise, that would matter nothing, for she is certain to refuse to take any part in the arrangements for her on spoliation. Thus it is with Texas alone, that the limits must perforce be arranged. It is true that Col. B. said, in his remarks, that it would be our part to treat with Mexico in the most conciliatory manner; but this, put into the English of two or three Polk or Tyler commissioners, may mean but just what Mr. Shannon means, when he tells Senor Rejon that the United States are practicing towards Mexico all sorts of delicacy and forbearance.

Col. B. further indicated his meaning to be that the responsibility of this government for the debts of Texas should not be excluded, as in the joint resolutions of the House. It was, he said, known every where that her public domain was all alienated already; so that the plan of the other House would leave her nothing wherewith to pay.

You will further see that this bill expunges from his former plan all the territorial limitations of slavery. It, in form, passes by all that question – thus meeting, in effect, one of the great objects for which so many caucuses of the other House were ineffectually holden, to procure, in the first place, action, annexation, and to leave the Slave question for another time, when Texas and her people might themselves lend a voice in resisting any exclusion of servitude. Such will, no doubt, be the effect of the new plan. Texas will claim to settle this for herself, as an internal question; and it will be yielded to her. Nay, it has already been yielded to her by Northern votes in the other House and why, after that, should Senators from a Slave State like Col. B., have any scruple?

In the last place, if I have correctly seized the phrase of the bill which I have conveyed by the italicized word otherwisecB. thinks that the Union need not take – is not forced finally to take – the form of a Treaty. I conceive, therefore, that he has no longer constitutional objections, to the joint resolutionary mode of Annexation. He certainly suggests that there is an alternative, a succedaneum, for the sanction of the treaty-making power.

In a word, I consider this bill as one which the Southern Annexationists, and the scrip and land speculators must decidedly prefer to the Joint Resolutions. It has, further, to me, a feature monstrous in legislation – the alternative clause which suggest a more constitution form – Treaty – and yet provides, loosely, that some other unexpressed way of doing the thing shall be permitted.

I will not, till I have seen the thing in print, consider all this as certain. At times, we of the galleries must catch very imperfectly, things where the precise wording is so very material. I give you, of course, but present impressions. It would therefore, be premature to offer, as yet, any conjecture as to the influence which the new proposition may have on the fate of Annexation, or the part which Mr. B. and his followers mean now to play in the question.

Mr. Rives, at least, must have formed a judgment of the matter very different from mine; for though he voted to refer the plan, as they did who apparently are its opponents, he spoke of it, as the most conservative, conciliatory, and statesman-like, of all the projects offered. You will probably see it, in some of the morning papers, and thus be able to se who has beast caught its character. I hope it may be he.

It is not, however, to be overlooked that, from the preceedings, the step took the Whigs by surprise. Several were absent, including Mr. Archer, who is sick; and none seem to have been prepared for the thing; while one voted with the Democrats. That, however, as to the mere reference, is not decisive, either as to him, or as to Democrats, whom, though acting in the same way, I have had reason thus far to consider as decided opponents of all Annexation thus clapped up, not only in disregard of all right, and all expediency, but in defiance of every constitutional obligation.

To a Southern man, accustomed to view the entire security of that weaker section of the Union as inseparable from the most determined resistance of all invasions of the main constitutional powers, there can be nothing more alarming than this Southern conspiracy, which, for a fancied good of the moment, soon to prove not merely illusory but calamitous, would break down our only protection, our last hope. I fear that the days which this Republic is yet to see, are few and will prove troubled.

This subject must excuse me from all others, except a single work of exultation a the death of the Land Graduation bill in the House.



Feb. 11, 1845, RWv22i12p1c2

“Later from Mexico,”

The brig R. de Zaldo, at New York, sailed from Vera Cruz on the 14th ult. We find in the New York Journal of Commerce the following summary in intelligence brought by her:

It is stated that Gen. Santa Ana had made five different attacks upon the city of Puebla, and had been repulsed each time, with some loss. At length despairing of success at that point, he withdrew, with all his forces, about 4000 men. An express arrived at Vera Cruz from Jalapa just before the Z. sailed stating that Santa Ana was besieging Perote, to which place it appears he retired after leaving Puebla. Generals Bravo and Paredes, the chiefs of the Revolution party, (which now wields the civil power) were still at Puebla on the 12th ult., with about 10,000 men. It was supposed he would march in pursuit of Santa Ana. Even should he be taken prisoner, it was thought at Vera Cruz that his enormous wealth, (he having, it is said, more than $12,000,000 in England) would avail to purchase his own life and the lives of his officers; although his conduct at Puebla is represented to have been exceedingly brutal, and to have raised the popular indignation against him to the highest pitch.

The people of Vera Cruz were expecting a visit from Santa Ana soon, either with a besieging army or as a fugitive. He would, however, be obliged to pass through a defile (about 15 miles from Jalapa) which was well fortified, and commanded by General Jose Rincon. At Vera Cruz there were also fortifications, which, although incomplete, were supposed to be sufficient to prevent his capturing the town.

Information brought by the express from Jalapa, mentioned above, excited apprehensions at Vera Cruz that an intrigue was going on, to save him and his officers, and that a fresh outbreak and much bloodshed would be the consequence.

Another report was that Santa Ana had sent in his submission to the new Government, and had placed himself and his troops at their disposal.

The officers commanding at Vera Cruz were Generals Moza and Hernandez; the Castle is under the command of Gen. Juan Lobo, and sterling man, and an inveterate enemy of Santa Ana.

It was deemed probably that Santa Ana would soon find his fortunes desperate, and escape on board an English frigate stationed at Sacrificios, with orders, it was said, to receive him and protect his person.

The brig passed, as she was coming out of the harbor of Vera Cruz, the Mexican steam frigate Montezuma, going in with troops from Campeche.

The New York Heraldadds the following:

Santa Ana, after having been defeated and driven into a small town near Puebla, has resorted to diplomacy, by sending three commissioners to the city of Mexico, to negotiate for the safety of his head, “In fact, he has virtually surrendered all his forces to the Supreme Government.”

We annex the official notice of the surrender:

From Diero de Vera Cruz, Jan. 13.
General in-Chief and Chief Secretary’s Office
Puebla, January 11, 1845

Bulletin no. 15, Army of Operation

His Excellency Don Antonio de Haro of Tamaniz, and Don Jose Maria Mendoza, yesterday took their departure for the capital of Mexico. On the same night, they were followed by Gen. Don Pedro Cortazar. These three officers are dispatched to treat with the Supreme government for the settlement of all difficulties now existing in the Republic, and for the prevention of further bloodshed.

I, therefore, order all the forces that cover the lines around this city, and now under my command, to suspend all acts of hostilities; to abandon the positions they now occupy; and to retire to the town of Amozoe, there to await the result of the negotiations of those officers.

In view of this commission, I doubt not that seconding the philanthropy by which I am animated, you will order the forces under your command to suspend, on their part, all hostilities, and avoid the effusion of blood, which should be carefully preserved to be shed only when necessary and against a foreign foe.

God and Liberty,
Head Quarters, Jan. 10, 7 P. M.

To General Don Ignacio de Inclan.

It may be that this is only a ruse, on the part of Santa Ana to gain time, in order to strike a more decisive blow. He is too shrewd a tactician not to see a check mate in a brief delay. It is very evident, however, that thus far he has had the worse of the fight, and has been driven into diplomacy.

RWv22i12 p1c5, February 11, 1845

New and important aspect of the Texas Question in the Senate

On Wednesday last, Mr. Benton gave a new and important phase to the Texas question (the debate of which commences in the Senate to-morrow) by withdrawing his bill of the last session and substituting this that follows:

“A BILL to provide for the annexation of Texas to the United States.

“ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, That a State to be formed out of the present republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in congress until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texas territory to the United States, shall be agreed upon by the government of Texas and the United States.

“Sec2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty, to be submitted to eh Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two Houses of Congress, as the President may direct.”

Mr. Benton entered into a very lucid explanation of the reasons of this movement, which we have not the space to quote at large. The following extract, however, will sufficiently possess the reader of the governing consideration which induced him to present this bill as an antagonist mode to that of joint resolution proposed by the House – the most atrocious departure from and violation of the Constitution, ever offered it, and which, if sanity ever again returns upon the minds of the American People, will be viewed, it and its aiders and abettors, with deeper abhorrence than ever was the Hartford Convention.

“Mr. BENTON said he would avail himself of the indulgence of the Senate to state the reasons which induced him to offer it. It was a copy, he said, substantially, of the bill which he had previously offered, with the omission of all the terms and conditions which that bill contained. He had been induced to omit all these conditions because of the difficulty of agreeing upon them, and because it was now clear that whatever bill was passed upon the subject of Texas, the execution of it must devolve upon the new president, who had been just elected by the people with a view to this object. He had confidence in Mr. Polk, and was willing to trust the question of terms and conditions to his untrammeled discretion, certain that he would do the best that he could for the success for the object, the harmony of the Union, and the peace and honor of the country. He had therefore, withdrawn all the terms an conditions which his previous bill contained, and only retained its cardinal features, namely, the admission of a Texas State by law, the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United States, and the adjustment of the terms and conditions of this admission and cession by envoys, or commissioners, subject to the confirmation of the two governments. This seemed to him to be the natural, practical way of proceeding, and was certainly the most respectful to Texas.

The joint resolution sent up by the House of Representatives was noting but a proposal, and a proposal clogged with conditions, and limited as to time. If it passed both Houses of our congress, it might be rejected by Texas; and then the process of making proposals would have to commence again. Legislative propositions, interchanged by two legislative bodies, sitting in two different countries, at the distance of near two thousand miles apart, was a slow way of coming to conclusions; and, unless some more practicable method was adopted, the annexation of Texas might be looked upon as an event deferred for years. – Commissioners, or envoys, to discuss propositions face to face, with a right to give as well as to take – with power to yield as well as to demand, can alone be competent to the successful termination of such a business. He therefore adhered to that part of his former bill which proposed to send ministers to settle the terms of annexation.

The occasion [said Mr. B.] is an extraordinary one, and requires an extraordinary mission. The voluntary union of two independent nations is a rare occurrence, and is worthy to be attended by every circumstance, which lends it dignity, promotes its success, and makes it satisfactory. When England and Scotland were united, at the commencement of the last century, no less than thirty-one commissioners were employed to agree upon the terms; and the terms they agreed upon received the sanction of the Parliaments of the two kingdoms, and a completed a union which had been in vain attempted for one hundred years. Extraordinary missions, nationality constituted, have several times been resorted to in our own country, and always with public approbations, whether successful or not. They first Mr. Adams sent Marshall, Gerry, and Pinckney to the French directly in 1798. Mr. Jefferson sent Ellsworth, Davin, and Murray to the French [ . . . ] government of 1800. Mr. Madison sent Adams, Bayard, Gallatin, Clay, and Russell to Ghent in 1814. All these missions; and others which might be named, were nationally constituted – composed of eminent citizens taken from each political party, and from different sections of the Union; and, of course, all favorable to the object for which they were employed. An occasion has recurred which in my opinion requires a mission similarly constituted – as numerous as the missions to Paris and to Ghent – and composed of citizens from both political parties, from the non-slaveholding as well as the slaveholding States. Such a commission could hardly fail to be successful not merely in agreeing upon terms which would be satisfactory to the people and the governments of the two countries. And here to avoid misapprehension and the appearance of disrespect where the contrary is felt, I would say that the gentleman now in Texas as the charge of the United States, is, in my opinion, eminently fit and proper to be one of the envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary which my bill contemplates.

The bill which I now propose (said Mr. B.) is brief and plain, but comprehensive and effectual. It proposes to admit one Texan State – to obtain a cession of the remaining Texan territory – and to settle the terms and conditions of the admission and cession by the usual and practicable mode of negotiation.

The admission of the State, or rather its right to admission, is to be complete under the bill. It is to be admitted by virtue of the act! so that no future legislation will be necessary for that purpose, and possibility of a Missouri controversy will be entirely avoided. The admitted State is to have all the rights of the existing States from the moment of her admission, not only theoretically but practically; for the bill fixes her representation in the federal Congress, and avoids all delay or debate upon that point. It says nothing about senators, for these the Constitution alone is sufficient: it both gives the right to senators, and fixes the number. To representatives it give the right, but leaves it to Congress to fix the number. This bill fixes it, and gives to the first Texan State two members – a number to which her present population will entitle her, and which will be sensibly increased before the process of admission can be accomplished, and doubled or trebled before the new apportionment under the census of 1840 can be extended to her.”

A motion was made by Mr. Berrien to refer the bill to the Committee of foreign Relations, in which he as aided by Messrs. Morehead, Merrick, barrow, and fives, and opposed by Messrs. Allen, Walker, &c. the vote resulted as follows:

YEAS: Messrs. Barrow, Bayard, Berrien, Clayton, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Foster, Francis, Huntington, Johnson, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Pearce, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Simmons, Upham, White and Woodbridge – 22.

NAYS: Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Gabby, Benton, Breese, Buchanan, Colquit, Dix, Dickinson, Fairfield, Hannegan, Haywood, Huger, Jarnagin, Lewis, Niles, Sevier, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, and Woodbury – 23.

So the new bill was not referred.

What the secret spirit of this movement of Mr. Benton is, there is a contrariety of opinion. Some think it is not made in good faith, but intended to complicate the question, to spin out time, and to secure the defeat of Annexation at this session of Congress, now rapidly drawing to a close, and by this Congress, elected before the question was sprung upon the country, and without any reference to it. Were this Col. Benton’s end, it would be in our judgment, a most laudable, praiseworthy and patriotic one! But we do not believe it is; for the superiority of his mode to any yet suggested is so clear that it furnishes a kind of guarantie of is sincerity and good faith. Not that we think if good – far from it – be we think it, with Mr. Rives, the best plan yet devised to accomplish an unconstitutional (by any mode!) and execrable result, even it was constitutional!

Mr. Rives said of it:

He repeated, that if he believed this new proposition was in any manner affected or prejudice by the report which had come to the Senate from the Committee on Foreign Relations; if he believed there was any intention on their part to smother, or withdraw it from the consideration of the Senate when the general subject should come up. He would not favor the reference proposed; for he did not hesitate to say, without committing himself in regard to his future action, what the proposition itself was conceived in a far more cautious, and, in his humble judgment, considerate and provident spirit than any proposition which had yet been submitted to this body.”

The Globe is in extacies with Benton’s projet. The Madisonian, reflecting, we presume, the sentiments of the Calhoun and Tyler clique, expresses for it the most unqualified abhorrence. We quote a portion of its objurgations:


At length the mountain has brought forth again, and the mouse is precisely similar to the one of which it was delivered last summer, with the exception of the tail. This mouse has been curtailed of its dimensions by some process or other; whether it was consumed by the fiery indignation of the Republican party against such an efficient breed, or whether its parent desired to exhibit a bob-tail to the Senate and the world, for the sake of greater diversion – and we presume the sequel will show that Col. Benton’s design is merely to ridicule the efforts of those in favor of immediate annexation, as a preliminary to the assumption of this “grand NEUTRAL position – of course his Whig allies who are laughing obstreperously in their sleeves, are the best qualified to decide.

Col. Benton has not, in reality, the presumption to believe that such a puerile and curtailed bantling as this proposition, which is brought forward after two months of grave, profound, and mysterious parturition, can be made to swallow up the measure which has passed with such difficulty through the House; no, he does not believe it; and if the popular branch of Congress were to revoke what has been done, retrace all the steps which have been taken, and bow in reverential submission to this curtailed mouse, as the god of their idolatry, we are sure no one would be more surprised that Col. Benton himself.


“The expressed purpose of Col. Benton’s [unclear unclear], is to defeat the immediate re acquisition of the territory of Texas – its ultimate design is to ignite a political volcano, which is to enable its authors to control the patronage of the new Administration, or to overwhelm it, during its entire existence, with incessant belchings of red-hot lava! Colonel Benton declared last May, (we have it on good authority,) he “would rather see the Democratic party sunk fifty fathoms in hell, than that any other man than Mr. Van Buren should be nominated.” During the campaign his weight was added, with other prominent anti-annexationists, to sink it; and since the triumph of the Democracy, on the strength of the Texas question, he has declared in the presence of a member of the Missouri legislature, that “if Col. Polk should dare to say immediate annexation once, he would make the Presidential chair too hot to hold him.” And now we see his plan developed; and although it is an insignificant affair in the estimation of others, it will serve him as a pertext and a means to utter his predetermined anathemas.


RWv22i18p1c1, Mar. 4, 1845


We refer to the letter of “Il Secretario” and the annexed slip from the National Intelligencer, for the particulars of the passage of the Texas Resolutions by the Senate, the form in which they passed, and the new attitude given the question by the annexation of Benton’s project to the Resolutions of Mr. Brown as they passed the House.

Thus amended in the Senate, the measure must again pass under the revision of the House, and as but four days of the session remain, and one of them is Sunday, it is yet questionable what the final issue is to be. It occurs to us as most probable, that the Texas party in the House, frantic and unscrupulous as they have already proved themselves, will apply the gag, prohibit debate, deliberation or amendment, and by a call of the previous question, pass the undigested lump just in the form it came from the Senate. Nay, most probably this has already been done, and that this day’s mail will bring the intelligence.

We regard this measure, this great and far-reaching measure, thus originating in the impurest motives of political intrigue and mercenary speculation,--thus hurried through and crammed down the throats of the People, - not only before the People themselves had spoken and approved, but almost avowedly, that they might be deprived of the opportunity of speaking as sinning against the Constitution, national honor, justice and principle, with the “high hand and an outstretched arm!” Many, we know, every way worthy of respect, differ from us in these sentiments. We can only wonder that they should do so, with the Constitution before their eyes, and the unchangeable principle of Justice and Right in their hearts: It makes us believe that there are times in a country’s history, as philosophers alledge, - as in the South Sea bubble in England, or that of Law in France, - when madness is endemic among nations. Why we should want more territory, when we have forty times more already than we can people – why we should wish to annex another cotton and sugar country, when cotton and sugar, from over-production, are already almost drugs in the markets of the World – why we should above all, desire to go out of our way to make this acquisition, at the expense of violating the laws of nations, the rights of a friendly power, the prostration of our Constitution, the disregard of all the maxims of a wise moderation, at the imminent hazard of foreign war and above and [ . . . ] over all, of domestic CONVULSIONS and DISUNION – these problems we say, must puzzle every thinking mind.

Yet there is a solution and the solution is, that mercenary speculators and designing politicians made this an issue before the country to serve their own purposes, and that party management used it to accomplish the objects of power and office it had in view. The people have been shamelessly deceived and juggled, and have really had little to do with the matter.

It is the beginning of the “letting out of waters” and we proclaim that no one can foretell where or how it is to terminate. They who have forced it upon the country have a weight of responsibility to bear, which should not be ours for all the treasure Old Ocean hides in his bosom.

But in the conflict of excited passions and sectional interests, which is inevitably to ensure, let us all cling to the UNION, convinced that when that goes to pieces, this country is to become, uncontrolled by any public opinion, or the neighborhood of other nations, the most apt illustration of a Hell upon Earth.

From the National Intelligencer Extra, February 28


The [ . . . ] of the Senate yesterday upon the Texas question requires a more formal notice than the ordinary current report of legislative proceedings.

The Joint Resolution which, having passed the House of Representatives, has been under discussion for some days in the Senate, is in the following words:


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of Government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the Sates of this Union.

Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guaranties, to wit:

First. Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments; and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.

Second. Said State, when admitted into the Union, after [ . . . ] to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence, belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due or owing said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.

Third. New Sates, of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of [ . . . ] thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

The debate upon this resolution was resumed yesterday, in a brilliant speech, by Mr. Crittenden, against the resolution, and was closed by a speech from Mr. Archer, in reply to the supporters of the measure, and in most earnest exhortation to the Senate against the surrender of its peculiar constitutional power to mere popular impulse.

When Mr. Archer concluded –

Mr. Walker moved to amend the joint resolution by adding thereto the following:

And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United Sates shall, in his judgment and discretion, deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the Republic of Texas as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with that republic; then –

Be it resolved, That a States to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two Representatives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texas territory to the United States, shall be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same in hereby appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two Houses of Congress, as the President may direct.

The pressing for an immediate vote upon this amendment [which is substantially Mr. Benton’s last proposition] gave rise to some feeling in the Senate, and, in the end, it was determined to take a recess before voting upon the question.

At six o’clock the Senate again assembled

We refrain from any attempt to give a particular account of proceedings at this evening session, fearing errors in the lateness of the night, contenting ourselves with announcing the decisive votes merely.

On the question to agree to the amendment of Mr. WALKER, above stated, the votes were as follows.

YEAS – Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atehison, Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Buchanan, Colquitt, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Haywood, Henderson, Huger, Johnson, Lewis, McDuffie, Merrick, Niles, Semple, Sevier, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Woodbury – 27.

NAYS – Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Choate, Clayton, Crittendon, Dayton, Evans, Foster, Francis, Huntington, Jarnagin, Mangum, Miller, Morehead, Pearce, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Simmons, Upham, White, Woodbridge – 25.

So the amendment was agreed to.

On the question of ordering the Joint Resolution to a third reading as thus amended, the vote was as follows:

YEAS – Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Buchanan, Colquitt, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Haywood, Henderson, Huger, Johnson, Lewis, McDuffie, Merrick, Niles, Semple, Sevier, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Woodbury. – 27.

NAYS – Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Choate, Clayton, Crittenden, Dayton, Evans, Foster, Francis, Huntington, Jarnagin, Mangam, Miller, Morehead, Pearce, Phelps, Porter, Rives, Simmons, Upham, White, Woodbridge – 25.

So the bill was ordered to a third reading.

The bill was then read a third time, amidst profound silence, without the yeas and nays being called for, and passed.

Though the lobbies were crammed, and the galleries packed with an anxious and interested multitude of people, a perfect dignity and decorum characterized the whole proceeding of this memorable night.


The reader will learn, from the preceding statement of the Senate’s proceedings of last night, that the Joint Resolution of the House of Representatives for the admission of Texas into the Union, having acquired the support of Mr. Benton and others by incorporating his last project as an alternative to the provision of the House resolution, has passed the Senate by a majority of two votes, in effect by one vote, as a change of one vote would have reversed the decision, by producing an equality of votes.

Our readers must not fall into the error of supposing that this decision b the Senate settles the Texas question. It unsettles it, on the contrary, apparently beyond the possibility of its being determined at the present session of Congress. It is hardly possible that the House of Representatives with one half of all the business of the session in its hands untouched, can again reach a question which, once taken up, will leave for other business no remainder of the session, But should the question be reached, it is still less within the compass of probability that the amendment made by the Senate will receive the sanction of the House. The Joint Resolution passed by chance: that chance can hardly again recur.

We could have wished indeed that he sanctity of the Constitution and the rights of the Senate, had been vindicated by that body itself; but there is consolation in the reflection that in the checks and balances of the Government and especially of each House of Congress upon the other a compensation is sometimes happily to be found and may be hoped to be found in this case for the confusion of the senses under which bodies even so elevated as the Senate of the United States sometimes stray from the path of right and duty.

RWv22i18p1c2, March 4, 1845


The Texas gentlemen yesterday, at 3 o’clock, saluted the People of Richmond with Twenty seven Guns! – (One for Texas!) Let us see if the Spartan band, the Leonidases who performed that gallant service, will be as ready to face those real and substantial dangers which are likely to grow out of this violent measure!

RWv22i18p1c2, March 4, 1845

[Correspondence of the Whig]

WASHINGTON, 27th Feb’y, 1845

It is finished, and we are an Annexed people! We have taken to ourselves the Commonwealth of cut-throats, the Republic of Rogues; the Land of Loafers! We have a broader freedom: it has taken a new and wider area: no “pent-up Utica confines our powers” any longer: our liberty, “cribb’d, cabined and confined” before, has got a little elbow-room at last. We shall now, for at least two years to come, have at worse, in this crowded country of ours, what they call in theatres “Standing-room” – that is, for such as it suits not to run away: though, really, this business of running away from the United States will presently, at this rate, become a very serious one; for the Union and accountability to its laws follows so fast, that it will be difficult for villains to get away from them.

The land of Washington has, among its founders, placed on high, in the pantheon of its demi-gods, along side of his image, that of the drunken brute and blackguard, who fled his own State as the abhorred traducer of his own wife’s honour; who went forth, an expatriated ruffian, to herd with savages – to be, if he could, an Indian. Such proportion, [ . . . ] as he bears to Washington, in wisdom or virtue to found a States, does Texas bear to any thing which ought to be a part of this Union. Let the good old Thirteen veil their head in shame at such an associate! Let Mississippi, if she ever had a though of blushing, abandon the idea. She will shine white and pure – INTAMINATIS FULGET IIONORIRUS – beside the new ally, the sweet, the maiden modesty and innocence of Texas! But let me not run over in shame, in bitter and indignant words: there is no time for it. At the late hour when the Senate came to a final decision (after 9) and after some time spent in collecting particular personal facts, I have no more space than is necessary to give a brief account of the main events of the day.

The House bill and Mr. Benton’s consolidated into one, were passed by a vote of 27 to 25 – a full Senate. In this vote, Bagby deserted back to his own party; Foster returned to his friends; poor Johnson copied the apostacy of miserable Merrick; and the latter stood faster to his baseness then he ever stuck to any thing else before in his life.

Of these four, Foster had always declared himself as favorable to the expediency of Annexation upon proper terms, and as entertaining little difficulty about the question of Constitutionality. He finally abandoned them, whenby refusing to secure Slavery there and to provide for the Non Assumption of the debts of Texas, the plan was rendered such as met not his notions of policy and duty. Merrick, I need hardly say, discovered not a scruple of any sort, on any point. Johnson, as I have told you, thought any thing but the treaty form of Admission unconstitutional. He so voted, almost at the last state, on an amendment offered for the direct and avowed purpose of entangling him and Bagby. Yet both surmounted all their own specific scruples and plainly and unequivocally perjured themselves, upon their own deliberate and solemn declarations!

In a word, this whole operation was accomplished by the most palpable fraud and subterfuge of men who, a part of them, had opposed one form of the thing as against their consciences, and another part the other form: but by the simple device of putting the two together, these same men became satisfied to vote for that which they had denounced as unconstitutional!

To Bagby and Johnson both, as I have told you, the difficulty lay to acting by Legislation: both believed that a treaty only could constitutionally annex Texas. But what did they? Both voted against every effort but one to act through the Treaty power! And both finally voted for a set of resolutions, huddled up out of inconsistent – nay, hostile methods – which permit Texas, if she likes, to come in at once, merely upon the passage of this Act and even without its being formally communicated to her, by the Executive; secondly, to come in, more formally, through a mere Executive invitation to take advantage of this law: and, thirdly, to come in by negotiation, if the President should choose to offer to finish the business in [ . . . ] form.- You will thus see what the consciences of [ . . . ] are worth, even upon a public question the most [ . . . ] and high. They believe treaty alone legitimate, and [ . . . ] vote for what IN TWO OF THE MODES, includes it, and make THE THIRD dependant only upon the pleasure of the Executive! He MAY negotiate, if Texas will let him, he may, IF HE LIKES – that’s all. They commit their consciences, then, to Texas and the President – authorizing THEM, to pay some attention or none to the Constitution, just as suits them! Mark you: over Texas, they CAN exert no compulsion: and over the President they ATTEMPT none. – If the latter should have ever so many scruples about the power to act by treaty only, it matters not – for Texas can act, under this law, without his intervention: and he, too, in his turn, if they let him into the matter, may then choose to take the treaty made or not, as he fancies! Such are the vile, [ . . . ], infamous, rotten pretences of legality, that quiet the consciences of these men! Oh foul and monstrous fraud and dishonour! Why, the mere felon that hid not his turpitudes under a more decent fetch than this would be held as low a blockhead as knave! This is a case to shock not merely the good, but to call down the indignation of villains, when knavery itself is discredited by such a stupid violation of all its rules of deceiving – for whom can such [ . . . ] public perjury as this deceive?

So palpable were these facts, that Mr. Crittenden came forward into the very center of the Senate, stood out, and [ . . . ] them. It was, he said, impossible to deny, all must see, that they were in fact passing the ACT BY A MINORITY; for neither of the two plans thrown together in this bill could command A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE: enough were opposed to [ . . . ] to defeat it. It was only be this jumbling of false and fraudulent alternatives that the [ . . . ] could be carried.

That Senate began the debate of the day, in one of those beautiful and noble speeches, strong, brilliant and cutting, which make him so much, when he exerts himself, the greatest speaker now in our public councils. His argument, upon the main points (he touched scarcely any other) was overwhelming, often full of his captivating eloquence, and enlivened at frequent intervals, with those terrible blows of ridicule and irony with which he often smites.  It was far the best and ablest speech that has graced even the admirable sustained cause which he was defending.

Mr. Archer closed the regular discussion, in a discourse such as I had expected, of high feelings and force, full of striking thought, excellently expressed, and well delivered as far as feeble voice permits.

But my hour runs out. I salute you, but no longer as a citizen of the same Government. I look on this as a Revolution, a downfall.



RWv22i18p1c4, March 4, 1845


We have no space for the final and very interesting proceedings in the Senate on the day of the passage of the Texas measure. The friends of the Constitution fought nobly and fought to the end, and but for Merrick’s unblushing treachery, [or rather, sale of his vote!] would have defeated the measure by a tie vote, notwithstanding the disregard of instructions, by Haywood of North Carolina, and Allen and Tappan of Ohio. [ . . . ] in sin, and instigated throughout by motives of party intrigue and mercenary cupidity, this measure was properly consummated at last by a disregard of the highest obligations. Corruption and venality finished what avarice, President-making, and disloyalty to the Union commenced. It will stand out on the page of history along side of the partition of Poland, surpassing even that in the unredeemed baseness of the motives which swayed the immediate agents in it.

RWv22i18p1c4, March 4, 1845


The Texas measure, as we predicted Saturday, was forced through the House on Friday. No debate, no amendment, no deliberation, was allowed. So great a measure was never so hurriedly dispatched. The final vote of the House adopting the Senate’s amendment was 132 to 76.

The National Intelligencer says:

“Our readers will perceive, by the above notice of yesterday’s transactions in Congress, that the Resolution for the annexation of Texas to these United States has passed both Houses, and that nothing now, but the veto of the President can prevent its becoming the law of the land. – Notwithstanding, however, his hailing from the school of strict constructionists, and his remarkable [ . . . ] in regard to other measures, approved of at one time and vetoed another, we do not pretend to anticipate that the President will negative this Joint resolution, utterly repugnant though it be, both in its object and in the mode of officiating it to the Constitution of the country. We must . . .

[Three illegible lines] . . . the highest interests of the country, as well as at variance with the Constitution itself, we have exerted the utmost of our humble ability to avert its consommation. Our own efforts, and those of much abler and wiser men, having failed to arrest an act which a few years ago any man would have been deemed insane who had seriously proposed it, we must bow to the will of the majority. We could have wished, indeed, that a decision pregnant with consequences so vast, and so deeply affecting the testament of the country, had not depended on one man, and been carried by a single vote: had it received a more emphatic approval, we could have been better reconciled to its passage.

RWv22i18p1c5, March 4, 1845

“CONGRESS,” From the National Intelligencer, March 1.

The proceeding of Congress yesterday, though very limited in the number of subjects disposed of, were in some respects, of the highest importance. Not having space for a detailed account of the transaction of the day we [ . . . ] a summary statement.

In the Senate, after rejecting a motion to postpone the previous order and proceed to consider the bills for the admission of the Territories of Iowa and Florid as States of the Union the bill of the other House [unclear unclear unclear] for the civil and diplomatic service of the Government was taken up, and the Senate spent the remainder of the day’s sitting, until five o’clock, in discussing new items of appropriation, or changes of pre existing ones, proposed by the Committee on Finance or moved by individual members. Among the numerous amendments adopted was one reducing the appropriation for a Minister Plenipotentiary to Austria to the sum required only to maintain a Charge’d Affaires; another was the reduction of the appropriation for outfit and salary for a Minister to China to the sum of $5,000 for “a Commissioner to reside in China,” and another was inserting an appropriation of $275,000 to pay the April and July instalments of the Mexican indemnity due in 1844, provided it should be ascertained that the said instalments have been [as was ascerted in debate] paid by the Mexican Government to the agent appointed by the Government of the United States to receive them.

In the House of Representatives, the first transaction of importance was the passage and transmission to the Senate of the Harbor and River bill, making appropriations of some two millions of dollars for various objects of internal improvement. Then came up, in course, the report of a committee on the Dorr rebellion, and the delivery of two speeches of the subject, when the hour allotted to reports expired. Motions were then successively made to take up the Army and Navy appropriation bills, but the majority resisted these motions, and insisted on first “clearing the Speaker’s table,” on which lay, the Senate’s amendment to the Resolution for the Annexation of Texas. Accordingly, that subject was soon reached, and the House having adopted an order virtually prohibiting debate, the amendment of the Senate was forced through a Committee of the Whole House, (careful to observe the format of the Constitution in small matters,) and “was then concurred in by a vote of 132 to 76. The House then took up the Navy appropriation bill, and at 8 o’clock [the latest period at which we heard from it] was quietly going through its details.

RWv22i18p2c4, March 4, 1845


This gentleman (and all the Whigs who voted for Brown’s Texas Resolutions except Mr. Dellett of Alabama) voted in opposition to them when they returned from the Senate, encumbered with Mr. Benton’s proposition--. On the other hand, every Democrat who had voted against Mr. Brown’s resolutions, now voted for them (with Benton’s project annexed) except Mr. Hale of New Hampshire and Mr. Davis of New York.

These facts are highly significant. The accession of the recusant Northern Democracy [principally from New York] proves that the Van Buren and Wright influence had finally acquiesced in the Texas movement, and that Mr. Benton’s movement was in all probability concerted to afford them the opportunity of doing [ . . . ]. In few words the moral of the tale is, that Calhoun and Polk having stolen Tyler’s Texas thunder, and made capital from it, were in turn robbed by the Old Hunkers, who did not choose that they should make too much capital.

But we congratulate Mr. Newton, that circumstances, no mater how contrived, [ . . . ] whom, or for what purpose, so worked ultimately as to save him from the deep responsibility of a final approbation of the outrage and iniquity of annexing Texas in the mode it was annexed, and for the still viler motives which influenced the mass of active agents in that work of unconstitutionality and lawless aggression. His friends we are sure will rejoice, and his own conscience.

RWv22i18p2c4, March 4, 1845

Mr. Tyler has signed the Texas, and Florida, and Iowa Bills, so that the bills making them States are now laws of the Land.

RWv22i18p2c4, March 4, 1845


This gentleman’s second address to the People of the 9th congressional District will appear to-morrow, having been received too late yesterday for this day’s Whig.

This gentleman is pleased to indulge himself in very unfounded complaints at our “throwing the power of the Press between him and the Whig party, before his first address reached them!” And that Mr. Pendleton’s address was issued before his own! What are the facts? We first published as soon as we received it, Mr. M.’s Card announcing himself a candidate. Then came Mr. Pendleton’s Card which was promptly published: then Mr. Morton’s first address which was as promptly published as Mr. Pendleton’s, but which did not reach the District as soon after publication as Mr. P.’s, because the Country edition was not so near when it was published in the Daily – What more could we do? What just ground of complaint has Mr. Morton? Nay had we declined publishing his address entirely, we are not aware that he could have had any cause of complaint, since we presume we have the discretion of rejecting or publishing what we please: But, instead of taking the course, and in pursuance of a rule from which we never deviate, to publish both sides, we at once and at the earliest practicable moment yielded to his application. Thus we shall to, too, again, in respect to Mr. Morton’s second address.

The truth is, that gentleman is irritated because we exercised our rightful liberty of commenting upon his extraordinary and (as we think it) unjustifiable course in hazarding the loss of the strongest Whig district in Virginia to gratify his ambitious aspirations – in appealing, in effect, to his and [unclear unclear unclear unclear} the Whigs for his own promotion and advancement; and in making all the measures of the Whig party bow to the immediate annexation of Texas where he is fortunate enough to hold territorial possessions. This is what irritates him, and he will scarcely deny that it is so.

To the majority of men, Mr. Morton’s course is the most natural in the world; but from him we confess we expected a more generous course and a loftier political bearing.

But Texas is now annexed: What next from him? This was the scaffolding upon which he sought to climb, and it has been kicked from under his feet by his own Texas allies: Will he still persist in dividing the Whig party, the single object of his aspiring to Congress being attained without his assistance? Time will show. Let us assure him what he knows well, that there is no personal pique in what we have said respecting his proclaiming himself a candidate for Congress under the circumstances; that scarcely one man in Virginia would have been personally more acceptable to us; but that we would feel justified in supporting no man who had placed himself in such an attitude to his own cause, his own principles and his own friends.

RWv22i18p2c5, March 4, 1845


WASHINGTON, March 2, 1845

As the end approaches, it becomes more worth my while to abandon the tracing of proceeding in Congress of events that lie open to every body’s knowledge, and to attempt instead, to give you notice of the true internal state of things, so far as my somewhat practical observation detects, or seems to me to detect it. It is a very curious one.

To begin with the regular organization of the new power, I believe the Cabinet will be constituted just as I told you some ten days since: that is to say, Mr. Buchanan is to be Premier, Mr. Walker to occupy the next position in dignity (really the higher one for patronage and influence) the Treasury; Cave Johnson to be Post Master General; that inexpressible man of unmentionables and Spoils, Marcy, to be Secretary of War; Mr. Mason to remain in the Navy – the only part of the Tyler dynasty that has found favor in Mr. Polk’s eyes. They were old intimates – Congressional yoke fellows to the Jacksonian era. The Attorney-Generalship is less positive, but Mr. Bancroft, I still think, will get it. It is not supposed that the new Administration will encourage or therefore need much Law; so that even the little which he possesses may probably be put into very slender requisition.

As to the Premier, you see at once, either that the authentic edict, published through Mr. Polk’s confidential journal (the Union), just in time to arrive here with him, is put aside in Mr. Buchanan’s favor, or that he is the selected successor, or the HE ALONE, of the notorious Presidential aspirants, has been done the honor of being looked on as having no chance, or else that he has done himself the honor of entering by stipulation, into a regular renunciation of the future for the present. Now it is very true, that baffled so long in his weak ambition, he may have come to prefer “a bird in the hand to two in the bush:” or again he may have considered that, as Presidents now-a-days always promise to serve but one term – as the surest means of being able to arrive not only at one, but two – so secretaries may adopt with equal morality and like advantage the same system of pretended self denial. Or yet again, he may intend to use his present position (as it may be called) to secure a better one (now probably the ultimate object of his corrected aspirations) the retiring Pension (as they call such things in the British Ministry,) of a seat on the Supreme Bench, with the survivorship of Chief Justice.

Meantime, as the President’s following the example of the later Roman Emperors, and appointing what they called, a Caesar, (a successor,) that you must observe was never done by them except to secure their own power: none of them ever meant that the designated Caesar should reign, till they could reign no more themselves. I do not much suspect any of those who belong to this dynasty of the “old Roman” of knowing one word of Roman History: but still they may have been told that, the Caesars very often aspired to dethrone those who had lifted them to the second place in the Empire; and that they often supplanted their creators. At any event it is a common instinct of Princes to be jealous of their heirs. The Dukes of Orleans, in France, repeatedly led the party opposed to the Crown; and in England the Prince of Wales has many times headed the opposition. I take it for granted then, that Mr. Polk will, like every body else that has tasted the sweetness of supreme power, soon find himself utterly averse to giving it up; that if, therefore, he has entered into any compact, it was only with the momentary view of inducing a rival not to stand in his way; that such a compact, no matter how made, will not be kept, either by him or any other; nay, that he with whom it was made, will only, for its existence, become the strong object of jealousy. In a word, such an arrangement may be made at a President’s first, as well as second term; but it is never kept, except as to the latter. It was, no doubt, made between Jackson and Calhoun: but the latter saw, before the first term was far gone, not only that the “Hero” meant to be a candidate a second time, but probably preferred a different, suppler successor. But Jackson’s engagement, for his second term, was more faithfully kept, because he could reign no longer. In spite of this lesson, Calhoun clearly allowed himself to be a second time entrapped with this pie crust – first term promise, made to be broken, by Mr. Van Buren; coalesced with him – turned against him; and pulled him down, when he stood up to complete a second term. Now, partly because, as an older bird, he is not to be caught with such mere chaff, nor yet to be taken by having salt put upon his tail; and partly because his wretched mismanagement of this Texas business has so nearly been fatal to it; he cannot trust the Polk Administration, nor it him; so that he has been, in its arrangements or compacts displaced by the Buchanan interest.- Enough however of Mr. Buchanan. As Secretary of State, he cannot well make any but a very poor figure. Except the good temper of a man without much purpose, an amenity derived from a want of all will or courage or sincerity, he has exceedingly little in him. His reputation for abilities, so far as he possesses it, will soon appear – before the test of real difficulty, as a leading member in that which has to originate, to act, to guide, to manage high and often dangerous things – to be a mere imposture. I know scarcly any man whose capacity has been more utterly overrated.

Mr. Walker had, upon a man whose fortunes have been made by the Texas question, claims which it was impossible to disregard. His talents too, are such as not even Mr. Polk could take umbrage at. He joins to his rights over the President elect, a still stronger one over the Vice elect, his brother-in-law nominee. He was, besides, of that luck family the Bache Dallases, for all of whom, during several reigns, the Government or Fate seems to have destined an invariable provision. I presume it is their violent adhesion to Rotation which has kept them always in office or their hatred of monopoly which gives the all a right to places, every mother’s son and nearly every daughter’s husband of them. Moreover besides being brother-in-law to the Vice President and dry-nurse to his present political fortunes, he has with him a farther complication of kin – Repudiation being the daughter of Mr. Dallas’ daughter, Miss Charta Breaking, Mr. Walker is on this side, his brother-in-law’s great-grandson. To speak, however, as seriously as one can of such a politician as Mr. Walker, the little man, among tall politicians, would stand a Tom Thumb; but measured by his colleagues, his magnitude will seem quite respectable. His capacity is exceedingly small; his principles slight; of fitness for large affairs, no man can have less, for he is essentially a pettifogger. For that largeness of view which can look through wide and difficult subjects of statesmanship or finance, and grasp with strong hands a great system of interests, Mr. Walker, be assured, is utterly incapable of it. But a little while will it take him to prove that he is not another Crawford, nor another John C. Spencer. But he is an industrious little body, with a considerable faculty of fuss. A great noise will he make over small things in magnifying which, his genius principally lies. However he is a good natured person – too complacent to be easily offended; and moreover he is brave; for little men by I know not what frolick of nature are usually so. Their hearts are probably bigger then other peoples’ in proportion to their persons.

Of Cave, what shall I tell you, or how fitly speak of a condition of public affairs, when an animal as worthless for any high public trust as he can mount to distinction? Among Demagogues themselves there is one sort narrower and baser than all the rest, the poverty of whose parts directs them to but one single mode of making themselves agreeable to the meanest of the many – those I mean who dedicate all their public zeal to prevent any man’s getting at the Treasure, right or wrong. Among this sort, Cave is one of the most inveterate. For God knows how many years, he has made that, and moving small and mean motions in Congress, his dearest and almost his only occupation. There is no wrong against any claim however equitable, nor any public interest however capital, which Cave would not at any moment commit, for the sake of seeming vigilant of the Treasury. In short, Cave is as thoroughly the dirty fellow, as any that is has been my fortune to look upon in public life. His abilities are in precise proportion to his favorite aim and the morality with which he pursues it. As to the capacity to manage a Department, the Post Office has been glorious under Wickliffe in comparison to what he will make it. As to a system, he is about as fit to direct one as a weasel would be to manage a great establishment for hatching chickens, or a man for a weaver that had never done any thing, all his life, but pick holes in every public sack that he could get at. He is one to make a great hammering and seem very intent on mending one hole in your pan, while he is making half a dozen new ones. That’s Cave; and depend upon it that the little ability that Heaven has given him will be, every atom of it, spent in contriving to make the Post Office service a still more abandoned machinery of party politics than even Charles Wickliffe has turned it into.

But this grows long, so I must finish my review of the coming Cabinet, on the last day of the old. I have also to touch on the present prospect of Calhoun, Benton, Blair, Ritchie et id omne genus. At present, if I may measure your feelings by my own, you are woefully tired.



RWv22i18p2c6, March 4, 1845

Letter to the Editor

To the Editors of the Whig:

Gentlemen – I have seen with great pleasure the amends honorable made to Mr. SCOTT in your paper of this morning. In your article you speak of “one” who has done the greatest service to Polk, Dallas, and TEXAS in this section of the country: may a Democrat trespass so far upon your courtesy as to ask what “one” is the individual alluded to? Excuse the liberty taken in addressing you anonymously, and believe me to be most respectfully, etc.,



RWv22i19p1c7, March 7, 1845


We are indebted to the Captain of the schr. Fanny, for Mexican papers up to the 8th instant.

Mr. Gomez [ . . . ] arrived at Vera Cruz on the 11th inst., on board the Spanish brig [ . . . ] O’Donnell, from Havana.

Don Fernando Calderon, a promising young poet, died in the flower of his age.

Nothing definite had yet transpired concerning Santa Ana’s fate. The great Dictator has humbled himself, and begs to have his life spared, with the most contemptible cowardice, and under whatever condition they may I pose on him.

The Siecle of the 7th, announced that Santa Ana has given drafts to Mr. Perez Salver, being a restitution of one hundred thousand dollars which he had caused to be taken from the Mint in Guanajuato. He had also appointed as advocate to raise the embargo put on his property and settle all the damages his conduct has caused the nations to suffer.

The Courier Francais remarks that great difficulties exist in bringing a bill of accusation against Santa Ana. The question to solve, is whether he will be accused as President or as General, being at the time of the revolution Ex-President and commander in Chief. – N.O. Bee

RWv22i19p2c3, March 7, 1845


The Madisonian says:- “Floyd Waggaman, Esq. will leave the city this afternoon to deliver to Major 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.”

So that Mr. Tyler has acted as we supposed he would, upon the Resolution of the House, leaving those of the Senate a dead letter. – Balt. Pat.

RWv22i19p2c4, March 7, 1845


The New York Courier & Enquirer gives the uncrowned monarch a parting broad-side, so just and retributive, that we transfer it below to our columns. King James II of England, after his exile from the throne and when he had taken refuge in France, overheard a French nobleman celebrated for his wit, say to a companion, ‘There is a fool who sold three Kingdoms for a mass”! But King James was honest! He thought Popery right, and that his duty to God bound him to attempt its restoration in England! He was a fool to be sure – but an honest fool – and if one is obliged to execrate his tyranny, as well as the objects for which it was exerted, he is still left at liberty to respect the sincerity which actuated him.

But, of our John, what can be said in extenuation! – Where is the sincerity that excuses his folly, or the single upright motive that offers any apology for his enormous treachery? His pernicious administration of public affairs has only been exceeded by the vile personal motives and ends in which it as engendered! Self! Self! Self has been throughout the controlling consideration. Upon the instant of his succeeding to the Presidency by the death of Gen. Harrison, he embraced the purpose of a second term, to which absurd and impossible dream – known to be impossible and absurd to every body but himself and a little coterie of moonstruck and interested dependents – he sacrificed his friends, his cause, his principles, his promises and the great and generous party who had snatched him from obscurity, and elevated him to a world observed prominence! As he did in the Virginia Legislature in 1839, when he sought and obtained a nomination from his opponents against his friends, so did this shallow dupe of his own egregious vanity seek to do again, when fate, not the People, had raised him to the highest office in the world! He intrigued for a Democratic nomination! He sacrificed without hesitation, or delay, or even the observance of a decent interval of time, all the Whig principles and measures which the victory of 1840 had consecrated! He babbled, he and all his clique, of Democracy, with the loudest of the Canting Crew! He even affected to be governed by principle, who did not regard it as unprincipled to sacrifice a nation’s will and expectations to his own frivolous hopes and ridiculous expectations.

But why dwell upon a theme so revolting and disgusting! We only do dwell upon it at all, to lend our feeble aid to consign perfidy, the disregard of the most solemn obligations which can be imposed upon men, to the hatred and contempt of mankind. It is not to render John Tyler any more uncomfortable than his own consciousness already renders him. God forbid! That would be a cruelty of which we hope we are incapable. He is now out of power, and we are convinced that no one in all the annals of time, has ever been compelled to lay down power – not even King John or the Stuarts – se generally and cordially despised.

The Courier and Enquirer says:

“With the close of last night ceased the temporary Presidency of John Tyler – who goes back to Virginia without the respect, we sincerely believe, of a single man in the nation, and with the malediction of every patriot who can appreciate the degradation brought upon the institutions and morals of the country by the course of his administration.

Coming into power by a calamity which plunged the nation in gloom, he brought with him enough of character upon which to build hope in his capacity, and had so deeply pledged himself to Whig principle as to preclude doubt of his fidelity.

These hopes and doubts he made haste to dissipate.

Weak, presumptuous, showy and vain, he very soon became the mark for all the political sharpers in the land – who saw in him the precise qualities by means whereof knaves have ever played upon fools. They flattered him to the top of his bent, they talked Virginia Roman to him until he almost imagined himself a Roman indeed – they lauded his political consistency – then stimulated his narrow prejudices – they called – whose personal experience of men and things went not beyond Mason & Dixon’s line – a great statesman! And the qualities of a profound and accomplished Jurist were ascribed to this second rate lawyer of a Virginia County Court.

He heard and believed and swelled, while they who thus fooled him got offices, contracts, jobs – and the country saw with mingled scorn and indignation the scullion of the kitchen promoted to be ruler among men.

From the moment that he broke with General Harrison’s Cabinet – a breach not more remarkable for the mean equivocation with which on his side, incipient treachery was sought to be concealed, than for the manly disinterestedness with which his councilors threw up office – to the latest of the dirty acts of his jobbing, dirty administration, his downward career has been progressive.

Coming to power with professions of economy and reform, he has lavishly used the public monies in the multiplication of offices; and the revival of some, abolished before as unnecessary.

Declaiming in his first message against the interference of office holders in politics, and carrying his fastidiousness so far as to direct a circular to be written, threatening all such with loss of place for any violation of the prohibition, we have seen him appointing men solely because they were partisans and busy electioneers for him; and again turning out others of his own selection, because they would not become partisans themselves, nor permit their subordinates to be so.

Favored by circumstances, and the signal ability of his Secretary of State, he was fortunate in bringing to an honorable close the long-contested a menacing controversy with England, respecting the North eastern Boundary; and, as acting President, some portion of the honor will accrue to him.

The Annexation of Texas – the favorite hobby of Mr. Tyler – has succeeded in Congress, but at the expense of the Constitution; and we witness the spectacle of men trained in what has been called the school of strict construction, stretching that construction so as virtually to annihilate the Senate, quo ad hoc. and to extend a limited partnership formed for these United States and their dependencies, to any and every foreign State, whose possessions we may covet, and whose independence we may suborn.

In forming a judgment, therefore, of John Tyler’s, administration, we shall find its one virtue to be the treaty of Washington; and that solitary virtue, as in the case of Byron’s corsair, is linked to a thousand crimes.

Of the personal character of the acting President, we have expressed ourselves with sufficient distinctness, at the outset of these remarks; and without any assured views as to the course of the new administration, which this day commences its rule, we rejoice, and the country rejoices, that the mean, weak, ignoble and corrupt administration of John Tyler is closed.”

RWv22i19p2c4, March 7, 1845

Mr Waggaman, from the Madisonian of Monday evening

FLOYD WAGGAMAN, Esq. will leave the city this afternoon to deliver to major DONELSON, temporarily at Nashville, the Joint Resolution of 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.

This Mr. Waggaman is Tyler’s nephew. He is thus provided for on the last day of the term! Instead of leaving Mr. Polk, as in decency and dignity and propriety, he was bound to do, to exercise the discretion left to the President in the Texas Resolutions, honest John, on the very last day of his service, takes it all upon himself, and dispatches his nephew to Nashville and contingently to Texas, the sole motive no doubt being to provide for him! The Globe pours a heavy fire into the transaction, which is however entirely characteristic. It says:

“MR. TYLER’S HASTE. - We understand that Mr. Tyler mounted one of his relations [Mr. Waggaman} as an express to hasten to communicate to Texas that he, as President of the United States, had made his election as to the alternatives contained in the late act of Congress, looking to the admission of Texas into the Union; and that he had chosen that alternative which it is known could not have commanded a majority in the Senate, and had rejected that which carried the majority in the House up from twenty-two to fifty-six.

“Mr. Tyler knows well that Congress did not intend to entrust the discretionary power of the act to his hands. – He knows well that, if he had appointed to commissioners necessary under one of the alternatives of the act, they would not have been confirmed to carry out his instructions. He has therefore seized upon that portion of the legislative enactment which, if acceded to by Texas, may involve future difficulties in our own Congress, and mar the concord now existing among the friends of the measure, which can alone ensure it a happy consummation. He has taken the alternative, meant by the law to be conferred on the American President whose duty it will be to effect the measure, from him, and given it to the Texan Executive.

“But, apart from all considerations of public policy, what will the country think of the propriety and decorum of this attempt to forestall the action of the Chief Magistrate chosen by the People with an especial eye to this question, and to whom alone it is notorious the discretion confided in the act of Congress was intended to apply? It is clear, as Mr. Tyler began his Presidential career in virtue of an accident, that he means to take the benefit of the whole chapter of accidents, to blend himself with results having their origin in the counsels of Generals Jackson and Houston, and which his inauspicious management has so far marred in their progress.”

RWv22i19p2c5, March 7, 1845

“TEXAS,” From the N. O. Courier.

The schooner Lone Star from the river Sabine reports that some difficulty had arisen in the river on account of tonnage duties, claimed from American vessels by the authorities of Texas. The schr Louisiana, Capt. Eddy, of this port, was taking in cotton at some place on the Sabine, but the loading was stopped by the Texas custom house officers on the ground that she had paid no tonnage duty. The revenue cutter Woodbury arrived in the river during the dispute, and sent a boat with an armed crew, to insist that the loading of the Louisiana should proceed. In the mean time a Texan revenue cutter arrived, the captain of which declared that the orders of the custom house must be obeyed. The captain of the Woodbury persisted in a contrary view of the question – and there were mutual threatenings of blows. The dispute was not settled when the Lone Star sailed from the Sabine.

If the foregoing account of the affair be correct, it is very plain that the captain of the Woodbury is acting in an unauthorized manner within the jurisdiction of a friendly power.

The captain of the Lone Star paid his tonnage duties to avoid difficulty.

RWv22i19p2c5-6, March 7, 1845


The schooner Fanny arrived here last evening from Vera Cruz, and furnishes us with our files of papers from the city of Mexico to the 10th and from Vera Cruz to the 14th instant, both inclusive.

These papers contain nothing of a very interesting character. Santa Ana was still awaiting his trial, and was still detained in the prison of Perote. He had requested permission to appear before a grand jury to make his affidavit, but was refused. The excitement produced by his tyrannical acts, was gradually subsiding. It would not be surprising, should he be condemned to the mild punishment of banishment for life.

The venerable Gomez Farias, who spent some years of exile here in New Orleans, arrived with his family at Vera Cruz in the brig Leopold O’Donnell, from Havana. This gentleman will probably be called to some eminent post in Mexico, an elevation to which he is entitled by his virtues and high reputation.

The Hesperia announces that a conducta had left San Luis Potosi for Tampico on the 8th instant, with $2,370,000 in specie.

The following are further extracts:

The deputy Rosa has offered a proposition to suspend the payment of all debts due on contracts, subject to eh revision of Congress. It appears that this proposal is based on the ruinous conditions in which Santa Ana’s administration left the public treasury, and on the infamous character of many of those contracts. In fact several of them are cited, which are so iniquitous and immoral, that it would be criminal to oblige the nation, which has so long borne the yoke of disgrace and rapine, to pay a single dollar more upon them. About a year ago, one of these contracts was concluded through Murphy, by which a commercial house gave $200,000 in deferred bonds, which are quoted at 15 percent, and being recognized at an interest of 2 per cent a month, they were made payable in duties on cargoes consigned to the said house. Several other affairs, still more scandalous, are mentioned. It is necessary to put a stop to these things; but in our opinion the question is so complicated and the time so short, that the matter ought to be definitely settled, leaving the government to make all proper arrangements with the parties interested.

Le Courrier Francais of Mexico says – “The revolution is finished, and nothing is left to be done but to bring to trial the men who caused it, nearly all of whom are in the hands of justice. Great difficulties are foreseen in conducting the trial of Santa Ana, whose double position as ex-president and commander of the armies at the time of the revolution presents great difficulties in the way of judicial proceedings. Will he be tried as president or as general? This is the question which is debated by all the journals and by the public, and is far from being satisfactorily solved.

“Santa Ana, arrested, as we have said, at Jico, was conducted to Jalapa in an uncommon state of depression and sickness. He has written from that place a letter to the Government, complaining of bad treatment upon his person, and persisting in his request to be set at liberty, and to be furnished with passports to go into a foreign country.” – Ib.

RWv22i19p4c2-3, March 7, 1845


In the Whig of the 25th instant, I find an address of J. S. Pendleton, Esq. to you, so replete with rank and gross injustice to me, and endorsed in part by an editorial of the Whig, that I snatch the first moment to repel the insinuation with scorn, and beseech you to hear me, and to judge me by my acts and life, and not to adopt the harsh and uncharitable insinuations of Mr. Pendleton or the editors, who have contributed their utmost to prejudice me in the estimation of you.

In my address to the electors of the District, which you will have seen before this, I endeavor to explain distinctly my position.

Mr. Pendleton pays me either a high compliment, or offers me a gross insult in directing his patriotic ire at me, with no stricture upon either of the two gentlemen, in like position, in the field before me, in the face of the Convention. With Col. McCarty he has maintained a friendship for 13 years, and I doubt not, he is entitled to the compliment he pays him. No detriment can come to the Whig party, although the Democrats might vote for him. But the worst possible evils will result should they vote for me and I be elected.

Mr. Pendleton has known me for upwards of twenty years, in every relation of life, and I defy him to say that malice even has ever assailed my integrity: and my belief is, that the man privately dishonest, will be publicly dishonest; and the man publicly dishonest, cannot be privately trusted in temptation. Mr. Pendleton has “no ambitious aspirations.” He would impress you, that I have a vaulting ambition. That gentleman and myself are about the same age, and known in the same circle. I would be willing to submit to those who have known us through life, to say which has manifested the most “ambitious” political “aspirations.” I have ambition, but ‘tis a laudable one, and the man without it, is a drone in society. My life has not manifested a restless political ambition. I have passed through its morning, and crossed its meridian, and until within the last two years, although often solicited, have never consented to be a candidate for popular favour. I have been ambitious to do good – have devoted much of the prime of my life to the advancement of the morals of my country. In the Vineyard of the Temperance reform, I have been a laborer for the last fifteen years. I espoused it, if not the first, among the first in Virginia. When its friends were pointed at, as innovators and enthusiasts, I stood firm in that little band, until the speck, which was seen in the horizon, covered the heavens. I state this as evidence that what my convictions are, I pursue, without reference to the number who think with me, and that I have an abiding confidence in the success of a just cause. What is my offence, brother Whigs?

That I think the annexation of Texas is a great and vital question, and that upon it there should be a fair expression of the popular will of the District. According to the best of my judgment, I thought it necessary to take the position I have, to obtain that expression. I know the responsibility of my position. I am ready and willing to meet it. I maintain now, as I did in the canvass of ’44, that a majority of the Whigs are in favour of annexation, and I trust they will have the nerve to speak out their sentiments. That I incurred the censure of some Whigs, because during that canvass, I avowed myself in favour of annexation, and would not treat it as an issue or a party question, and reprobated the course of those who threw their influence and talents against it, as unwise and injurious to the Whig cause, I know! That the disastrous result in Virginia, showed the justness of my warnings, is felt by all, and avowed by many: but in the keenness of disappointment, that I and Texas Whigs, should be made the victims of proscription, I protest against. And if the Texas Whigs will guard against one device of their adversaries, viz: a division among them as to the mode of annexation, then triumph is certain.

I regard no man as the friend of annexation, who will object to the detail of every plan proposed. What is my offence brother Whigs? That I stand on this rock of republican liberty, that a majority of the constitutional voters should rule. I say if this district be in favor of a Bank, it ought to be have a Bank Representative: if it be in favor of Distribution it ought to have a Distribution Representative: and if it be in favor of Annexation, it ought to have an Annexation Representative.

In what have I offended brother Whigs? That I object to a convention as unnecessary, when there is no Democratic candidate in the field. That the people should be left free to judge and select for themselves. But Mr. Pendleton thinks it strange I was for a convention two years ago, and against it now. The distinction is plain. – Then the Democrats had a candidate in the field, distinguished in his party for talents, energy and influence, and in the Whig party six individuals had their friends; a convention then with all its evils, was necessary to concentrate the Whig strength. If, with that necessity, such was the wide spread dissatisfaction as to the constitution and action of that convention, that a majority of 900 was reduced to 375 by Whigs absenting themselves from the polls; how can you have an harmonious action of the party when only Whigs are in the field, and the Democrats in two counties have pledged themselves to public meetings that they will leave the arena to the Whigs alone. The necessity of a convention ceases, and I concur most cordially in a resolution of the Loudoun meeting, that if there should be no Democrat in the field, the Whig party ought not to waive their individual preferences. The wider the range of selection the better. Why unnecessarily fetter and manacle the will of freemen. But the gentleman, with “no ambitious aspiration,” yielded his assent to the application of a friend, that he might place his name on the list of those who would be proposed as candidates to a Whig Convention,” in the event there should be a convention, and in that event only. He refused, at various times and to many persons, to permit his name to be presented in any other form. Then Mr. Pendleton feels the necessity of a convention to endorse him – and so charmed with that mode of gliding into congress that he would not permit his name to be presented in any other form. Now, brother Whigs, hear what this convention gentleman, with “no ambitious aspiration,” thought upon the subject of conventions in 1836. In an address to the People of Rappahannock, Mr. Pendleton said: “Fellow citizens, in conformity with a custom of Virginia, coeval with the existence of her Government, I appear before you. As a candidate for a representative agency at your hands, I owe it to you, to myself, to the great crisis in our public affairs, which seems very properly to have excited the anxieties of all ages and conditions of the People of this Commonwealth, and of the Union, to give a full, free and unreserved expression of my views on these subjects – my opinions on which constitute the true test of my fitness to be your representative. The necessity of adopting this form of communication with you, would perhaps be LESS IMPERATIVE, if I CAME before you upon the RECOMMENDATION of a PARTY CAUCUS, or by the DICTATION OF PARTY LEADERS. Not expecting, however, any aid from these modern contrivances, I must even follow the ANCIENT fashion of Virginia, and SEEK my election upon my OWN RESPONSIBILITY, soliciting no support that is not FREE and VOLUNTARY, and sincerely desiring rather DECIDED opposition, than that support which is EXTORTED BY PARTY EXCOMMUNICATION, or the RIGOR OF PARTY DISCIPLINE.” Now, brother Whigs, try Mr. Pendleton by Mr. PENDLETON, and he condemns himself. In ’36, he spurned party caucuses, or the dictation of party leaders. He followed the ancient fashion of Virginia – he sought his election upon his own responsibility, and desired rather decided opposition, than that support, extorted by party excommunication or the rigour of party discipline.” In ’45, he is so in love with party caucuses and the dictation of party leaders, that in the event only of their embracing him, will he consent to be a candidate. In ’45, he may expect some aid from these “modern contrivances,” he abandons the “ancient fashion of Virginia” – he will no longer seek an election upon his “own responsibility,” and it may be he looks to support which is “extorted by party excommunication and the rigour of party descipline.”- But brother Whigs, you will no doubt thank Mr. Pendleton for informing you that which I did, when he was upon the shores of the Pacific, viz: that I was in favour of the Texas treaty. In my Texas letter I said, “I think the Treaty ought to have been ratified, although there were circumstances in connection with it I would have had otherwise.” He informs you I am in favour of the joint resolution mode of annexing Texas – and then comes this remarkable passage, “in a word, so far as I understand his position, is willing to be, and to all practical purposes is, the candidate of the Democratic party.” Mr. Pendleton’s understanding is more humble than I thought it, if he understood my position as willing to be, and to all practical purposes the Democratic candidate. If he understood me so, he did it, in the face of the most explicit declarations, when he had placed himself by my side: but in another party of his address he says, “he announced himself in the same breath a Whig candidate and opposed to a convention of the Whig party.” You see then, by Mr. Pendleton’s own declaration, that I declared myself a Whig candidate, but since he has discarded “the ancient fashion of Virginia,” it is treason in his pure eyes for Whig to be opposed to a convention. Col. McCarty and Dr. Thornton I understand are opposed to a convention when the Democrats have no candidate, and why did he not make them willing to be and to all intents and purposes democratic candidates. But brother Whigs, he informs you that the democrats, with few exceptions, will vote for me. The gentleman makes me much stronger than I supposed. Col. McCarty it is conjectured, by others, will take a large portion of those of Loudoun and Fairfax, Dr. Thornton his share of those of Rappahannock, and if report is correct, Mr. Pendleton is unwilling for me to have those of Culpeper. The gentleman claims credit to himself, that as soon as I presented myself, he took occasion, at the call of Whig friends, to express his disapprobation of my course. I wish brother Whigs, he had told you every thing that did occur, and I think you would concur with him, that his nomination “is now a position, in many respects, eminently undesirable.” The call of his Whig friends, was in a tone so low, that it never reached me, and his address is the first intimation I have had of it. I feel flattered that the gentleman is so alarmed, that he waives the responsibility of “the marshal’s truncheon,” and asks for “a musket to fight in the ranks.” He is pleased to call me a traitor in the ranks. I repel the foul charge and trample it in the dust. To every principle of the Whig party I claim an adhesion as long, as more unchanging than he. I have always been a bank, distribution and tariff man. I have given stronger evidence of the detestation of “the spoils system” than Mr. Pendleton has. I stood unbending in a minority, during the hurricane of Jacksonism. I have never changed one political opinion, and the only merit is, that where I stand, the gentleman prides himself on standing, and like new settlers, not content with a reasonable portion, is for [ . . . ] the old ones out. Why, if adhesion and devotion to principles, be the test of Whiggery, be may as well go to the county of Loudoun, and attempt to read the oldest and firmest Whig out of the church, as me.

Mr. Pendleton, I have shown you, has been an anticaucus man, when he loved “old Virginia fashions” and expected nothing from “modern contrivances” – now such a devotee of caucuses, that he will not present himself, unless endorsed and bolstered up by them. Once, twice, thrice, he voted for Gen. Jackson, and contributing as he did, to the generation of that storm, which went with such a desolating sweep through the country, he should feel a little moderation and humility, under a sense of his manifold transgressions. He harped for years over the slander of bargain and corruption. He was opposed to a National Bank and Tariff as unconstitutional and oppressive – and having renounced all of those opinions and standing not where I have always stood, he modestly calls me a traitor in the camp and invokes my excommunication, because I am in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas – and opposed to a convention, and the gratuitously assumes, that I shall get all the Democrats, with a few exceptions.

The Editors of the Whig, in the paper publishing Mr. Pendleton’s address, and acknowledging the receipt of mine, (but not publishing it) have thrown the power of the press between you and me, and invoked my condemnation unheard. They are pleased to say, “we could not have expected this course from Mr. Morton, although we knew his Texas sympathies and his Texas personal interests.” It has been the systematic effort of that press to arouse all possible prejudices against annexation, inculcating the idea that personal interests, were the powerful and controlling influences of the advocated of annexation. The Editors ought to be satisfied by this, that the broad, wide and deep current of popular opinion in favor of annexation, is because of the powerful and overwhelming reasons enforcing it, and that they can no more stop its hourly gathering force than they can Mississippi’s current, by throwing a bulrush on its bosom. During the recent canvass, and at all times when I have addressed the people, I felt it due to them, and myself, that I should avow the fact, that I have a personal interest in the destiny of Texas, that my opinion might be received with as many grains of allowance, as in the estimation of my fellow citizens, that interest might dictate. - I will tell you the interest I have in Texas. I have not one foot of land in all her wide and rich domain. In her struggle for liberty, in the darkest hour of her fortunes, I loaned her my money to carry on as righteous a war as was ever directed by the God of battles – I had confidence in her cause – in the nerved arm of the Anglo-Saxon race, that had raised that flag of independence, and shortly afterwards planted it in imperishable glory on the plains of San Jacinto – I had the privilege, under the loan to take it out in land or receive my principal and interest. I visited Texas in ’40, and determined then not to locate lands, but demanded my money. I still hold her securities, my claims are for money, and not a cent’s interest have I acquired since the year 1840. Texas has never repudiated and I believe never will; although unable to pay, it has been her misfortune and not her crime. If the Tyler treaty had been ratified, I might have obtained the whole or part of my just dues, and then my action run in the same current with my interest; but how stands it now under the joint resolution. I submit to the judgment of candid men if now I do not struggle against my personal interest. Is not one reason urged by the opponents of the joint resolution, that it is injustice to the creditors of Texas; that it is striping her of her custom houses, and her sources of revenue, and throwing her creditors upon the public lands alone? The destiny of Texas is onward, whether a portion of this Union or not. She will grow up, under foreign alliances, a great competitor in the markets of the world, and a powerful neighbour, if we do not admit the Lone Star in the bright constellation of American States. Do I support the annexation of Texas by joint resolution, although palpably against my pecuniary interest, with less ardour than I did the treaty? No. I am more anxious for its final adjustment this session than I have ever been. National interests invoke it, southern interests and southern peace call for it, the national will demands it, and would that there was not one discordant note in all the Southern States against it. I look upon it as the “pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night,” which will guide the Israelites in a long lone journey through the wilderness – that it will guide them in safety and peace to that land of promise beyond the sunny clime of Texas. Narrow is the heart and [ . . . ] the spirit, that, in such a great question, involving perhaps the destiny of States, and the gate of nations, can see no reason for annexation but in the selfish ends of “Texas speculations.”

The Editors farther say, that “the course of Mr. Morton, if he is any longer a Whig, and we have always known him for as true a Whig as ever fluttered, is wholly unjustifiable.” I have quite as much confidence in my own judgment as I have in that of the Editors, and I feel fully justified in my own conscience, trusting that notwithstanding the systematic efforts, which seem to be making to prostrate me in your estimation, that I shall stand justified before you. Do the Editors mean to say I am no Whig, because I am a Texas Whig, and opposed to a convention? They insinuate as much – I like directness of purpose and open warfare, if such is unhappily to exist. Not that I shall recognize their right, and that of Mr. Pendleton’s – to mount as a self-constituted High Priest into the papal chair, and issue against me the bull of party excommunication. Let Texas Whigs resolve upon this, not to be divided and split up as to the mode of annexation; it is playing into the hands of the adversary – and to go for no eleventh hour Texas man, but one who has shown in good and evil report, that he heart is in the cause. If such an one as that can be found, gathering more strength upon this vital question than I can, - I would cheerfully, and at once, give place to him, and like Mr. Pendleton, turn my back upon “the truncheon of the marshal” an call for “the musket” and a place “in the ranks.” I avow myself the foe of tyranny, whether it manifests itself in the Executive head, the legislative halls, in party leaders, or in political presses.


The Richmond papers, the Alexandria Gazette, and the papers of the 9th Congressional District, are politely requested to copy.

RWv22i20p1c4, March 11, 1845

“THE CORRECTION – AT LAST.” From the National Intelligencer.

A Washington correspondent of the Journal of Commerce makes the following explanation concerning the extraordinary news which was manufactured in this city during the pendency of the Texas question in the Senate, of a treaty for the cession of California to Great Britain having been found upon the person of Santa Ana at the time of his recent capture – a story that was reiterated, notwithstanding the total silence of the Mexican press and people on the subject, and which was avouched by the Journal of Commerce as being founded on information received by our Government. One of its correspondents now says:

“The Texans here tell me that the proposition was made by Great Britain in 1840, and was accompanied with an offer to assume the debt of Mexico to British subjects.- They say the Mexicans were jealous of British power, and would not entertain it; but that Santa Ana, as the papers lately found in his possession show, entertained and promoted it. It may be a charge got up against Santa Ana to help the manifold accusations against him.  The nature of the case itself excludes the idea that our Government can have any official and authentic information of it. Whatever was done, was done in secret, and never approached consummation. Mr. Packenham was Minister in Mexico, and the proposition, if made, was through him.”

The New York Courier and Enquirer contradicts the concluding part of the foregoing extract. It says:

“THE CALIFORNIA FALSEHOOD. – The Journal of Commerce, which originated the statement that England has been negotiating with Mexico for California, now says that the proposition, if made at all, “was made through Mr. Packenham, who was then Minister to Mexico.” Now, we have the most reliable authority for saying that Mr. Pakenham has denied, in the most explicit language possible, that any such proposition was ever made, or any such design entertained.

“Thus is this very exciting rumor refuted by the Journal itself, the very paper with which it had its origin. It is possible (we wish it were probable) that the editors of the Journal have been simply imposed upon by some designing persons in this affair; but in repeating, as they have done, assurances of its truth, they have made themselves responsible for it. No man of ordinary conscience can regard as a light or trifling matter the invention and circulation of a story calculated and intended to induce national action which may plunge us into war.

RWv22i20p2c5, March 11, 1845

Correspondence of the Whig.

WASHINGTON, March 9, 1845.

The fact may, I believe, be relied on, that the Mexican Minister yesterday communicated to the Corps diplomatique here a protest, addressed to the President against the Act of Annexation. It appears that he law was not published, with the President’ assent, until the preceding evening, in the Madisonian; which fact alone accounts for the Mexican’s delay of the step to which his nation was so deeply pledged, and which (pledged or not) she was certain to take. Gen Almonte, I presume, could not act, in a matter of such high formality, on any thing short of the regular publication of the law, and has held back for that the proceeding which, however calm and corteous in its character, certainly places the two nations in an attitude of any thing but peace. The document, as far as I can learn its tenor, is to the following effect:

“That he has the honour to address himself to the Hon. Secretary of State of the U. States, in order to manifest the deep concern with which he has seen that the President has given his signature to a law admitting into this confederacy the Mexican province of Texas.

“He had flattered himself that the right counsels urged by so many distinguished citizens of this country, thoroughly versed in its public principles and the wise and right policy that has directed its conduct abroad, would have led to a better event. Unhappily, it has not been so;- and, in contradiction to his hopes and to his sincerest vows, he sees carried on the part of this Government, to its legal consummation, and act of aggression the most unjust that modern history can record – the despoiling a friendly nation of a considerable part of its territory.

“For these reasons, as bound to do by his instructions, he protests, in the most solemn manner, in the name of his Government, against the law in question. He also protests that the Act can in no manner invalidate the right of Mexico to recover her province, so unjustly wrested from her: and that she will sustain and give effect to that right by all the means in her power.

“He also begs that the Secretary will make known to the President that, in view of these facts, his Mission near this Government is, from to-day, at an end: and he, therefore, asks that the honorable Secretary will send him his passports – it being his purpose to leave this city as soon as possible for New York.”

I do not, of course, vouch for the precise forms of the matter; but deriving my information from a very accurate person, who has seen the document, can venture to say that this is faithfully the substance in general, and nearly the terms of the most material sentences.

Here, then, is, beyond question, the final adoption, on the part of Mexico, of that remedy which she has long and steadily announced to us as the only resort left her. It has pleased the Annexationists to argue, in the face of every inevitable cause given her, and of all those solemn declarations which she has made, that her pledges were all but shams – the shocking reason for which incredulity was evidently, at last, her supposed incapacity to harm us, or even do defend herself. They forgot that the very worm, when trod on, turns upon the heel that crushes it. Mexico, foully treated as she has been from the beginning of this Texan struggle, has yielded all that she could to prudence: but the matter has now come to a pass at which all her people must be roused to a resentment and an alarm, at the present outrage and the still more fatal ones sure to be close at its heels, when all calculations of strength must be given to the winds and she must fight, as one that fights for life. The very humblest of her citizens is aware that, after this proceeding, to submit is but to invite a new dismemberment, already avowed – that of California; and that the next [ . . . ] certain to follow in a few years, is a blow at her great city itself, her rich mines, and her very churches of god, themselves, as much as the mines, the objects of an impious, utterly Unchristian cupidity.

I have always said that Mexico, however overmatched, must make battle. Inferior as she is, she was bound to avoid it, as long as she could; and she has done so: but she now knows that she can do so no longer. It is no more a question of temporizing, but of the most abject and fatal submission, that will sacrifice every thing and make any future resistance impossible. She sees, she cannot but see, that she has only the choice of defending herself against us while yet at a distance, or of waiting until, firmly seated in one of her own plundered territories, we assail her, from that vantage, in her very centre. If pride and prudence thus far concur to drive her to arms, she is well aware, besides, that the present conjuncture promises better for what is her main hope, of not being worsted – foreign aid – than any future contingency is likely to offer. English interference in the quarrel has been singularly provoked by its [ . . . ] and foolish management on our part; and the difficulties of the Oregon question come most opportunely to the (Mexico’s) cause.

Were it, however, far more probable that in the contest thus forced upon her, Mexico must stand alone, nothing, I must insist, was ever more abandoned, in the way of ill counsels, of utter improvidence joined with infamous wrong, than to proceed as the party conducting this business, every way shameful, are doing. Who ever before saw men march to deeds of pillage, when resistance had been announced in advance, just as easy, as secure, as gay, as if they were going to a wedding feast or other holiday junketing? It is as if house breakers who have sent notice of intended burglary and received warning in return that the master and his family would fire upon them, should set about their enterprise by flinging away all their own weapons.

Have they, under not only all the pretended designs of England, but her real relations to this question and her actual position in regard to us elsewhere [Oregon and Canada,] and right to take it for granted, by their miserable neglect of all preparation, that she will not profit by this occasion and join arms with Mexico? To suppose that she will not is only to confess that all the alleged grounds of setting on foot this scheme of rapine were utter falsehoods known by their authors to be such. Nor is this all: it is likewise to suppose that England may not, by the provocations given her in this business, by sympathy with a nation largely involved with her by [unclear unclear unclear], or by considerations of policy forced on her by our own avowed designs, he led to take part, either directly or indirectly?  Is she not likely at least to give Mexico secret encouragement and indirect assistance? Would she not at least rejoice to see our trade ruined and our pride humbled in a privateer war? And need she [ . . . ] to Mexico than we were as to Texas and Canada?

Grant, however, that her rivalry, her resentment, her policy might all be with prudence put out of view: let it, if you will, have been all an infamous pretence that she meant us anything but what was most friendly, and that she bas indeed, an unbounded complaisance towards us – still Mexico is left – not alone, since she will have the warm sympathy of all nations; not unaided, since their citizens will flock to her banner of land and at sea: not unencouraged, since our own total omission of [ . . . ] will leave her the power to inflict a terrible blow upon our myriads of helpless merchantmen, before we can retort upon her. I see not how we can injure her much, while upon our trade she can let slip the havoc of privateers by the thousand! What has been done to guard against such a mischief by sea? Nothing but demagogue efforts to cheapen our Navy! And what to repay any such ravage by land? Nothing but to attempt reductions of our poor little Army, the mere nucleus of a public force! To Texas, the very object of seizure, not a company of U. States Infantry has been ordered. Not a dollar is at the President’s disposal for any hostile contingency; not a step for defence against any sudden movement is left legally in his power! It would seem that the authors of what has been done were determined that they would not only shock the world by their violence of iniquity, but astonish it by their utter contempt of all precedence.



RWv22i20p4c3, March 11, 1845

To the Editors of the Whig:

Gentlemen – ‘SIMON’ is by no means surprised at the caricature of his remarks in the Whig of Monday, since it is so common a thing for one who speaks, independently, his sentiments, to be branded with the charge of misrepresentation, and even falsehood! Mr. Lyons is surely, not the man to require the efforts of such a scribbler as “Richmond” to defend him in a matter like that now is issue in this city, and “Simon” will not permit “Richmond,” or any other man, to entertain higher respect for, or profounder gratitude to, Mr. Lyons, for past services, than himself! “Simon,” however badly expressed the sentiment might have been, did not mean to say more than, that, in the canvass now progressing in the City, Mr. Lyons had placed himself upon Texas and Texas alone! He did not plead the interests of the city, the cause of education throughout the Commonwealth, or the general prosperity of our people; but, if “Simon” read correctly, (and he has not his piece now before him,) his card was to prove that the great interests of the Confederacy would be promoted by the annexation of Texas. “Simon” considered this an offence to this part of the Whig Dominion, not that Mr. Lyons did not have as much right to go for Texas as any other man to go against it, for “Simon” is just one of those who would tolerate freedom of opinion even in his satanic majesty, with the obscurest freeman in the Land. He is far from entertaining hostility to any man because of this, and consequently “driving him from the party,” – but when a candidate for public suffrage stands up before such a community as this and pleads an issue so odious as the Texas humbug, that by which the honour, integrity and perhaps peace of the country have been sacrificed upon the altar of political knavery and malignity against Mr. Clay and the great Whig party, those who thus regard this subject, may surely venture to dissent from such pretensions. It was in this view and this alone that “Simon” ventured to speak of the city canvass, and the isolated quotations by “Richmond” does him, to say the least, great injustice. No man, laying aside this matter of Texas, would sooner vote for Mr. Lyons, than “Simon,” notwithstanding his objections to lawyer. But Mr. L. is not of that class of Lawyers who seek notoriety by aspiring to a seat in the Legislature. He has won for himself on another and more honorable arena a fame which might be tarnished, not brightened, by contact with such a body of leatherheads as usually, in these corrupt times succeed in getting a seat there. “Simon” knows perhaps, as well as this valiant, this fine Richmond, “in the field” that Mr. L. would be a working man; but like the “expunge” Texas is an offence, that ten thousand rivers of the purest water that ever flowed can never wash out, and no results that can succeed, will ever obliterate the foulness of the treachery in which it was conceived, and the ignoble purposes for which it was perverted by the Locofoco party. So far therefore as Mr. Lyons in concerned, “Simon” can only regret that so good, so able so decent a man as James Lyons, and some few others that he has the honor of an acquaintance with, should be found supporting a measure, condemned by every letter of the Constitution, and at utter variance with all the experience of our Government.

RWv22i21p1c2, March 14, 1845

To the Editors of the Whig:

Gentlemen – Now that the all absorbing and grand question of Annexation has been ludicrously disposed of, and the speculating jockeys of our once fair, but now degenerate country, are smiling through their sleeves at the unexpected thousands lying at their feet, together with our sacred Constitution; allow one who deeply sympathizes with all those who look with regret and mortification upon this state of things, to address a few lines in your columns to the Whig Voters, whose suffrages are so loudly called for, in tones of thunder, in the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia, particularly to the Whigs of Chesterfield.

The recent battle, fellow Whigs, which we fought so gallantly, has passed by, and the measures for which we so boldly contended, have been trampled beneath the feet of our opponents. Are we, fellow citizens, placidly to submit to this? Are we to relax those efforts which have ever characterized patriots, Whigs? Are we to stand, awestruck by the numerous vices of the minority, and allow such depredations as have recently been practiced, to stare us in the face, when we have it in our power, with proper organization, to reap the reward which should await true patriots in the field of battle – Victory! No; gird on your armour, and swear by the God who reigns over all, that every muscle shall be exerted, every nerve roused, to perform its proper function, and victory awaits us.

Union is all that we wish, all that is necessary to ensure success; and cannot Union be obtained? I answer the interrogatory – Yes. There is not a Whig in this district who, with mature deliberation, will not lend his influence, however humble, to the election of our indefatigable and able Statesman, JNO. M. BOTTS, to the Congress of the U. States.

In perusing the Whig, some two or three days since, I was much surprised, and at the same time distressed, to see that any other than Mr. Botts should have been spoken of as our candidate in this district; and still greater was my surprise to learn that the Texas question, of minor importance as it is, comparatively speaking, was the point on which many differed with Mr. Botts. I will not, however, enter into a discussion of the merits or demerits of Texas at this late hour, but would only say that Texas is ours, and I supposed Mr. Botts would, with as much zeal, defend this as any other acquisition we have made in years past; therefore, I am sure Mr. Botts will enjoy the support of every Whig in the District.

A word to the Whigs of Chesterfield and I have done. Chesterfield having long trodden the path unknown to wisdom, I am happy now to think, is retracing the steps of her digression, and should the Whigs adopt proper means of canvassing the country, I will guarantee that we give Jno. Mr. Botts 50 votes more than he received in ’43, thereby greatly increasing the chance of our talented candidate for a seat in the next Legislature of Virginia: I would, therefore, suggest that the county be divided into Districts, appointing a committee of five to each district, whose duty it shall be to procure means by which the disabled and revolutionary patriots may get to the polls. I suggest this, knowing as I do that there are many, very many, whose silvery locks would forcibly evince proof of their being destitute of physical power sufficient to use much exertion to enjoy this great prerogative. Will not some active Whig carry this plan out?



RWv22i21p2c2, March 14, 1845


From the Democratic Review for March, 1845

We must be indulged in the harmless anachronism which this anticipates, by a few days, the period when this agreeable form of expression may be employed, with a more strict accuracy than at the moment at which it is now written. – For even though the hour has not yet quite arrived, which is to be brightened by the reflection that Tylerism has ceased to exist, in any other than the past tense, yet, by the time this page shall reach the eyes of most of its readers, they will have ceased to blush for the government of their country.

“It will take the country a long time before the morals of our politics can recover from the bad influence which has been exerted over them by the regime of Tylerism” – was the recent remark of a very eminent statesman, occupying a position entirely aloof from it, and disinterested in regard to it; and who neither in his own person nor that of any friend, had been injured or assailed by it, but who had rather been on the contrary, an object of its good-will and flattering attentions. And the remark was true – so true that we scarcely know when and how to expect the curative influence or recuperative power which shall wholly undo the mischief, wholly atone for the disgrace, so deeply wrought by the events of the last four years

Of late, indeed, towards the conclusion of Mr. Tyler’s term, certain events have concurred to produce the effect of raising a little faint show of factitious popularity – not his own but another’s – which attaches not to his general administration, but partly to a particular measure – and which prevents the full manifestation of that common contempt, which both Whig and Democratic parties vie with each other in entertaining for that nondescript tertium quid which he and an insignificant band of mercenary adherents have constituted, as a hybrid novelty unimagined before in our political experience. The strong arm of the great Statesman of the South so far upholds him, as to let him down with a decent show of dignity, in his descent from the high place to which accident alone raised him; and the blaze of the “Lone Star” streaming up over our south western horizon, alone sheds a certain degree of feebly reflected light on his retiring person, to redeem it from the entire darkness in which it would otherwise have gone down.

Men rarely love a treason so well as to forget to despise the traitor. Nor indeed is it by any means clear, that in his defection from the Whigs who had placed him in the position which gave him his power to harm, Mr. Tyler is entitled even to the usual good treatment which the policy of war accords to deserters. To desert voluntarily is one thing; to be fairly scourged out of the ranks and out of the camp and then driven over to the enemy as the only place of refuge, is another, and a very different thing. And when the person thus expelled was himself already a deserter in the enemy’s camp from the side to which he is thus again ignominiously driven back – when his prolonged continuance there up to the time of that expulsion, has involved in itself the grossest treachery to the side from which he again supplicates a refuge – it cannot be pretended that any very strong ease is made out for a very cordial welcome. This is no overcharged picture of Mr. Tyler’s position.

In the year 1840, what Whig out Whigged the renegade “Virginia Republican?” Nay, not only was he a Whig of the intensest sort but he was peculiarly, and par excellece, a Henry Clay Whig. To be a Harrison Whig, or a Scott Whig at that time, means comparatively little or nothing. To be a Clay Whig was full of the deepest and strongest meaning. There was no non conmittalism about the bold Kentuckian. His name alone, constituted as distinct an announcement of a system of political doctrine – and political doctrine of the worst sort – as could have been conveyed in any form of creed or catechism. And in the convention of 1840, Mr. Tyler was so furiously a friend to the selection of Mr. Clay, to be the Presidential candidate and national representative of the Whig party, that as has been subsequently proved, it was to the bitterness of his lamentations for Clay’s failure of nomination, that he partly owed his own selection for the Vice Presidency.

We should not have made this fact alone, “per se,” the foundation of the charge against Mr. Tyler, of having been a “renegade Virginia Republican,” if he had not, by the palpable corruption of his subsequent course, reflected back upon his position at that time the clearest of lights by which to read his character and conduct. In his zealous Clayism of that day, there was no honesty of conversion, from what he had of old professed. He was sinning against a great light, and he knew it. He has subsequently, when ambitious interest prompted a different course, thrown himself back again, with an ardor of Republicanism reinvigorated by its long intermission of repose, upon the old principles, and the old party, which he was then betraying.- With no disposition to withhold from Mr. Tyler a charitable judgment over, ever, nevertheless the undisguised and unblushing excess of the political corruption which has rioted through his administration – now, happily, exhaling its very last breath – has been such as to compel justice, in the interpretation of former equivocal conduct, to accept in all cases the worse construction as the more probable truth.

The history of Mr. Tyler’s administration may be briefly summed up. Becoming Acting President by accident, his polar star was a second term. Wit this view he first, in conjunction with Webster, aimed at an amalgamation of parties, until it became evident that neither Whigs nor Democrats would have anything to do with such a scheme. The former fairly encouraged him forth from the place among them; which the latter as sternly and contemptuously denied him admittance even within the uttermost verge of their gates. Then and not till then did Mr. Tyler adopt as the text trick of his policy, the effort to force or buy his way into the Democratic party by patronage of Texas, * * * * * and hoping to throw us into such confusion as to create at least a probability, if not necessity, of rallying upon him for re-election, as the only means of averting the worse evil of the election of Clay. Hence his convention at the same place and day with that of the Democratic party. To this hope he clung long and desperately, till the ridicule of his position became intolerable, even to the proverbial fatuity of himself and his family, and the [ . . . ] after the nomination of Mr. Polk, he at last withdrew, only after an absurdly transparent attempt to make, by implied understanding with some of our party, the best terms of capitulation in his power for his officeholder. This is the naked outline of Mr. Tyler’s administration.

Does any reader doubt its truth? Let it be remembered – the most supplicant tenacity with which Mr. Tyler during his first year clung to the Whig party. – At this time, be it borne in mind, the Whigs were fresh from the then last contest, which had placed them in the attitude of an overwhelming ascendancy; while the Democrats were apparently a broken down party, not only comparatively feeble in force, but containing within themselves many elements of confusion and disorganization. * * * Mr. Tyler’s game then was, clearly, to shake off Clay, retain the great bulk of the masses whose rush had borne Harrison and himself into power, trusting afterwards gradually so far to disintegrate the Republican party, as to bring in at least a considerable proportion of them around his administration. Hence, although he vetoed Mr. Clay’s Bank Bill, he offered at the same time a much worse one, and actually clung to the profession and name of a Whig, pleading with them imploringly in one of his Messages on the ground of the number of other Whig bills he had signed, until all hope of success vanished, and Clay’s controlling ascendancy in the party succeeding in flinging him forcibly and scornfully off into a position in which it became acknowledged treason for any Whig to maintain any sort of party communion with him

Let it be remembered – the manner in which he then proceeded to address himself to his next aim, that of courting the democratic party. Then was witnessed a spectacle of the corrupt abuse of the patronage power of the Executive, unprecedented, unimagined before. One of Mr. Tyler’s first acts after his entrance into power had been to promulgate a special declaration against the interference of the federal office holders in politics. On former occasions, also, Mr. Tyler had in peculiar manner identified himself with this principle. And yet, as soon as he began the working of this policy, that of worming his way into a position in the Democratic party by means of his office, systematically and universally throughout the country they were held up as the bribes for adhesion to him and, his interest, and activity in his cause.

Every man then is the Democratic party occupying any sort of position capable of being represented as one of influence, had office at his disposal for the mere acceptance of it. Democratic Representatives in Congress had almost unlimited command over the Federal patronage of their districts. Anything to prove himself a Democrat – to get admission as such – recognition as such. In all directions were to be seen Whigs removed from office who had scarcely had time to get adjusted in the seats to which they had been appointed either by General Harrison or by Mr. Tyler himself – Whigs of unimpeached personal worth and capability – for no other even pretended reason than to confer their offices on Democrats. It was a positive public scandal – undisguised, undissembled.- We need not dwell on details – a single prominent fact will suffice to illustrate it. The whole system adopted is typified in Mr. Tyler’s Baltimore convention, of which body nearly all were already his office-holders when they went there, while all the rest, with scarcely an exception, have been made so since!

The direct application of the vast machinery of the Federal patronage to the object of buying a deserter’s way into some kind of welcome or reception by a party on which he seeks to fasten himself, presented a novelty in our politics. It certainly wrought a vast amount of mischief. It scattered broadcast through the land, seeds of demoralization, which could scarcely fail, almost everywhere, to find at least a little soil adapted to their too ready germination. Everywhere a certain number of persons were to be found, urged perhaps by their necessities, or little disposed to be scrupulous in such matters, whom a little judicious dangling of these baits before their eyes could scarcely fail to attract, with an eagerness little disposed to quarrel with the hand from which they were to drop. Unprincipled men were also at many places to be found, who had little difficulty in palming themselves off upon the facile and foolish confidence of Mr. Tyler and his family, as their special friends, and as persons of astonishing zeal, activity and local importance, in whose hands the local management of their interests might safely be reposed. In general, able to get only the lowest and worst to fraternize with them in their loud mouthed partisanship of Mr. Tyler, this class of persons, at many points, and especially in the cities, succeeding in getting together miserable little knots of persons, rarely more that sufficient to fill the far room of some mean haunt which constituted their head quarters, and these, in connection with the higher incumbents of the lucrative offices, constituted the “party” worthy of their creation and creator – the Tyler Party!

With the aid of a few newspapers, supported by the public patronage, and by a heavy system of assessed taxation upon the holders of office, these little pot-house knots of “the friends of John Tyler,” were constantly astonishing the country with “mass meetings,” and “great popular demonstrations,” of which it is needless to say that they rarely in numbers much exceeded that of the officers reported to have presided over them. To what extent this system of humbug, the most impudent, succeeded in imposing upon Mr. Tyler, so as to make him actually believe in the existence and growth of a great popular sentiment in his behalf, we have no means of knowing. It is, at any rate, very certain, that even if deceived in regard to the imaginary popular sentiment in his favor, manufactured by these persons, he could not have been ignorant of the great fact which constituted [ . . . ] the chief characteristic and the worst evil and disgrace of his administration, that it was mainly, if not wholly by the active plying of the power of his patronage, that the organization of his friends as a “party” was constituted, and sustained to the point of real or fictitious zeal. And this is the leading feature of his term, the employment of office and every manner of patronage to create a party, and keep it up to the due point of stimulus. We fear that a deeper mischief has been thus wrought to the political morality of the country, than would have attended the signing of fifty charters of banks or banking exchequers.

These people have in general been exceedingly clamorous in behalf of “Polk and Dallas,” since Mr. Tyler’s withdrawal – an event which did not take place till nearly three months after the nomination of the Democratic candidate. We believe they even so far surpass themselves in all those attributes which are the opposites of modesty and veracity, as to claim a large share, if not the whole of the glory of the Democratic victory. In truth, we have from the commencement felt satisfied that they did more harm than good. Their numbers were utterly insignificant. In point of moral force they added only a weakness and a weight hard and heavy to be borne. – It was felt that they were introducing into the Democratic party, and into a position of self-assumed clamorous prominence, frothing on the surface, a class of persons felt generally to be equally unworthy of personal respect or of political confidence. While it cannot but be a matter of regret, that the country has lost the moral benefit of witnessing that just retribution of rebuke which awaited this weakest and worst of our Presidents, in the utterly insignificant number of popular votes he had the slightest chance of obtaining.

We by no means design to include the whole body of Mr. Tyler’s office holders within the application of the above remarks. A considerable number of gentlemen of the highest political and personal merit, are indeed to be found among them – either selected through the agency of friends – or by happy chance – or by the way of good leaven to leaven the lump, as respectable endorsers to the bankrupt worthlessness of so many of the rest. Still less, of course, will any portion of them be received as applicable to Mr. Tyler’s Cabinet – the members of which have had little – most of them nothing – to do with the meaner matters of party making management. Mr. Calhoun’s position in it, in particular, is known to all to have been one far aloft from and above any thing and everything of this kind. He accepted the State Department at the call of the country for a specific object of the greatest public importance, with personal reluctance and entire independence of controle, and full understanding of his purpose of retiring as soon as he should have completed the Texas & Oregon negotiations.

RWv22i21p2c5, March 14, 1845


By brig Abiano, we have received Mexican papers up to 12th February.

Santa Ana was to be tried on the 24th February, by the Congress erected as jury. If Santa Ana does not present himself before the grand jury, but sends his written defence, the trial is to come off sooner.

It appears that Santa Ana has full liberty to communicate by letter with whoever he pleases. It is reported that several letters have been intercepted, which were addressed to several houses in Vera Cruz, recommending them not to denounce the several sums deposited in their hands. A remarkable fact is, that whilst Santa Ana declared to Congress he had no other fortune than his landed property, he drawn exchange for $90,000, thereby proving the contempt with which he treats the Mexicans. – N. O. Bee.

RWv22i22p1c5, March 18, 1845

Question to Henry Brooke

To Henry L. Brooke, Esq.

Your frankness and prompt decision in your card of this morning, lead me to believe that you will, with equal candour and promptness, give an immediate reply to the following queries, which, as one of the voters in the city, I am desirous of having answered, and therefore feel bold to put them to you in this public manner:

1st. Are you in favour of the ultimate annexation of Texas?

2d. Are you of opinion that the Joint Resolutions are Constitutional?

3d. Do you think the present crisis such as to render Annexation expedient?

My reason for putting to you these questions, is this: that I think each candidate ought to avow his sentiments fully upon every issue which may be brought into the canvass; and, if street rumor is to be credited, your opinions are differently understood by different persons. – For instance, it is said confidently that you hold the affirmative of the 1st and 2d questions, and the negative of the latter; whilst it is known that you have been electioneering against one of your opponents upon the ground that he holds the affirmative of all three!

Richmond, March 15, ’45.


RWv22i22p1c5, March 18, 1845


We had intended to mark the retirement of several able and upright Statesmen from the United States Senate, with some comments on their services and worth, but other duties have prevented. We cannot, however, in justice to our feelings, longer withhold the expression of our high appreciation of, and gratitude to, William C. Rives of Virginia. Through the last two Sessions, especially, Mr. Rives has evinced a liberality and justness of sentiment, a soundness and firmness of principle, a largeness of perception and loftiness of aim, which have commended him more and more to the affections of the Whigs throughout the Union. His upright, manly, truly National course on the Tariff and Texas questions, and his unanswerable demonstration of the unconstitutionality of Annexation by the mode which Congress has adopted; will not be forgotten. Mr. Rives is the living embodiment of the best traits and best days of James Madison. He may for the present be driven from the national councils by the cupidity of Virginia slave-breeding stimulated by the prospect of a vast and lucrative market in Texas, but such a man cannot be kept down. His talent and virtues must soon cause him to be summoned again to the service of his Country. It is an evil day for her when such men as Rives are lost to her halls of Legislation, even for a brief season.- N. Y. TRIBUNE.

RWv22i22p2c3, March 18, 1845


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 extremest 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.

Thus by his thorough paced and inscrutable Texas, immediate, not a moment’s delay notions, he justly offended the bulk of the Whig party, who in so immense a question, could see no harm in a little delay, in a little reflection, and that the People might be permitted to reflect THEIR sentiments, NOT through a Presidential election governed by twenty other issues, but calmly at the Polls, and through the medium of a new congress! 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!

But to proceed – While Mr. Newton pulled kindly in the Texas, Tyler, Polk and Calhoun traces, he was applauded to the echo by that whole interest. The Enquirer, day after day, was eloquent in his praise! His independence – his Statesmanship, his Patriotism – his superiority to the shackles of party – were celebrated, if not in heroic and Homerian verse, yet in “prose run mad!” The Whigs the while, looked on and said little! They were chagrined and almost disgusted but they forebore all reproaches and all commentary.

Suddenly the scene changed – Brown’s Texas resolutions passé the House, and as Mr. Newton almost boasts, by the prowess of his persistent arm! They went to the Senate, and there they were amended by Benton’s bill. They came back to the House thus amended harmlessly at least, and there this furious annexationist Mr. Willoughby Newton, who would before give the People no time for thought or reflection, voted against them! He says he did so, because Benton’s measure contained an insidious attack upon Slavery and the Southern States! The Enquirer intimates pretty broadly, that his vote was governed by other considerations, and that he proposed by it, to reinstate himself in the confidence and trust of the Whig party, annoyed and disgusted by his frantic Texas course! Where doctors of such eminence differ, we presume not to come in as a consultative Physician! Let them settle it as they will: It is all one to us, and we presume to the Whig party.

But, Mr. Willoughby Newton had no sooner given his final anti-Texas vote, than he was fired upon by the Enquirer and its associates. They evidently had received him as a deserter from the Whigs in his Texas votes, and regarded his last vote with the most vehement indignation, as an attempt to desert back again! They tried to shoot him, as John Randolph said he shot John Holmes, as he crossed the line!

The Enquirer without delay, poured a broad side into Mr. Newton’s in the following terms.

“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, (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 made 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 back 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, or the last of the Whig press: and, after a brilliant effort, they have returned to the vile affinities of party spirit.”

To this denunciation of the Enquirer, Mr. Newton replies through a letter published in that paper of Saturday from which we make the following extracts:

“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 of the South.- 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 last 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 recoiled from the amendment and fallen 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 [ . . . ] 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 enable to achieve a great measure, I may be pardoned the seeming vanity of declaring, that without us, and, indeed, 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 to 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.

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 publish 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,

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!” His allusion (for so we cannot but understand it) to this Press, either as a “reckless press” or as a “party hack” we fling in his face with defiance. He himself is deeply indebted to us for our liberality and forebearance in 1844, as he knows well – or if perchance he does not now; some of his Texas friends can inform him: No seat in Congress – no accidental elevation, either entitles him or any other man in this country, to hold language of such assumed superiority over other, nor shall we for one, permit it to him or any other, without at least repelling the haughty and insolent vaporing!

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!

RWv22i22p2c5, March 18, 1845


The Convention held on the 20th ult,. On the part of the Whigs, with perfect unanimity, selected the above named gentleman to represent this District in the next Congress. The battle between Whigs and Democrats begins this day at Goochland Ct. House, where Messrs. Botts and Seddon will measure arms.

WHIGS OF EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY AND FORTY FOUR, are you ready for the contest? Are you ready to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard in support of your principles? Do you bear in mind the duplicity and fraud by which your opponents cheated you out of the benefit of your principles, and the election of your own Henry Clay? Surely every motive that could impel you to action exists (at least in this undoubted Whig District.) can there be a doubt of success, if you will but do your duty. No! no!! no!!! must be the answer; but we sometimes hear a “Democrat” say that there are a few Whigs (very few, I imagine) who do not like Mr. B. personally. Can it be possible that any Whig would let go his principles for the sake of any man? Look to the political history of your nominee, ever a Tariff man, a Bank man, A distribution man, battling for those measures from the hour that he entered public life to this moment.- Look to the times when he spurned the documents of the traitor Capt. Tyler – when treachery would have met its reward, and fidelity was so rare, that even the “union of the Whigs for the sake of the Union,” “every inch a wig,” and the Minister to China, caught at the bait, and deserted their principles and their party! Who was it that stood firm in this trying hour? Whose voice was it that was loudest in the defence of your liberties and the Constitution? The answer is ready: Botts was the man! But Texas, Texas, Texas! Mr. Tyler said, was the question – not what was best to be done for our household, as it was, but that the family should be increased; and, upon the propriety of this, a President was to be elected! Come, brother Whigs, one and all, and let us show to the “Hunkers” and the ”Chivalry,” that, like the Greek, though you cut off both arms, we will hold on with our teeth. And, with this determination, we will as certainly elect our candidate, as life and liberty last. POWHATAN.

RWv22i24 p1c1 March 25, 1845


The Alexandria Gazette says—

"Mr. Willoughby Newton, the Whig candidate for the Northern Neck District has written a letter to the Richmond Enquirer, concerning his votes with regard to Texas, and the comments that have been made on his course. This letter is severely handled in the Richmond Whig. Without pretending to interfere in a matter, which, probably, does not concern us, we may be permitted to say, that, although we certainly should never think of looking into a man's views in favor of Texas, as a recommendation for a seat in Congress, we should, on the other hand, as in the case of Mr. Newton, and in the circumstances in which he is placed, not look upon these views, as throwing him out of the Whig party, or in a contest between him and a Loco Foco, as a reason for refusing him a hearty support. Mr. Newton is the Whig Candidate. He avows and maintains Whig principles, and he is in favor of the Annexation of Texas. Mr. Hunter is a sublimated Loco Foco, (the worst kind, we think) is the candidate of the Loco Foco party, and is also in favor of the Annexation of Texas. Now, this is the exact state of the case. Can any Whig, in the Northern Neck, therefore, let him be for or against Texas, hesitate one instant in this matter?: We trust not. It is the bounden duty of the Whigs to give Mr. Newton a cordial support. As for Mr. Newton's flings at the press, because he has been galled in some quarters, that is neither here or there. He is not the first public man, and will not be the last, who will assume a kind of superiority to that which, as a public man, has contributed to make him, and has made many who have kicked down the ladder by which they have mounted. We, though younger in years, than our senior friend of the Whig, have already acquired by experience, philosophy enough to regard these things with a stoicism which befits the times. But we must insist that let him write what letters he may, about the press, Mr. Newton (this Texasism included) is the Whig upon whom the good people of the Northern Neck out to rally, and return to Congress."

RWv22i24 p1c1 March 25, 1845


"We have not acquired the Stoicism vaunted (and only, we suspect, vaunted, and not possessed,) by our friend of the Alexandria Gazette. We hope, moreover, that we shall never acquire a frame of mind which implies, as a condition precedent to obtaining it, the abnegation of all sensitive and manly feeling. The time has not yet come with us, and it shall never come if we can prevent it, when we are prepared to surrender the feelings and rights of the man to the claims of the party. For Party we go, legitimately, as par as he who goes farthest. Party is inevitable—party is right;--without party, we can sustain and carry, through nothing in this country, were all is dependent upon, and regulated by party! But, even here, there must be limits—the limits of reason and sound sense. He who flies from the obligations—takes a course of his own, in opposition to the mass of opinion of the party with which he acts—prefers his own judgment to theirs, without consultation, or conference, or communing , and that upon matters of the very highest, most vital, and most far-reaching moment, has no right to complain if he is regarded as presumptuous and officious. That he has been trusted—that is in Congress-gives him no right to constitute himself the thinker of the Party with which he acts, and to stifle, in his representative course, their opinions and convictions.

Such has been Mr. Newton's course—a course wild, and disregardful of the opinions of his friends. Had the Whigs of his District who elected him, been consulted, would they ever have advised him to vote to annex a foreign empire to this, by joint resolution, the very lowest form of parliamentary proceeding? They never would. We think we can vouch for the whole party in the District. Mr. Newton never could have obtained from them, the privilege of making them say, it is constitution to annex foreign empires to this, buy the simplest and cheapest form of legislation, and without consulting the people! So great and incalculable a question, was never intended by the framers of the Government, to be thus lightly and unceremoniously disposed of, not even the form of consulting the American People being observed! Mr. Newton can not, ought not, to feel surprised, at finding arrayed against his self-willed and hard headed and self sufficient course, the most strenuous and even indignant opposition from his own party friends! They will and they do ask themselves—why, what worse could any Locofoco do than this? In a great and overwhelming matter, affecting the very liberty and existence of the country, he has not deigned to consult us his constituents! He has thrown himself in opposition to their wishes, and the solemn judgment of the Whig Party!

But we are constrained to cut short what farther we wished to have said. We shall continue and complete our address to the Whig Party of the Westmoreland District, by Tuesday.

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845


On Wednesday, 8 o'clock, P.M.

The Whigs of Richmond are invited to attend a Public Meeting, which will take place on Wednesday evening, at 8 o,clock at the "Odd Fellows' Hall."

The Meeting will be addressed by Mr. Lyons—and the other candidates for the City are invited to do so likewise.

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845

Monday, March 24th, 1845. MANY WHIGH VOTERS.

This call has been hitherto suspended by the absence of Mr. Fleming James. He is expected to return by Wednesday, and circumstances preclude a further delay.

To the Editors of the Whig:

Gentlemen—It is undeniable that much diversity of opinion prevails in the Whig party—not in Richmond alone, but throughout the State of Virginia and the Union at large—upon the question of the "Annexation of Texas," both as to the constitutionality and expediency of the measure itself, and as to the mode of carrying it into effect.


We believe that every shade of opinion, which can be entertained on this subject, is consistent with entire fidelity and devotion to the Whig party. We believe, likewise, that a full and free toleration of our mutual differences of opinion on this subject, is indispensably necessary to prevent an incurable division in the Whig party. For, if a difference of opinion, upon a subject which has no manner of connexion with the great principles of domestic policy upon which that party is founded, be allowed to overrule our concurrence in those principles, then those principles, by which we have so long stood together, are rendered subordinate to another and a new question; and, to made this new question, is to make a new party division, which will, unquestionably, separate those who have hitherto zealously concurred, as Whigs.

We moreover believe, that the most direct and positive—the clearest as well as the harshest—mode of making this separation, is by making any opinion on the "annexation" question, a test of eligibility to such offices of trust or honour, as may be at the disposal of the Whig Party. We, therefore, earnestly protest against the application of this est; and, differing greatly amongst ourselves upon the "Annexation" question, but agreeing in preferring Mr. Lyons, as the representative of this city in the next Legislature, to any gentleman hitherto named, we deeply regret to have seen his opinions upon that subject, treated, buy many Whigs opposed to his election, in a manner tending to produce incurable discord in the Whig party. We are also satisfied, that the whole question of "Annexation," as well as Mr. Lyon's opinion upon every b=ranch of that question, and his more of treating it during the late Presidential canvas, is by many wholly misunderstood.

For the purpose, therefore, of promoting harmony in the Whig party, in Richmond—the want of which, we are convinced, arises in a great measure, from misunderstanding each other,--we have joined in the above invitation to a public meeting on Wednesday night.

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845


We publish the call of "Many Whig Voters" upon the Whigs of Richmond, to meet Wednesday evening at the "Odd Fellows' Hall" as requested. How many authorize this call of "Many Whig Voters," we do not know, that part of the secret being kept secret.

If we understand the position of things correctly, it is very different from that which the author of this communication seems willing to imply. No Whig that we know of, objects to any other Whig that he is in favor of annexing Texas—at the right time—in a Constitutional manner—and by the consent of the American, the Mexican and the Texan People! Present it in that shape, and few would be found comparatively, (though some still would) to dissent from it. The vehement and indignant opposition to the immediate annexation of Texas, which animates the bosoms of thousands and hundreds of the purest patriots in the land—springs from the loftiest motives! They spurn the idea of bullying Mexico, as this Government would not attempt to bully England! They want not a rich acquisition, did its rivers flow with gold and previous stones, at the expense of national honor, and by driving a plough share through the Constitution! Admitting Texas to be fertile and desirable in the abstract, they distain, or would distain, to receive it from the unclean hands of Tyler, and the Texas jobbers in land, bonds, and scrip! These are the feelings of the great Whig party—of nearly the whole party—throughout the U. States; and they are feelings which, in our poor judgment, reflect the highest honour upon their elevated patriotism and principles. It is not Texas that, in the main, they are opposed to obtaining, but they are opposed to obtaining her unconstitutionally, unjustly, and by a contemptuous regard of national honor and faith!


This writer intimates that immediate and Joint Resolution Annexation Whigs are unacceptable to the Whig party, and opposed by them because they ARE such! Can it be at all wonderful that it should be so? Here is by far the most immense American question of the age—a question which, before it is ended may well change the whole frame work of American Society, and stain American soil with civil gore-decided against the solemn judgment of the Whig party, by the aid of a few self-willed Whigs, numbering among them Tyler and Merrick, and every other Whig traitor of the day! Can it, we ask, be wonderful, that the Whig masses look with coldness and distrust, upon these "immediate Annexation, Joint Resolution" Whigs, who, whether they intended it or not (as we know many of them did not) helped by that detestable question and the support they gave it, to overthrow Henry Clay and prostrate the Whig party in November? IS IT WONDERFULL—that smarting under the effects of this odious Tyler and Speculator invention to ruin them—defeated by it, and deprived of that command of the Government to which they were entitled from their numbers, and defeated too by the indirect assistance of Whigs—the masses of the Whig party should for the present feel extremely lukewarm towards such Whigs, as in this great national and vital question, took part against them, and Henry Clay, and with "Polk, Dallas, and Texas!" We for our part, think that nothing can be more natural, reasonable, and proper! Let Polk, Dallas, and Texas elect them if they can, to the offices they want: Let them, like our friend Jeremiah Morton, appeal at once to that "Democracy" with whom they concur on this great Constitutional question!

The Whigs as a party, we trust will take no part in the proposed meeting, which is obviously called to the heal any dissention, but to enable one of the Candidates to make a Texas speech! If that gentleman chooses to make that question the issue—to separate himself upon it from the Whig party, and the assembled wisdom of the Whig parting Congress, he will find no doubt strong Democratic sympathy, but we most sincerely hope no Whig sympathy! Let him go and speak his speech, but the other Whig Candidates will scarcely feel called upon, we trust, to go over arguments which the Rives', Choates, Berriens, Archers and Crittenders have made familiar to all!

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845


Our neighbors of the Enquirer are alarmed, and we have no doubt that the whole Holy Brotherhood of Texas Land holders, bond holders and Scrip holders with them, at the unfavorable manner in which Brown's Resolution for immediate Annexation have been received in Texas itself! It really would look, from the language of the Galveston Civilian, and the Texas National Register-the leading and most influential Journals of that Republic—as if Annexation on the terms proposed, was going to the scorned and spurned by Texas!

How ardently, we hope this may prove true, we need not say, for it would in a great measure correct the dire mischief of the ranks and unconstitutional legislation of the late Congress—a Congress destined to be opprobriously remembered in the annals of this country.

But we confess that we depend but little upon these demonstrations from Texas. As far as we can understand, they are induced, but the fact that the U. States did not assume to pay the Texas national debt—estimated, by many, to exceed twenty millions of dollars! When the Texans learn what the hope and calculation of the Texas jobbers in this country in this country is—namely, that although not assumed in form, the Texas debt will yet be paid, and the aforesaid jobbers, in the end, realize all their golden visions—we say, that when this idea, not implausibly supported, is duly circulated in Texas, and backed b the secret assurances of Mr. Ro. J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury, "Randolph of Roanoke," (Seth Barton,) our venerable neighbor, and the Texas authorities generally, the People of Texas will jump into the Union like sheep into a pen! So we fear, at least! We devoutly wish them the sagacity to perceive their true interest as well as that of the U. States—that is, to keep themselves to themselves! But the country may rely upon it, that monied speculation is at the bottom on the part of Texas to make this country pay her debt on the part of Speculators here, to make the U. States pay them scrip and bonds at par, which cost only a few cents in the dollar; and Texas, moved by this mercenary consideration will be whipped in!

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845

We give two articles of interest, from Texas papers:


"The article which we copy today from the National Register affords gratifying evidence f a return, on the part of the friends of annexation in this country to a proper sense of self-respect, and an understanding of the position which Texas may and ought to assume in relation to the question. Our friends beyond the Sabine have lost sight of the homely adage that it takes two to make a bargain; and only studied how to shape measures so as to make the "reciprocity all on one side," until at length their utter selfishness and disregard of the respect due to Texas as an independent nation, which has thus far maintained her nationality, rights, and liberties, begins to produce the natural fruits of disappointment and aversion in those of our citizens who ha looked to that quarter for magnanimous and disinterested regard for our welfare and happiness.—The helpless and perishing beggar may without hesitation accept the most humiliating conditions for, and agree to become the menial of, him from whom he receives the means of averting famine and death; but the sturdy yeoman, whose honest industry and strong arm afford him all the means of subsistence and protection requisite to his condition and habits in life, may well shun the banquet and the association if invited into the society of the more wealthy and presuming, when his acceptance is to be coupled with acknowledgments of vassalage and inferiority.

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845


THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION.—The Congress of the United States "doth consent that the territory included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in Convention, assembled with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of the Union." Such is the language of the first section of the resolution which has passed the lower House of the American Congress. What is its import?

The answer is, that we must lay aside our national name, abandon our preset Constitution, erect ourselves into a new Sate, adopt the appellative of "State of Texas" organize a new Government of a republican form, by mean of deputies assembled in convention, and, after we have passed through this prescribed revolution; after we have thus voluntarily deprived ourselves of every feature and lineament of that nationality under which we have our independence has been recognized by foreign Powers; after we have, in fact annihilated our identity as a community, and repudiated even our name, so that we can neither know nor be known in the rank and seat among the nations which we have hitherto occupied, at least without dishonour, and without the consent of the old world and the new; after all the sacrifices and all this degradation, what shall we have gained? What [sic] shall we have accomplished? Annexation to the American Union? No; not even the promise of it. Under such circumstances, all our connexions with foreign nations would be dissolved, our relations toward them changed; all advantages accruing from past negotiations cease; for no one can pretend that the great European Powers will continue their amicable intercourse with our Government as the REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, under the name of "STATE OF TEXAS," habited in the garb of a supplicant for admission into the family of American States, the very cut and fashion of which have been PRESCRIBED by their Congress. Why, in such a guise we should not even know ourselves! In such a state of national abeyance and limbo, we could neither assert a separate independence for ourselves, nor claim any species of alliance or connexion ever known by any name "given under heaven or among men," with any other Government. In such an attitude of morafying [ . . . ] and humiliating indefiniteness, we may well be disavowed as a distinct nation.


"By all our kind and skin, [ . . . ] when they
"Compare our [ . . . ] day and [ . . . ] day."

And, having assumed this ?eal posture, by the consent of the American Congress, "in order," as the resolution declares, "that we may be admitted as one of the States of the Union," that we are bound unto them, but they are not bound unto us. We are again and for the fourth time, to knock at their door for admission, "on or before the first day of January next," with out new Constitution in our hand, when that Congress will take their final action (for or against, as the case may be) on the subject of our application.

This is the substance and extent of their "guaranties," paraded, as the expression is in the resolution, under imposing grammatical form of the plural number ?. Have we any pledge that we shall then be annexed? No; they only promise that they will once consider the proposition, and take what they are pleased to denominate their "final action" upon it. And, judging from the language they now hold, we have nothing more nor less to expect than that they will then "spurn" us as before—for they can do so without violating any pledge.

But, if we adopt the course indicated by the resolution, we do so under the formal sanction and color of their express consent. This would be a tacit admission on the part of the Government and the people of Texas of the authority of that consent, and would imply at least that we could not lawfully act in the prescribed mode without it. No doubt we should be forced to borrow largely from the efficacy of that same consent, to carry us through the conspicuous [ . . . ] part assigned to us in the ridiculous farce thus prepared for exhibition.

If the people of Texas choose to revolutionize their Government, and institute some new and different republic organization, they may do so without the leave of a foreign Government "first had and obtained." But the United States have acknowledged our title to be recognized as an independent nation, both de facto and de jure. Should we adopt the course designated by their resolutions, we at once lose the benefit of that acknowledgment. We pass into a state of imbecile and hopeless dependence upon that Power. To be annexed? Certainly, never—until their aspiring partisans shall cease to need the materials we now furnish them for manufacture of political capital. Our relations with other Governments dissolved, and our own nationality renounced, the United States, may consent to hold—as they shall have consented to place us—in a state of penultimate, but unaccomplished, annexation.

But even this consent of the American Congress, meager and valueless as it is to the people of Texas, but for which we are required to give to the United States a lien upon our country's sovereignty—this worthless consent, as it begrudged to Texas, is eked out to her at a miser's usury, and is shackled with what lawyer's call "conditions precedent." Passing by the required sacrifice of our right to adjust the boundaries of our territory, the consent of that Congress even once more to entertain the Texas question is coupled with the cold assurance that if we are, ever admitted into the Union at all, we must cede to the United States "all our mines, minerals, salt lakes, and springs; also, all our Public Edifices, Fortifications, Barracks, Ports and Harbors, Navy, and Navy Yards, Docks, Magazines, Arms, Armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence [sic]. [sic]" We must also yield up our revenue and our capacity to raise one: which single item, under the financial regulations of our fostering stepmother, will bring into her Treasury at least three hundred thousand dollars per annum, for which we have her kind permission to retain our public debt, and keep our public domain; subject, however to the payment of the debt , and circumscribed without such limits as she may hereafter be pleased to assign to our territory, in the exercise of her characteristic and far-fetching diplomacy, which once reached even to the Western banks of the Sabine! We must, however, truckle to her pet abolitionists by obligating ourselves to prohibit slavery north of the parallel of thirty-sex degrees thirty minutes, known as the Mssouri [sic] compromise line.

We have always been a warm and hearty advocate for the cause of annexation; but never did we dream that the approval of the people of Texas would be required to a proposition so absurd, so degrading, as the one propounded by this resolution. Our space does not now admit of further detail. Suffice it that we contrast our present elevated position as a people—secure in the respect and amity of the great enlightened nations of the earth; secure in the enjoyment of peace, and in the speedy acquisition of acknowledged independence; secure in the wealth which the commerce of Europe is about to pour into our lap, and the increasing value of our lands, arising from the extended occupation and the investment of foreign capital; secure of becoming "the most favored" by those powerful and wealthy sovereignties whom both interest and policy impel to cherish our prosperity and growth, that their markets may be supplied with our staples; and secure that the increase of commerce will speedily render no less consistent than desirable a great diminution of our present tariff—with the alternative present by this resolution, of Texas divested of all these high privileges and advantages, shorn of her attributes as a nation, crippled in her commerce, in her prosperity, in her domestic resources, depressed in the burdens of public debt and direct taxation, her land in consequence depreciated in value; and, in the event of final annexation upon the proposed basis, our public domain not only razeed and mortgaged to secure the payment of our debt, but even eviscerated of its mineral wealth to swell the federal treasury.

This is, indeed but a dim and totally inadequate view of the actual pit and grave of insignificance and infamy into which the House of Representatives of the American Congress have proposed to plunge this nation.

"Since he, miscalled the morning star,
"Nor man, nor fiend, hath fall'n so far."


RWv22i25 March 28, 1845

Wednesday Morning, March 28, 1845


We ask the reader's attention to the judicious card of HENRY L. BROOKE, Esq., excusing himself from attending the meeting which the Texas Immediate Joint Resolution Annexation friends of one of the candidates have called, to [ . . . ] it they cannot put the fire out by pouting [ . . . ] oil upon the fire.

We are authorized to say for Mr. Lancaster, that he too, entirely disapproves of that meeting, as calculated to do harm [ . . . ] and not good. Mr. James we feel convinced, and indeed we know, is of the same opinion; and in sincerity we have not seen or heard of the first Whig (except the little [ . . . ] clique who got the whole thing up) who did not unqualifiedly reprehend the course proposed, of a TEXAS [ . . . ] among the Whigs, in order to settle differences and promote peace, as entirely absurd and farcical! These discussions when they take place between hostile parties, and [ . . . ] the collective People being auditory and the judges, [ . . . ] are well enough; but when they are invoked to steal [ . . . ] family jars, are ridiculous. It is not by such means—means calculated to exasperate and not conciliate—that the desired harmony can be restored, and we feel [ . . . ], as in point of fact the Whigs of Richmond knew that they have been appealed to as a dernter and desperate resort by those, who, having detached themselves from the rest of the Whig host, hope something where they can loose [ . . . ] !

To the communication addressed to "the Citizens of Richmond," we ask attention, although that communication is a most illiberal attack upon us! The authors of it and the little [ . . . ] clique who act with them, were very indignant last year, when the Richmond Whig was denounced as attempting to "dictate" because it opposed the election of Mr. Brooke! Now forsooth, the same three or four denounce us as Dictators because it enters into their wise ??? to suppose that we are friendly to the election of Mr. Brooke!

The truth is, we have taken no part, and wished to take no part, in the election—in the adjustment of a difficulty where all were friends and where to be for one, was to appear at least to be against another. We have felt like the good [ . . . ] natured voter in Goochland, who, being bothered be???? predilections, said—"Gentlemen, I wish I could [ . . . ] vote for you all !"

These gentlemen, it seems, who in the face of public opinion, as all but themselves think, are attempting to force the election of Mr. Lyons—denounce us for what? For opposing him—for taking even any part? No—but for simply opposing a meeting to hear Whig denounce Whig, and a Texas Whig allow up another Whig who has [ . . . ] opposed to annexing the U. States to Texas !

This is dictation in us ! It is dreadfully wrong! But when these same persons day after day, electioneer through the streets for Mr. Lyons—THAT is no [ . . . ] O! by no means! They may steal a horse, but me must not look over the hedge!

Had we supported Mr. Lyons, no matter how warmly and zealously—were we to do it now,--it would be no [ . . . ]then ! It is only dictation when we happen to think differently from those who would themselves [ . . . ], if they could ! We agree fully with the authors of this Card in one thing at least, and it is that the enlightened population of this city are not to be dictated to by any man or any set of men!—not are they such fools as to think that we attempt to dictate to them, because, like every other citizen, we express, as we have a right to express, our simple opinions. They have known us for twenty years, and they have never known us in that long tract of years, to try to dictate; NOR HAVE THEY EVER KNOWN US TO TRY TO PREFER AND PROMOTE OURSELVES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC CAUSE ! If they trust us at all, as we hope they do, it is because they know that we are candid and plain sailing, and have no private schemes [ . . . ] to serve by party !

This is our shield and defence, and here we know we are impregnable, and defy the assaults of all .The People—the Whigs of Richmond—must and will stand by us because we have stood by them!

RWv22i25, p1c4, March 28, 1845


These feuds are just nothing! They are formented, if not produced, by Locofoco cunning and address, acting upon Whig vanity and gullibility! The state of things now existing, has been projected, in our opinion, by those who have not made their purposes known even to their instruments, to overthrow the Whig party, in this Congressional district, and Botts' Election. We are greatly mistaken, or we can put our finger on the one or two men, who, acting behind the curtain and playing upon personal irritability, and that vanity which is the besetting in of the time, have produced our troubles!

But it all will avail the plotters nothing! The Whigs of Richmond are not thus to be circumvented! He who has been abusing them, and warring upon their interested for twenty years, is not now going to succeed in pinioning their strength by Texas anodynes, or by accusing us falsely of dictation! The trick is stale and will not succeed! The Whigs of Richmond constitute the most enlightened community in North America, and they will prosecute their ends, regardless of the attempt of the enemy to humbug them!

RWv22i25, p1c5, March 28, 1845

It is rumored in Washington that M. Bodisco, the Russian Ambassador, has formally entered a protest with our Government on behalf of the Emperor of Russia against the Annexation of Texas. It was supposed, however, to be entirely untrue.—Balt. Pat.

RWv22i25, p2c4, March 28, 1845


There was, we hear, quite a crowd at the Odd Fellows' Hall, Wednesday night, to hear Mr. Lyons. His on clique was there of course—a number of Whigs from curiosity, and the Sweat House in full force! The latter were very much delighted with the course and drift of than argument, which, not bearing upon them, bore only upon the Whigs. Their satisfaction was entirely natural. Had it borne still harder upon the Whigs, that audience, or the mass of them would have clapped still more loudly.

Mr. Lyons attacked Mr. Brooke and attacked us, but we did not hear of his attacking any Loco Foco!

He spoke, we are told, of a piece which appeared in the Whig some weeks ago, with much severity, which piece he ascribe to the senior editor of the Whig. [It was a piece simply calling on the candidates to say what were their views on the subject of immediate Joint Resolution, Texas Annexation!] That Editor did write the piece! He has never denied it, and is proud now to proclaim it and avouch it. It merely called upon the candidates to state their opinions upon this most grave constitutional question. There was no attack, direct or indirect, upon any one; and yet Mr. Lyons, the next day, demanded to know the name of the author—a demand which he had no right to make unless he meant to exact personal responsibility. He was told politely, that he had no right to make such a call, as there was nothing personal in the article—that there was not the least objection to his knowing who the author was, but that there was an objection to the principle he assumed, which would give him or any man, the privilege of making himself acquainted with matters which are universally regarded where the Press is free, as entitled to protection from inquisitiveness.

But the author of the article alluded to, was so far from desiring to conceal this authorship, or from fearing any sort of responsibility for it, that he stated to a friend of Mr. Lyons the next day, that we was the author, not doubting that that friend would communicate it.

So much for this matter! Let that article be published again—we ourselves will publish it—if it is desired by any—

But let us quite this theme altogether! The Locos were excessively delighted—in a broad grin—the Whigs, with few exceptions, chagrined and mortified! That is in a few words, the history of the matter. The Patriarch of the Enquirer will gloat over it, and the fact that his friend Lyons, helped to "row Whigs up Salt River!"—as in fact he has been gloating, and chuckling, and smacking his lips for several days, at the prospect!

Let these gentlemen all, however, take notice, that the Whig party of Richmond is not yet Vanquished! We shall all see what we shall see! The Whigs mean to ACT, not to jower! The fourth Thursday in April is not now distant, and they reserve their response to those proceedings, for that day!

More we shall have to say, but not now.

RWv22i25p2c5 March 28, 1845


Both Mr. Merrick and the Senators from Ohio, in their votes upon the Texas question, violated the known and expressed will of their constituents. Not only our Senators, but the Legislature of Virginia have been violently assailed by Mr. Ritchie; the former, for acting in opposition (as the Enquirer contends) to the public sentiment of Virginia; and the latter, for not instructing our Senators to conform to this popular will. But, what says the pure and consistent Democrat, [who claims the honor of senior Editor of the Richmond Enquirer,] touching the conduct of the Ohio Senators and Mr. Merrick? Not only has he bottled up the thunder of his indignation against their palpable dereliction from Democratic principles; but he has proclaimed that Mr. Merrick, in acting in contradiction to the expressed will of his constituents, (through the Maryland Legislature,) has entitled himself to the thanks of the Democracy, [which he, I presume, as the organ of the party in Virginia, freely bestows upon him.] Yet, this same Mr. Ritchie has the effrontery to propose as one of the issues of the Spring Elections, the refusal of the Legislature of Virginia to instruct their Senators upon the Texas question. Why instruct Senators, if they merit the thanks of the Democracy for acting in open defiance of the wishes of their constituents, when they happen to represent a Whig constituency? And is not this the unavoidable inference we must draw from a comparison of Mr. Ritchie's practice with his professions? In Virginia, instructions are imperiously demanded, and our recent legislators of last winter, are to be hauled over the coals this spring, for not obeying this Democratic behest of the Richmond Enquirer. But in Maryland it was the Whig ox which was gored; and the case being altered, alters the case. The Maryland votes decided the Texas question; and according to the political ethics of the Enquirer, this outrage of the Maryland Senators, against the expressed wishes of his constituents, entitles him to Democratic gratitude. Verily, these Democrats must have very India rubber kind of consciences, if Mr. Ritchie is a true exponent of their political morality; and we are at a loss which most to admire, the effrontery of the declaration alluded to in regard to the thanks due to Mr. Merrick, or the impudence and the consistency of the Enquirer, in assailing our Legislature for refusing last winter to instruct our Senators upon the Texas question. Instructions, forsooth!! What boot instructions to the Democracy of the Ritchie School, if party purposes are to be subserved by disregarding them; or, what amounts to the same thing (according to Democratic professions, but not Democratic practice, if party ends are to be gained by opposing the expressed will of the constituents? Let me caution Mr. Ritchie, that in relation to his threats to bring our Legislature, of last winter, to the bar of public opinion, for refusing to instruct on the Texas question, discretion will be the better part of valor. The less he excites public attention to the political morality he has displayed, in regard to Mr. Merrick's vote, the better for him; he may gain credit with Democrats of the Empire Club School, by the avowal of such principles, but with the honest yeomanry he must infallibly lose caste, as he deserves to do with honest politicians.

RWv22i25, p2c4, March 28, 1845



We resume the theme of this gentleman's recent course with, we confess, other feelings than those which actuated us a week ago. We then felt naturally mortified and resentful at his personal course towards us. We had stood by him for 13 years, in every political fortune, and if we had rendered him no service, it certainly had not bee for the want of trying to do so. We were unconscious of the slightest offending personally, or even politically, towards Mr. Newton. True—we could not think with him, that the Constitution gave Congress the power to annex foreign empires to the Union, by joint resolution, the lowest and least solemn form of legislation! We thought it, as we think it still, the grossest and most violent invasion of the Constitution ever yet attempted; and if the deliberate reflection of the People does not bring them to the same conclusion, then we shall be of the mind of Mr. Burke of New Hampshire, that a Constitution is an evil, and like a Custom House oath, only made to be broken!

But, thus thinking we said not a word in opposition to Mr. Newtown's Texas course. We regretted it as a Whig: We regretted it as a personal friend: But still we said nothing, for it was no affair of ours: We had fought for him, trusted him, valued him, respected him, loved him; and however much we censured his Texas Immediate Joint Resolution Annexation course, we had no wish to assail him for it.

All we said was comprised in the two following paragraphs:

From the Richmond Whig of February 20th.


ESSEX, &c.

"Notwithstanding Mr. Willoughby Newtown's entire conformity to the wishes of the Texas party, and his abandonment in his course upon that subject in Congress of the immense majority of his own—notwithstanding the delicious flattery addressed to him by the Texans, when his vote was deemed necessary in the House to pass Brown's resolutions, and construct the fortunes of Texas Speculators, and the gross and fulsome adulation which that party have paid him since—notwithstanding, we say, all these things, the Democratic party of his district has assembled in Convention at Tappahannock and nominated Mr. Hunter [another great Texas man, but not greater than Mr. Newton !] and Mr. Hunter has accepted the call!

So Mr. Newton will get no wing from the Democracy for all his compliances! They have played the old game upon him—used him to help their schemes and break down his friends---plied him ad interim with sugar plums and caresses—but when they have no longer any use for him, unceremoniously laid him aside! Why, as the Democracy say, Texas is all in all—the absorbing, the great, the only question—as by and through it they accomplished the defeat of the Whigs in 1844, surely they might have been complaisant and grateful enough to so valuable an ally as Mr. Newton has proved to them, as to give him their nomination !

Mr. Newton must now rely upon the Whigs again, to may of whom his course has been given great pain, not to say unqualified disgust. We hope his reliance will not be in vain."

From the Richmond Whig of March 4:


This gentleman [and all the Whigs who voted for Brown's Texas Resolution except Mr. Dellett of Alabama] voted in opposition to them when they returned from the Senate, encumbered with Mr. Benton's proposition. On the other hand, every Democrat who had voted against Mr. Brown's resolutions, now voted for them (with Benton's project annexed) except Mr. Hale of New Hampshire and Mr. Davis of New York.

"These facts are highly significant. The accession of the recusant Northern Democracy [principally from New York] proves that the Van Buren and Wright influence had finally acquiesced in the Texas movement, and that Mr. Benton's movement was in all probability concerted to afford them the opportunity of doing so, in few words the moral of the tale is, that Calhoun and Polk having stolen Tyler's Texas thunder, and made capital from it, were in turn robbed by the Old Hunters, who did not choose that they should make [unclear much capital."

But we congratulate Mr. Newton, that circumstances, no matter how contrived, or by whom, or for what purpose, so worked ultimately as to save him from the deep responsibility of a final approbation of the outrage and iniquity of annexing Texas in the mode it was annexed, and for the still viler motives which influenced the mass of active agents [distorted section ends] in that work of unconstitionality and lawless aggression. His friends we are sure will rejoice, and his own conscience."

That was all! And being all, we appeal to Mr. Newton himself, and to his and our friends to say, if it justified him in denouncing us as he did—as a "party hack"—as a "reckless press"—and going into the Enquirer to do it—attempting as we thought, to appease and mollify and propitiate the conductors of that journal, by censuring and vilipending us! What! Are we to have no feelings—are we to crouch—are we to forget the feelings which belong to men and gentlemen because we are not in Congress!

But—after this expression of proper feeling, which is due to our self-respect—let us add, that we very much regret the matter. We did not seek it most certainly. WE have warmly esteemed Mr. Newton, personally, intellectually, and politically. And we are most willing and shall be most rejoiced, to "let by gones be by gones" and that we shall unite with him, if he will with us, upon the old 1840 platform, to sustain the good old cause of the party and the country!

We are not at all afraid of misconstruction: A man who knows the rectitude of his own intentions never is.


RWv22i26 p1c2 April 1, 1845

From the Baltimore American

Junction of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.-- the construction of a ship canal to unite the two great Oceans at some point of the isthmus between North and South American continues to form a subject of discussion in the chief Eur0opean journals, It is a matter of so much importance to the commercial interests of the world that its frequent agitation need not be wondered at. Perhaps the chief matter of wonder, in relation to it, is that the thing, so long talked about and so universally demanded, has not been accomplished.

There are three routes for the work in question which have been more or less explored, and each has its advocates, The route across the isthmus at Panama is the shortest and the most direct; that by the Lake Nicaragua would require perhaps the least work so far as the mere forming of a navigable communication is concerned; the third route, that of Tehuantepec, although the longest, has peculiar advantages which, in the estimation of many, entitle it to the preference over all others, The want of good harbours wither on the Atlantic or the Pacific side, or on both, is urged against the two first named routes; and it is a formidable objection. The [insalubrity] of the climate moreover, is said to be much that the construction of a canal by either of those points would involve a lamentable loss of human life.

An article in a late number of the London Quarterly argues strongly in favour of the Tehuantepec route. The following description of that portion of the isthmus will show some of the chief advantages which it offers for the construction of the great work.

The Breadth of the isthmus is a straight line from the mouth of the Coatzacoalcos is 220 kilometres (130 miles,) but the greater part of this space is occupied on the south by lagoons and extensive plains, and on the Atlantic side by the course of the Coatzacoalcos, which can easily be rendered navigable up to the confluence of the Malatengo. The principle works, therefore, to be executed would be comprised between latitude 16 degrees 36 minutes and 17 degrees 3 minutes N, including a space less than 31 miles in extent, wherein no excavation whatever exceeding the usual limits would be required. The highest point to be surmounted is at the Portello de Tarifa, a pass between the mountains only 200 metres (656 feet) above the level of the Pacific and 160 metres above the mouth of the Malatengo. There is a abundance of water, which may be applied with great facility so the service of the canal being derived from the Chicapa of Chimalapa and its confluent the Monetza, and from a more considerable river, the [Oaiota], which like the former, flows into the lagoons not far from the town of Tehuantepec. The grand condition of the good harbour at either extremity of the line seems capable of being simply fulfilled in this case. The mouth of the Conizacoalcos, 700 metres wide, and with never less than twenty-one feet of water on the bar, quite enough to float a frigate, is according to Balbi, “the finest port formed by any one of the rivers that discharges themselves into the Gulf of Mexico, not even excepting the Mississippi” – Hitherto it had been very generally supposed that no harbor could be established on the Pacific side; but Signor [Moro] has cleared up this difficulty. The lagoons near Tehuantepec have a depth seldom less than five or six metres, and this could easily be increased by dredging, the bottom being nothing but mud and shingle. The Bocca Barre, by which they empty them selves into the ocean, is not obstructed by a [troe ] bar, but a little way within it there is an accumulation of sand which might be destroyed with extreme facility whilst the cause of its deposit mighty be effectually removed.

RWv22i26 p1c3 April 1, 1845

The isthmus of Tehuantepec is said to posses a fine climate and in many places a most fruitful soil. Timber for ship building, dye, woods, choice mahogany and other grained trees are to be found there in profusion; and the abundance of cattle and resources for provisions of all kinds would enable vessels to renew their supplies at easy prices along the line of the canal, so that they might devote a greater portion of their holds to the storage of merchandise.

The probable cost of the work might amount to two millions and a half sterling – or, possibly, to more. The estimates of course must be general. If the cost should reach three millions and a half, or even four millions, it is believed that the investment would be a profitable one. The tide of commerce which would flow in that direction could not but be immense. The trade with China and the East would leave the circuitous course around the Cape of Good Hope for this new route; nor would it be necessary any more to double Cape Horn in order to reach Valparaiso. Lima and other ports on the Western Coast of South America, or to visit the South Sea Islands and the regions of the Whale fishery. To our own country in particular this communication between the two oceans would be all important. And if it is to be made, every consideration of policy and convenience would seen to require that our Government should have some sort of superintending control over the work both when finished and while under construction.

A survey of the Tehuantepec route has been completed by Don Jose de Garay, by the authority of the Mexican Government and the report is favorable. M. de Garay is now in England inviting the attention of British capitalists to the work.

RWv22i26 p1c6 April 1, 1845

To the Editors of the Whig

Gentlemen: you will not object now a days with a little political grist for your mill. On Monday the [21st] [ . . . ]time Mr. Newton and Mr. Hunter met in the King William Court House in the Congressional [ ] for the Westmoreland District. It is due to both gentlemen to say that they conducted themselves as gallant knights should – though their lances were [ ] and their [ ] battered in the [ ], (to use the warlike language of the Enquirer and its correspondents.) [ ] and that honorable self respect which makes the well-bred gentleman shun the dishonour of inflicting pain upon the feelings of others, as he would a wound, were conspicuous throughout.

Mr. Hunter lead of in a speech of about an hour and a half. This gentleman is not a very fine popular speaker, certainly. He has many of the leading peculiarities of the eccentric school to which he belongs – is sometimes wrapt in his political reveries – and soars aloft into the [subliment] heaven of water colored theories upon government perfectibility, Southern interest in general, and a hard money currency in particular. He saws the air with quite a sweep of limb – laughs hysterically at his own efforts at wit – wears a loose, badly tied cravat – and looks quite as noon struck as the Prince of the Mystics, or the Founder of the Transcendentals himself. Bur for nervous energy of expression – for that practical, homely vigor of thought, which rouses and agitates the mind – and for that fervor of feeling and sweep of sympathy, which warm and gladden the heart, - we must look elsewhere, than to the ‘bright particular star of the Rappahannock.” The raus thereof rather resemble the mild and gentle influence of the minor luminaries of Heaven, than the meridian sun himself. The farmers of his district will hardly, as Homer’s sherpherds did, “Eye the blue vault and bless the useful light” -

And our Calhoun friend waged, too, a singular warfare; he occupied his hour and a half mainly in fortifying his camp, and beseeching his Democratic soldiers not to desert him; he feared that Newton would endeavor to entice them into his own ranks, and by a sort of coup-de-man, turn his flanks and carry the day. He therefore aimed to heed him: he told the Democrats that Mr. Newton would claim credit for having Curtius like, thrown himself into the yawning gulf of Texan Commotion; for having [assured] the safety of the South by bareing his breast to parry detraction – but that he had done only what he was bound as a good citizen to do - and that Texas would have been annexed had Mr. Newton never been born.

Perhaps the Ex Speaker had found that the under-currents of feeling in Newton’s favor were settling rather too strong; and thought it judicious to dam up the torrent of he could. ‘Twas a strange spectacle indeed, and well illustrated the truth, that politics as well as travelling, make strange bed fellows. Texas Thunder, Mr, Hunter and his compatriots had always regarded as their own especial munition of war; and that an imprudent Whig should have stolen it, was as bad as Salmoneus, of Classic repute, who imitated Jove’s thunder by rattling a chariot over a brazen bridge! ‘Twas “brazen” indeed, beyond endurance – To have nursed this banting; to have fathered him through good and evil report; to have employed Tyler as the Accoucheur, old Ritehie as the Wet Nurse, and entices poor Merrick to act as Sponsor ans Godfather – and then, that an inventor of “Whig Humbugs” should claim the paternity! “Oh, most monstrous tale in the book of Time!” ‘Tis enough to throw an abstraction into a political Dyspepsia, which Adam Smith, nor Tracy, nor Say, nor Ricardo, could cure. After dinner, Mr. Newton, from feebleness of health and voice, thought proper to address the people in the Court House.

It has rarely been my lot to see any public speaker listened to with more deference and respect. Mr. N’s frank, manly bearing - his manifest honesty of conviction and purity of intention, are such as to produce a feeling of personal friendship in the hearer. You feel that you are listening to a gentleman of the Old School, who will not palter with his conscience, of barter his principles for power and place – who will do what he deems right, in defiance of all party considerations, and will never sacrifice the “honest” at the shrine of the “useful.” However much you may doubt the judgment of his political revealings, the conviction cannot be resisted, that lofty honor, and pure virtue, beat higher in no man’s heart. He declared that the question of independent representation was directly involved in his re-election. – That he had used his best endeavours to procure the Annexation of Texas, because, as a Southern man and Patriot, he believed the best interests of the South were involved in the issue – he averred in the most solemn manner, that political life had no charms for him – that before God and his conscience, he believed it no fit employment for an honest man – that its corroding disquietitudes and hollow professions produced in a pure mind loathing and disgust ineffable – but that self respect, and a regard for his children, the inheritors of his good name, would not allow him to shrink like a craven, and cower like a poltroon, under the lash of party denunciation. He then administered a most wholesome rebuke to Mr. Hunter for his continual harping upon Southern interest and Southern rights, and his constant endeavor to chafe and irritate the public mind into phrenzy by inflammatory diatribes against Northern oppression and pampered manufacturers – that such a course was grossly unpatriotic, as it tended to poison public feeling at the fountain and to pour out the waters of bitterness upon a contented and happy people, and that such fixed ideas were utterly unworthy a Statesman and a Patriot.

He then declared himself a Whig upon the old issues – Bank, Tariff, and Distribution – and this all knew full well. Did not Mr. Newton by his bold and manly avowal of his principles in his District; by the fearlessness with which he made these issues throughout its length and breadth, succeed in carrying a District which had been regarded as doomed to look for light only to that “Star of the Rappahannock!” and did he not by the ability and research with which he discussed and demonstrated his propositions, extort the admiration of his foes, and wring from the most prejudiced, expressions of esteem and regard.

Mr. Hunter in a reply of an hour and a half, much more remarkable for good feeling and temper than for force of views or strength of expression, took occasion to laugh at Mr. Newton for his inconsistency in declaring that he regarded Texas as necessary to the safety of the South, and yet he would not have voted for it had it been certain that the measure could have been accomplished, without his aid – and thus have ruptured party ties. This position many agreed with Mr. Hunter was an awkward one, but to my mind it only proved that Mr, Newton, in volunteering this remark, had the candor and magnanimity to avow what other politicians would have supposed – others would have intended it, but like Fouche, would consider that the admission of a designed but not accomplished measure, is worse than a crime, and amounts to a blunder.

How many men would have themselves spurred the odium of such a design? It serves only to elevate Mr. Newton in my poor estimation.

The two gentlemen then parted in good feeling with the promise of meeting each other at Phillippi, a very [ . . . ] allusion, but supposed to refer to a place called [Mangonick] in the upper part of King William, whither they were to go on the morrow.

If the Whigs of Mr. Newton’s District fail to testify their confidence in his integrity, and high souled independence they will grieve a noble heart, and will look in vain hereafter for his superior in all those qualities which make ambition virtue, and which gild with a softened charm the cheerless waste of party strife.

He may have committed errors of judgment (and let him who has not, cast the first stone) he may in moments of too generous warmth, have inadvertently given the enemy an insight into our camp – but to degrade a long tried and faithful soldier for one doubtful step, is to turn our weapons suicidally against our friends, and to damp the free and untrammelled action of bold and honest men.

Let the Whig party bury the tomahawk. Let not a drum head court martial be offered for all who fail to comply with a strict party drill. If you do, you will hurry to speedy execution, no nobler soul than Willoughby Newton, who deserves and will win the increased confidence of his District.



RWv22i26 p2c5 April 1, 1845

To the Editors of the Whig:

Gentlemen—As the Texas question is still open, allow one who has already occupied your columns upon the subject, to submit to your readers a few considerations, which, in my humble judgment ought to be decisive.

It will not be denied that the constitutional requisition of a long citizenship, in order to eligibility to the Congress of the United States, was founded in the reasonable presumption that foreigners recently naturalized would be too ignorant of our principles of government, and too unfamiliar with our institutions, to be safe depositories of so important a trust.

It must also be conceded that the clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to admit new States into the Union, has no geographical limit, if the existing boundaries of the United States be not a limit; and that Canada may become a member of the confederacy as constitutionally as Texas.

If this be true, and the Constitution is consistent with itself, how can Congress, or the “treaty power” extend to […] what Constitutional right can a Canadian take his seat in the Congress of the United States within one year after his citizenship commences, while the Frenchman, who has been six years a citizen, is positively, and for wise purposes, debarred for the same privileges?

Is it less dangerous to the public liberty that the one should legislate for us than the other? If not, where is the constitutional power to confer privileges upon many foreigners, which it is plainly unconstitutional to confer upon one. It is impossible to believe that such an absurd inconsistency exists in the Constitution of the United States.

It is said that the citizens of Texas will not be foreigners, after her admission, any more than the citizens of Virginia, or Vermont, were foreigners immediately after the present Constitution was adopted. But the meaning of that instrument must be learned from the meaning of those who made it, Now it is evident from the nature of things that , on the minds of those wise and patriotic men who framed the Constitution, the prohibitory clause, which we are considering, was designed to apply, not to themselves, nor to any citizen in the territory pervaded by the revolution, but to the citizens of foreign nations generally recognized as foreign nations, This is the plain, common sense construction, and the first departure from it involves us in amazing inconsistency. The prohibitory clause, beyond a doubt, was intended to apply both to Spaniards and Canadians, en masse as will as individually. Where then is the right to make thousands of them eligible at once to the Congress of the Unites States?

RWv22i26 p2c6 April 1, 1845

Admit Texas or Canada, and you must admit them without distinctions among their citizens, and the Canadian or the Mexican must be as fully entitled to the representative office as the renegade from the United States. But were this not true, let me conclude by saying that that is a monstrous, no less than an absurd construction of our great charter, which denies to the foreigner who has become one of us, for the sake of liberty and its advantages, those privileges which it concedes so freely to the reckless and unpatriotic adventurer, who has abandoned this, the country of his birth, weary of the restraints of a well regulated freedom, to seek lucre and danger in another land.



RWv22i26 p2c7 April 1, 1845

The New York Tribune contends that if Texas shall decline the proffer of annexation said to have been already made to her by the Executive under the Joint Resolution of Congress, then the whole forces of that resolution is exhausted. The Tribune quoted from the resolution as follows, (directly following the House proposition:)

[Nat. Int.]

“And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall, in his judgment and discretion, deam it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the republic of Texas as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, decide to negotiate with that Rrpublic, then –“

“Is it not plain,” asks the Tribune, “that the President os not authorized to try one alternative first, then the other? He is first to decide under which proposition he will proceed; but having chosen and failed with that, he has no right afterward to resort to the other. The House proposition has been officially rransmitted to Texas; if she rejects it, Mr. Polk must wait until Congress gives him new power. The House Resolutions will be dead.”

RWv22i27 p1c1 April 4, 1845

Wednesday Morning, April 2, 1845

We have no Collectors in the greater portion of the State, and therefore appeal to the sense of justice of our subscribers to make remittance through the Mail.



From the Enquirer of yesterday.

“An important question is now presented to the consideration of the Democrats of Richmond. We have no candidate in the field – the Whigs make up for our deficiency by starting four of five of their own. The question now is shall the Democrats fold their arms and vote for none, or will they vote for Mr. Lyons, who, though a Whig, is the friend of Texas, and for that reason is to be hunted down by the Richmond Whigs and the Bottes Whigs. For one, I venture to say, that the greater portion of the Democrats will vote for James Lyons, and that they ought to do so. We owe nothing to the others, but to him we owe respect for his independence, gratitude to his noble efforts for Texas, and sympathy for the unrelenting persecution which his devotion to that cause has brought down upon his head. TEXAS.”

So we have the cat out of the bag at last, and the general orders published by the Enquirer to its Democratic host to support and vote for Mr. Lyons! And for what reason is he preferred over all other Whigs? Two are assigned: 1. He is for Texas, and the Democracy owe “gratitude to his noble efforts for Texas!” Why had not the author of the article gone a little farther in the confession and stated that Texas broke down Henry Clay and the Whig party, and that the chief “gratitude” is felt for that towards all who contributed their help! Mr. Lyons, we know, zealously and ably laboured for Mr, Clay, but unhappily taking the side of the “Democracy” on that question which they insisted upon making, and did make, the absorbing and controlling issue – to wit, immediate annexation – the necessary effect was (though not the intended effect) to weaken his own friends.

2. The second reason assigned is that Mr. Lyons is persecuted! How? Why there are Whigs who prefer other Whigs over him! That is all, so far as we know.

RWv22i27 p2c1 April 4, 1845

From the Philadelphia Morning Post


This production, one of the most singular of a time abounding in specimens of the marvellous, will be found in another column, and we ask the reader to peruse it with attention.

Of all the men who have appeared in our day, Mr. Cushing appears to be the most determined to keep himself always before the public. His vanity and thirst for notoriety appears to be fully as great as his ambitions, and all three of them are beyond the reach of satisfaction. If he can find a public journal willing to gratify his ruling passion, it is for him so much clear gain: if he cannot, he sets to work in good earnest and blows his own trumpet, until the country rings again. We first hear of him, about 1841, as a prominent candidate for the mission to Spain, his claims being founded, (according to an article suppose to have been written by himself, but which turned out to have been the work of a near connexion,) on his profound erudition – his vast acquirements, [unrivalled since the days of the admirable Crichton,] in almost every species of human learning – his fascinating manners – and last, but not least, his thorough acquaintance with the Castilian tongue, which he was said to have as much at command as Quevedo – his intimate and critical knowledge of Spanish literature, and a variety of other accomplishments, which combined, tendered him the most finished cavalier of which history makes any mention. Contemporaries, however, are rarely just to transcendent merit, and are in general too much disposed to assign its reward to posterity. It happened so with the highly accomplished person in question. The age was dull to his merits and he did not get the position.

We next hear of him in the House, as the principal friend of the late Dynasty, and a sort of auctioneer general of Executive favor. Rejected from one embassy, the President took care to furnish him with another, at a time when the formidable Senate could not interpose between him and his favorite. Residing some five or six months in China, he saw more than man ever saw, heard more than man ever heard, and has told more than man ever told before. – Conforming to that wise precept of our Saviour, which forbids the hiding of a man’s “light under a bushel” he has let his shine out, through all the highways of the land. – Traveling post through Mexico without (so far as we know) understanding a word of the language, in the course of a few weeks he formed an acquaintance with the habits – manners – customs – political institutions, and even the sentiments of the whole people, numbering some nine million, which appears absolutely marvellous. Johnson taunts Milton with his short stay in Italy (nine months) and though he perfectly understood the language, and was thoroughly acquainted with the literature of the country, says he could, in that time, have learned very little of the manners, customs, and institutions of the Italians, but what was the author of “Comus” and “Paradise Lost” compared to the negotiator of the Chinese Treaty?

The trip to China appears to have had an effect, which very much resembles inspiration. It has not only made the voyageur intimately acquainted with Islands and countries which he saw from the deck of his vessel, but it has opened the gates of all knowledge to him, and has laid every species of mystery, natural, national and diplomatic perfectly level to his comprehension. He speaks upon all, from a Chinese dictionary to the secrets of the Mexican government, as though there were no appeal from his judgment, his claims are to the full as good as those of “Hadji Baba,” who was esteemed a valuable adjunct to the English Mission, because he had been in Constantinople, and was perfectly acquainted with the “Franks”; that is to say had seen some half dozen of them, in the course of his sojourn. Mr. Cushing can allege a claim of a similar nature; was he not three weeks in Mexico, and who shall presume to contest the palm of acquaintance with Mexican politics with a man thus thoroughly qualified to understand them?

This much we think is necessary to say, upon introducing his letter to the public. Now for the letter itself.

“With regard,” says he, “to the withdrawal of the present Mexican Minister, that, it seems to me, is by no means so grave a fact as many may imagine.” We shall call upon our readers to say, whether they have ever seen more impudence and presumption compressed within so short a sentence.—The Government of Mexico has repeatedly declared, that it would consider the annexation of Texas a declaration of war – as soon as it is done, the minister, as his first step, asks for his passport – he leaves the country after delivering a protest as pointed and as energetic as language can make it, and after all, Mr. Caleb Cushing, ex-minister to China, and post rider through the Republic of Mexico, cannot see that it is “by any means so grave a fact as many may imagine!” it is a matter of some importance to know what Mr. Cushing considers a “grave fact.” Finding little to sustain him in his incredulity, in the actual state of things, he launches at once into the wide ocean of suppositions and imagines a variety of things. “Mexico was, doubtless, reluctant to see Texas annexed;” “it was quite in the ordinary course of things” that “she should manifest her opposition by threats of war;” “it was equally supposable, by way of argument that she should instruct her minister to demand his passport;” “that the minister should make public his instructions to this effect;” “and thus, on the case occurring, he should prepare to leave the United States, and return to Mexico!!” and thus, by stringing together a miserable set of imaginings and suppositions, he thinks to meet and stave off, the inference open to all, and upon which, after the repeated assertions of the Mexican Government, there cannot be a shadow of doubt in the mind of any intelligent human being, unless one should arise from the weakness of Mexico herself.

But to go on with our extracts. “The departure of General Almonta does not of itself interrupt even the diplomatic relations of the two Governments.” But when that withdrawal is connected with the declarations of the Mexican Government, what can be make of it, but a determination to interrupt them as soon as possible? What does all the half-learned twaddle that follows in the same paragraph, about other cases of withdrawal, signify? What possible connection has it with the subject under consideration? No cause of war had arisen in any of these instances, neither Government had said to the other, “if you do this thing of that, we shall consider you at war with us.” If such had been the fact, would any man at that day have had the folly to say there will be no war? Every thing we take it depends on the manner in which the withdrawal is make; whether it be from personal pique, or from the improbability of bringing certain matters under consideration, to an amicable termination or from a variety of other causes, not sufficiently great to authorize war. But did any man ever bear of a Minister’s demanding a passport after his Government had declared this a particular act, which had already been consummated, would be considered a declaration of war without meaning something serious?

The writer goes on to insist upon the position so often refuted, that the acknowledgment by a nation, of the independence of another, gives her the right to annex, &c. -- This is a cheap, and easy method devised of late to acquire territory. We have according to this idea, nothing more to do than to send forward a band of adventurers into the territory of a weak neighbor, let them settle themselves, quarrel with the authorities, proclaim their independence, procure its acknowledgment, and then annex them to the United States. It is a principle, moreover, at war with the law of Nations. By this law, a nation wishing to form a treaty with another, addresses itself to the Government it finds, it treats with the Government de Facto, and does not enquire into the rights of that Government. It is not in fact authorized to do so. Hence the supposition, that if Mexico had cause of complaint, it was against our acknowledging the Independence of Texas, is absurd to the last degree. -- That proceeding was perfectly regular, and just. The U. States found the colonists in possession of the Government, it treated with the power it found, and had no right to enquire by what title it was in existence. It is altogether another affair when annexation comes up. There the right should clearly be ascertained.

But the most absurd part of this whole letter is that in which the author threatens to hang the foreign sailors who shall be taken on letters of marque commissioned by the Mexican Government. Two can play at that game, Mexico has in her dominions fully as many Americans as we have of her subjects, and if we hang her foreign sailors, she can hang our citizens. But does not any man at once see the monstrous iniquity of this proposition? Thousands of American citizens fought against Mexico; hundreds of them are at this day citizens of the United States. Yet when Fannin and his men were butchered in cold blood, the resentment of this country was, very properly roused to the highest pitch. It was for Mr. Cushing to suggest a line of policy to the Government, cruel in itself, and which the whole American people united in condemning as worthy of barbarians.

RWv22i27 p2c3 April 4, 1845

From the Journal of Commerce.


By the packetship Queen of the West, Capt. Woodhouse, we have Liverpool papers of March 7th, and London to the eventing of the 6th. Also an Extra of the 7th from the office of Willmer & Smith’s European Times, containing the latest intelligence.

The Queen of the West brings seven cabin passengers and four hundred and fifty six in steerage.

Cotton continued firm at the advance reported by the steamer of the 4th.

The accounts from Switzerland are no later than the advices before received. The state of affairs in that country is extremely critical.

England has resolved to interfere, in a friendly way, for the termination of the war between Buenos Ayres and m Monte Video.

CALIFORNIA. – The Paris “Presse” contains the following paragraph, which confirms a piece of intelligence first given to the public through our columns, and which some of our cotemporaries were pleased to regard as moonshine. – The same paragraph, is copied into the London papers without comment.

“The great fall of Santa Ana has exposed one of the vastest projects which the undermining ambition of Great Britain ever conceived. It appears from the correspondence of the Ex-President of Mexico with the British Minister, that the former for a sum of 25,000,000 piastres, of which he had reserved for himself a considerable portion, was on the eve of ceding absolutely to Great Britain the magnificent province of California, considered so valuable both by Great Britain and the United Stated, that the latter, in the year 1837, offered $5,000,000 for the harbor of San Francisco alone.”

LONDON, March 6, 1 o’clock. – The English securities are steady, with a small amount of business, and prices, though not exhibiting much alteration, are tolerably well supported by the jobbers, who will not accept lower values than those currently quoted within the last few days. Consols for money are 99 1/8 to 100, for the account 100 1/8 to 1/4, and Exchequer Bills 63[ . . . ] to 65[ . . . ] prem.

Railway shares attract considerable attention, with an improved demand and less speculation. We find the market supports a good appearance.

Three o’clock. – consols 99 7/8 to 100 for money, and 100 1/4 for the account.

LIVERPOOL, March 7. – The Income Tax. – This tax, “with all its imperfections on its head,” passed through committee on Wednesday evening, with hardly a show of opposition, in a thin House, only mustering 119 at the division.

The income tax, then is to be continued for three years certain, and he who believes that it will be taken off at the end of that period, voluntarily at least, must be endowed with an amazing fund of superstition, The vague promises of Sir Robert Peel and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are all so much moonshine.

The Peel Tariff has made but slow progress since our last, and, marred as it is by the omission of all reference to corn, provisions, and tea, by a most absurd and mischievous arrangement of the sugar duties, and by the retention of all the iniquities of the income tax, it would matter very little if its progress in future should continue to be as dilatory as it has hitherto been.

LOUISANA SUGAR – On the 5th ult., in the House of Commons, --

Mr. Thornley said, I wish to repeat the question which I put to the right Hon. Gentleman, First Lord of the Treasury. I yesterday stated that a quantity of Sugar had reached this country from the United States, which was notoriously the produce of slave labor. The question which I then put has become of more importance, because today I find that samples have arrived of cargoes of two or three shipments from New Orleans. The question I wish to put is this, whether this Sugar, the produce of Louisiana, and therefore the produce of slave olabor, will be admitted at the same rate of duty as Sugar from China, Java, and Manila, which is considered the produce of free labor?

Sir Robert Peel – There are certain countries – the United States being one of them – where Sugar is produced by the labor of slaves. The United States, and one or two other countries, have concluded reciprocity treaties with this country, which treaties stipulate that the produce of such countries shall be admitted into this country on the footing of the most favored nation. That, I apprehend, is the state of the case. But up to this hour, there has been no official information received by her Majesty’s Government, from the Custon house, with respect to the arrival of this shipment, nor has any communication been made to the Treasury Board upon the subject, nor any applicatin for an orfer in Council, which would be necessary before the Sugar could be admitted. At present, I apprehend that the Sugar could not be admissible, for no order in Council has been issued for its admission form the United Stated. At the same time, I have no hesitation in saying that my construction of the treaty is , that Sugar from the United Stated would, under the reciprocity treaties, be admissible on the same terms and footing as Sugar from Java, Manilla, and China., -- [Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.]

Mr. Thornley had heard the answer of the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction. He begged simply to state that the produce of Sugar in Louisiana was such as would give great profit on its exportation to this country, and that there was every reason to believe the new trade would be carried on to a very considerable extent,

Mr. Edwards said there was another question connected with this subject, which he was anxious to have answered. He wished to know whether the right hon. baronet was aware that all the sugar coming from Louisiana was brown Muscovado sugar, and, therefore, would come into this country at the duty of 23[s], and not at 28[s]? So that, in fact, this slave grown sugar of the United States would be imported at a lower duty than the free-labor sugar of Java, Siam, and Manilla.

Sir R. Peel declined entering into any argument upon the subject at present.

COMETS. – In addition to the comet recently seen at Berlin, Paris, and London, M. Colla, the astronomer of Parma, announces that he has discovered another; and in the log of Captin Hilare Gautier, who has arrived lately at Marscilles, a third is mentioned. The latter is said to be placed between the two stars No 11 of Eridnaus and 16 of the Atlas of Harling. This comet disappeared at the moment when Captin Gautier approached the equator. – [Liverpool Mercury, 7th.

RWv22i27 p4c1 April 4, 1845


I ask permission, gentlemen of the Whig, to occupy sufficient space in your columns to give my brother Whigs of the Congressional District, an account of the discussion which took place at our Court House on Monday last, between Messrs. Newton and Hunter. I will be as brief as circumstances will permit: -- Mr. Hunter opened the debate in a speech which, in my humble judgment, fell immeasurably below his usual standard. Heretofore this gentleman has over [adressed] himself to the reason of his hearers, but alas! Argument seemed entirely to have escaped his memory on this occasion. Never before, in our county at least, has he ever condescended to quit the lofty pedestal on which he has ever abod as a public speaker, to step upon the platform, hitherto deemed, and not by a very “strict [co ]” as belonging exclusively to the low and despicable demagogue – I will do him the justice to say, it was an excellent speech for a man in his apprenticeship – But only think, Hunter training to play the demagogue wonder what upon earth, Mr. Calhoun and the proud and haughty Rhett would have said could they have seen him, fussing about, clapping his hands and evidently so completely out of his proper element, For Heaven’s sake friend Hunter, haul up, at this thy first bound, in a career so unworthy of you, else, a “long farewell” to all thy greatness.

The speech of Mr. Newton in reply, was one of great force and point – bold, frank and manly, telling the Democrats it was unworthy of a proud and high-minded people to take advantage of a schism in his party, to foist in their candidate, which they knew it would be impossible for them to succeed, but from the position, he occupied in regard to Texas – a measure which he supported, not because he was a Whig, not because be was a Democrat; but because he was a Southern man. It was a question upon which the South was about to be driven to the wall, and he went to the rescue. ‘Twas a bold, high-minded and noble speech, carrying the conviction irresistibly to the mind, that though he may err, the error will never spring from the heart – carrying the conviction also, that the best interest of his constituents has been, and ever will be. his ruling star in the discharge of his representative duty. He may err, possibly has done so, in the opinion of many of his constituents – he is not infallible. But where is the man who does not sometimes err? If he exist upon the face of the earth, would to Heaven I could be so fortunate as to set my eyes on him.

For one, I frankly confess, that although as a party man I wish to Heaven John Tyler had been at the bottom of the Red Sea and Texas upon the top of him, before we had ever heard of either of them, yet as a Southern man, with this Texas issue made for and in spite of us, I think Mr. Newton acted right, under existing circumstances; his course meets with my hearty approbation; and in this canvass he shall, God willing, receive my candid support. Judging from my own impressions, I believe Mr. Newton is greatly misunderstood in regard to his position on this vital question; and the main object of this communication is to submit to your consideration a synopsis of his speech on this subject, delivered on Monday last. I once thought him wrong, but now I honestly admit, with his explanation before me, I consider him a “good and faithful servant.” – When you shall have read his remarks, brother Whigs, ask yourselves this question, in cool, calm and deliberate moment: “How would I have acted in similar circumstances?” Observe – Mr. Newton did not raise this question; the Whig party did not originate it: and you will remember, we could not prevent its being lugged into the late Presidential election. We objected, demurred, implored that it might not be made a party question; that it might be considered and treated as a general or national question, upon which, at the proper time and in a proper way, every man of both the great parties could act as should seem to him right and just. Upon the mode and manner of admission some of our wiser heads have differed. About twelve months since Mr. Archer, our Whig Senator, in a speech in the Senate, opposed the annexation of Texas by treaty, as unconstitutional, and maintained that she could only be admitted by “Joint Resolutions.” Mr. Archer was, and is now, in fact, our representative; and it is true, I believe, that he has since advocated the admission of Texas by treaty, and now condemns the mode by Joint Resolution, as unconstitutional. Well, be it so; I for one so not object; believing Mr, Archer to be an honorable man, and that he has changed his opinion upon proper investigation, I mean mature reflection – still it proves to my mind, that the admission of Texas by joint resolution is not so clearly and palpably unconstitutional that we should kick Mr. Newton over, because he happens to think as Mr. Archer once thought. Besides, Mr. Newton was and is certainly entitled to his opinion upon this subject. And after all, what has Mr. Newton done? Simply this – he settled the terms upon which Texas is to be admitted into the Union, that is the length and breadth it seems to me of his offending. And is it nothing to have this question settled upon terms, which every man of you must approve, I am sure, if Texas is to come? Hardly any man doubts, but the democratic party will have Texas, and if she comes in under these resolutions, we have her upon Whig terms – aye Newton’s terms – as I think the subjoined synopsis of his speech must convince every one. For this, and this alone, so help me Heaven, I think Mr. Newton deserves the thanks, the approbation, the vote, of every Whig in his District. Well might every one of us, believe the admission of Texas by Joint Resolution, unconstitutional, and yet, honestly and consistently, I opine, approve of Mr. Newton’s vote; understand me if you please, Mr. Newton’s views, of the condition of the question, as stated in his remarks, being indisputable, I say emphatically, I honestly think we cold approve of his vote. What was that question? Not that Texas should be admitted or not admitted, -- but whether she should be annexed, upon terms satisfactory to the South or upon terms objectionable to the South. Can there be two opinions, brother Whigs, upon the subject? Mr. Newton believed Texas could be admitted constitutionally, by Joint Resolution. The question arises, shall Texas be admitted by Joint Resolution, mainly as a Slave holding State, or vice versa. The crisis is upon him, he must act and act energetically, not only to give his own vote, but to exert himself to obtain the votes of others, to decide the question in favor of the South. He came to the rescue, like a true blooded Virginian, and for one I thank him. – Recur to the question above, and I ask where is the Southern man in the name of Heaven, who would permit Texas to come into the Union mainly as a non Slave-holding State, when it was in his power to prevent it, without violating his conscience or his oath? I sincerely hope and believe, he does not reside in the County of King William – here a Whig is a Whig indeed, the arts and blandishments of the so-called Democracy, have lost their [ . . . ] influences, and we are now a band of brothers – to have seen the glowing, the animated countenances of the Whigs, as they listened to the noble and triumphant speech of the bold and gallant Newton, on Wednesday last, you would require no other assurance that we mean to march to the battle-field, “one and inseparable.”  Yes, brother Whigs, we have our county candidate in the field, also as an earnest of what we mean to do in the county struggle; and, although we cannot even hope to elect Dr. Power, we man to give him a warm and cordial support – if for no other reason, (and there are hundreds) – because he a King William Whig!

Here is the synopsis of Mr. Newton’s speech, delivered at King William Court House, on Monday, 24th March:

The whole Democratic party of the House (said Mr. Newton) was pledged to Texas, and it must and would have been brought by them, in some form, before the adjournment; but it could not be done by them, upon terms satisfactory to Mr. N’s constituents of the South. The Democrats had been in caucus, repeatedly, upon the subject – their councils were divided on the subject of slavery, and the Southern portion of the party entirely dispaired of carrying the measure, with the line of the Missouri Compromise or any equivalent proposition. In this state of things, Mr. Rhett of South Carolina, and other Southern members, stated frankly, to Mr. Newton, the distraction of their party, and appealed to him as a representative of a slaveholding District, to aid them by his vote, and to endeavour to procure the co operation of other Southern Whig members, in support of the Southern, against the Northern, plan of annexation. Mr. Rhett assured Mr. N. that no more than 98 Democratic members could by any means, be procured for the Southern scheme. Mr. N. replied that, if that fact was ascertained with certainty, he had no doubt but that the co-operation of a sufficient number of Southern Whig members might be procured; but, to make certain, the House must be filled, and the fact ascertained in the most authentic manner! Three Southern Democrats took listsof the members, carefully polled the House, and reported the result to Mr. N. Mr. Rhett still maintained, that no more than 98 could be relied on – the other gentlemen thought that 100 might be got; and possibly one or two more, but certainly not enough to carry the Southern Scheme! It was then said to Mr. N., by those gentlemen, we cannot carry this measoure without the aid of the Whigs, and if you will come to the rescue of the South on this vital question, you shall be permitted to shape the measure to suit yourselves. Many of the Whigs had never been opposed to the admission of Texas, and the 8 who voted for it, thought a crisis had now arrived which enabled them to carry out their own views and those of their constituents. The terms were arranged among them, and the resolution proposed, under their auspices, by Mr. Brown of Tennessee, and submitted, contemporaneously, in the House and Senate. The question came up in Committee of the Whole – all the plans proposed were severally rejected by a majority, ranging from 8 to 12. When Brown’s plan came up in order, 9 Whigs voted for it, carrying it by 109 to 99. – This was the test vote – the trial of strength between the North and South. One hundred Democrats only voted in the affirmative, and no force could have compelled another to vote for it, if his vote had been necessary to carry it. if nine Whigs had voted in the negative, the Southern plan would have lost by 100 to 108. But Texas would not have been defeated – the Democrats would have again rallied, and compromising on Benton’s Bill, or Oville Robinson’s New York scheme, carried the measure in a manner entirely unacceptable to the South.

In the House, on the final passage of the Resolutions, the vote in the affirmative, was 122. But no one believing that one over 109 voting in the Cimmittee on the test question, could have been obtained if their votes had been necessary to carry the question. Their unwillingness to stand out against their party, when no practical effect would be the result, brought 13 of them to vote for it in the House. There were yet 29 recreants who were so bitterly opposed to Slavery, that they could not be induced to vote for the Resolution. Chiefly for the benefit of the “tender consciences” of these gentlemen, the Senate’s amendment was introduced, that was regarded as a nullity, a “[mare surplsage]” of the Southern wing, and by the Northerns, it was looked upon as leaving open the question of Slavery. The whole party was rallied in the House, on the amendment, with two exceptions, and perfect harmony restored, -- though not one of the 29 recusants, although voting for the amendment, could be found to vote for the original resolutions, or for them as amended. The vote on the amendment was indeed but the political roll call of the Democracy, after their great battle on the slavery questions ans it was well known, that all their forces would be enrolled as the amendment was mainly designed for that object. Mr. Newton did not choose to answer such a call and therefore voted against the amendment , and not against the amended resolutions as so often falsely stated, but declared at the time in the House, that if the vote were in the resolutions as amended, he would vote for them, though he did not approved of the amendment. It was perfectly well known in the house, before the vote on the amendment was taken that nearly the whole Democratic party would unite on it, and that it would prevail, by a large majority, which the result proved, it having been carried by 152. Mr. Newton deemed it his duty to aid, in good faith, in carrying out the Southern plan, which he did to the last, and no considerations, that could have been addressed to him, would have induced him to abandon what he deemed the path of duty.

The question now being settled, Mr. Newton did not desire to raise an issue with his friends who differed with him on this question, but he deemed the explanation necessary to his own vindication.

April 4-end of April Missing  transcriptions


Friday, May 2, 1845 RW45v22i35p1c1  1006 words


The Baltimore American adds:

           “The United States and Great Britain. – The extracts which we published from some of the London journals received by the Great Western, relative to the annexation of Texas and Mr. Polk’s Inaugural Address, showed the deep interest excited in England by the political events on this side of the water.  The language of other journals, besides those recently quoted, indicates a strong feeling of excitement. 

            The declaration in Mr. Polk’s Address that our title to the Oregon “is clear and unquestionable” seems to have caused especial irritation.  The official character of the announcement intimates that Mr. Polk fully expects the British Government to yield – that her pretensions are considered frivolous and unfounded – not worthy even to be listened to.  The Morning chronicle remarks that is was not prepared to find the English lion treated so very like a puppy dog!  It adds that “what has been all along feared will take place – that Great Britain will be compelled to go to the extremity and expense of war merely for the sake of showing that she dare still do such a thing under grievous provocation.”

            The manner in which the movement of our Government upon Texas was carried to a conclusion has indicated pretty clearly to Great Britain that if she intends to maintain her claims to the Oregon she will be obliged to do it by arms and that speedily.  Hence the annexation of Texas to the United States has a significance beyond its immediate and particular bearing.  If they cry of Texas was found to be so available here for political purposes, England knows very well that the clamor for Oregon will be non the less so; that in fact the impulsive tendency of the mass of our people is stronger towards the Pacific in that direction than in the South Westerly direction of Texas.

            The London correspondent of the Boston Atlas, whose letter gives a full exposition of the state of public feeling in England on this subject, says, - “No news has been received from the United States for a long time that has claimed more serious attention, or has been considered so alarming to the interests of both England and the United States.”

            The Standard, an administration journal expresses the belief that war may grow out of Texas and Oregon questions, but rejoices that Great Britain will have time to prepare for it. After quoting numerous paragraphs of an exciting character, the Atlas correspondent says:

            It is unnecessary to write further upon this subject; from the opinions which are here briefly given, it will be at once see that the Polk Address has created an intense excitement – even a war fever.  In commercial circles in the city, and, indeed, amongst all classes in the metropolis, nothing else had been the topic of general conversation, but war with the United States.  Yesterday the excitement was great, and today it had not abated.  Tomorrow the weekly journals will appear, and their leading articles will of course be devoted to American affairs – their language will be bold, and it will have a tendency to continue the present excitement.  On Monday next, in the House of Commons, the Texas question will be brought before Parliament, and a warm debate is anticipated upon the subject.  The news, therefore, which the Royal Mail Steamer Caledonia will take to the United States, may be expected to prove of a most important character, as affecting deeply the great interests at stake between two of the most powerful nations of the world.

            The language of the public journals, expressive and doubt of the state of popular feeling in England, is scarcely to be taken as portending the course of the Government.  WE have no reason to suppose that the British Cabinet has been insincere in its frequent demonstrations for the preservation of peace between the two countries, nor is it probable that it has any wish to go to war with the United States at this time.  But it must be granted that the alternative is now before the Government – the alternative of war this year or a year or two later – unless all British preconditions to the Oregon are given up.  And it is this consideration which gives great interest to the annexation of Texas in Great Britain since the idea may present itself that if a collision must take place with the United States, the beset time to meet it is now, when Mexico may be used as an ally, and when the pretext of resisting the progress of slavery will give a certain prestige which would be wanting in a quarrel about territorial lines in the Oregon.

            When Mr. Polk too the responsibility of announcing officially, that the British claims to the Oregon were not to be regarded by this Government, on would think that prudence might have suggested to him the propriety of taking some measure to make good such an announcement.  Congress had already adjourned when the inaugural made known this declaration – it had adjourned leaving our relations with Mexico involved in doubt and danger, yet without the least preparation for difficulties, and on the top of this confusion, the new President, before he had seated himself in the chair of office, threw another element of discord more pregnant with strife than all the rest together.  And thus the country stands in a sort of stupid bewilderment, with a vague idea that some explosion is at hand, yet hardly conscious of any thing differently, and in a state to be surprised at nothing.  A strange indifference is the common feeling.   There is no confidence in the government – for it shows itself listless and […]ed.  The sentiment of patriotism – the throbbing pulsations of national life and energy – where shall one turn to find them?  If war should come, then indeed the elements would be aroused, and the people, in spite of their […]of a Government, would vindicate the national spirit and honor – but how much suffering would be the prelude to final victory!

Friday, May 2, 1845 RW45v22i35p1c2  642 words


            The United States Gazette, whose information is always good, and judgment sound, thus speculates:

            “WAR WITH MEXICO. – The news from Mexico, which we publish this morning, is of a character to arrest the attention of the people of the United States, and to lead them to inquire whether the nation has of late been, or is now, in the hands of men, who understand its genios and wants, and are able to administer its government for the good of the people.  The answer to such an inquire must be, that our country needs a new policy, a new set of men, a new set of measures.  Economy defence, in all that concerned public good, had been practiced, until we have nothing to present to our enemy, that would not excite the smile of any considerable power.  Not a sea port in the Union is in a state of defence, not a “company” of soldiers could be mustered under a Unites States commander.  Meantime, the public purse has been emptied into the pockets of favorites, and what should have gone to maintain the defences and honor of the nation, has been lavished upon unworthy partisans, who have cried economy, economy, whenever a ship was to be built, a fortification repaired, a harbor defended, or a company raised, while they have drawn like horse leeches the life blood of the Treasury.

            War with Mexico is now likely.  The danger is imminent.  We mean what we say – the danger is imminent Western Congressmen, who are out of the way of risk, may bluster in their seats in Congress, and southern gentlemen may talk of chivalry, and nominate their Quattlebums; but in a war, the middle and eastern States will have to sustain the cause of the nation, and suffer the losses that result from the contest.

            We are told that Mexico will be passive in a war – that is the language of a Locofoco paper upon the news now before us – passive, because she has no ships.  Cannot the same sources that supple vessels for the slave trade of South America, yield ships for the producers of Mexico?

            Is it likely that the people of Europe, alive to all the advantages to be derived from a “right” to intercept the rich scattered commercial ships of the United States, will not hasten to the spoils?  And will Mexico remain passive in a war which she will declare herself, and which, at small risk, may be made twice as profitable as her mines have ever been?

            But the Unites States will declare, by act of Congress, that persons engages in war upon the commerce of this country, and not natives of Mexico, shall be regarded as pirates, and treated as such, when taken in the act.   That sounds very well – it looks well upon paper.  But will France and England stand quietly by, and see their citizens strung up like fish, for accepting place in the Mexican service?  England and France have both had too much to do with the quarrels of weak nations, to admit of such a course.

            In a war with the United States; Mexico would be more active than any power we know of – active, we mean, against the commerce of our country; and no law which the Congress at Washington could pass, would materially interfero with the commissioning of privateers, for any persons who would accept them.  We say nothing now of the swarms of picaroons which would infest the West India Islands, and sweep the Gulf of Mexico.  People may sit down and smile at the idea of a war, but a war with any nation is an evil, which our government should avert, and which every many who has hope of honest gain, or relish for the enjoyment of what he has acquired, should earnestly deprecate.

Friday, May 2, 1845 RW45v22i35p1c5   938 words.


            We quote from the Globe of Monday an article on the subject of our relations with England in their new phase, which must be regarded as semi-official, and, as such, of much importance.

            While the temper of the article is displayed in milder and less minatory language than is usual with that organ, its willingness to provoke the collision which it affects so much to undervalue, by taunting English sincerity and good faith, and by assailing her lust of conquest, as well as by stimulating the prejudices and exasperating the inherent suspicions of the American People towards Great Britain, as clearly as in previous and fiercer instances, indicate a wish for hostilities.

            Entire and unshrinking firmness in the maintenance of all their just rights, at the hazard of all consequences, the American People expect from this and all other Administrations:  But they don not expect of desire, we imagine, that their National dignity should be lowered by an official bullying and menacing tone of language, or the Government of a friendly Power insulted by the repeated disclaimer of belief in its declarations, and by the insinuation of charges against its good faith and pacific purposes, both in the teeth of those declarations and in the absence of all proof to invalidate them!

            This was the taste of the Tylerian and Calhoun Dynasty and of the Gloke, until we find in this its article of Monday, which we are reviewing, rather less of gasconade and rather more of moderation.

            But it is replete still with statements calculated, if not intended, to mislead, to exasperate bad feeling in both Countries, and to multiply the chances of War, an evil which every good citizen and man aught to reject until national honor imperiously demands it.  Let us look at some of the statements:

1. The Globe says –

“ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES! – The President of the United

States, in whose hands the Constitution reposes the treaty making power, having, in his inaugural address to his constituents, designated the course which he should pursue in the negotiations respecting Oregon, is met on the part of the British Government by a declaration in Parliament that they are prepared for hostilities.  The pledge of the American President that the faith of treaties shall be preserved, is replied to by a menace of war.  The nations, at the time of this debate, are in the security of peace; their relations in the northwestern wilderness are defined by treaties, which America at least declares must be sacredly observed:  the negotiations between the countries for the adjustment of difficulties are not suspended; and in the midst of this state of the diplomatic intercourse, Great Britain attempts to throw the sword into the scale, and decide the balance by the weight of its arms.”

            Now what is the use of negotiations after Mr. Polk in his Inaugural, announces officially that the British claims to the Oregon were not to be regarded!  The British Ministry can look no farther than Mr. Polk, and he says in advance, he tells them, when the negotiations are yet going on, that England has no claim, or, if any, that it will be disregarded, and that thus the negotiations are a mere farce and mockery!  The respect due to the Chief Magistrate of the United States, could not permit England to place any other construction upon his official language than that she has placed, or allow the British Government to suppose that he was simply indulging the taste of some of his countrymen for gasconade!  And viewing Mr. Polk’s declaration as substantially terminating pending negotiations, could Great Britain, for self respect, do less than resent that treatment so unusual and cavalier among Nations?

2.  It is as the Globe says, “no new doctrine,” that the United States claim Oregon

as their own:  But, what is meant by Oregon?  That is the question!  Within certain boundaries, England puts in no claim to Oregon, and expressly conceded that of the United States by the treaty of Ghent.  But North of a certain parallel of latitude there lies a vast region which is the true subject of dispute between the two countries, Russia also advancing a claim to a portion.  The negotiations related to that and not to the Valley of the Columbia River:  those negotiations which the President, as England has good right to conclude from his own official language, means either to break off or to disregard their result. 

It seems to use that the Globe is uncandid and seeks to mislead public judgment

in not discriminating between Oregon proper and Oregon unknown and unexplored, which is the subject of controversy between the two powers.

            3.  The charge of intending to “menace” the People of the U. States against the British Ministry by the debate held the other day, and the ridiculous proof brought to sustain it is really unworthy of the official.  Sir Robert Peel spoke in such a strain, and Lord John Russell the leader of opposition spoke by concert with the Premier in such another strain!  And the Steamer (no doubt the voluntary act of the Captain adopted for commercial purposes)  the steamer is kept back a whole day to help Sir Robert and Lord John bully the U. States!  This is really “prodigious” and shames Bobadil!

            But we are compelled to stop.  If war comes however wantonly and unnecessarily all will stand up to it who love their country, as the only mode of carving out an honorable peace:  But we do hope that a fair chance will be allowed to cultivate still the friendly relations of the two countries.

Friday, May 2, 1845 RW45v22i35p1c6  280 words


            We quote the following article from the New York News of Tuesday, and agree with that Texas print, in the opinion that, if it has guessed truly the object of the Texas Minister’s mission to England, (in […] it to be ascertain if England will not outbid the U. States,) it is a shabby affair:


            Mr. Ashbel Smith, the Texan Secretary of State, arrived in this city yesterday, and proceeds on to Boston this morning, to embark on Thursday in the steamer for England.  It is difficult to imagine any other than one object of such a post haste speed on the part of this functionary, on the way to London – namely to ascertain from England what terms they can get in the way of money for their debt, as the condition of refusing Annexation to the United States.  If this is so, according to the general rumor, it is certainly a very indecorous and indecent proceeding, worthy perhaps of some […] politicians about the Government of Texas, anxious mainly about scrip and place; but it is not one likely to find favor with the people of that country, whom all account concur in representing as enthusiastic in favor of their long cherished hope of coming into our Union.  If such is the object of Mr. Ashbel Smith’s extraordinary […], we have little faith, either in the idea that the English Government would like to venture so far as to irritate the people of the United States, by bribing Texas to defeat a favorite measure of our public policy; or that, if she should do it, the people of Texas would ever tolerate such a transaction.”

Friday, May 2, 1845 RW45v22i35p1c6  1375 words.


From the Globe

The President of the United States, in whose hands the Constitution reposes the treaty making power, having, in his inaugural address to his constituents, designated the course which he should pursue in the negotiations respecting Oregon, is met on the part of the British Government by a declaration in Parliament that they are prepared for hostilities.  The pledge of the American President that the faith of treaties shall be preserved, is replied to by a menace of war.   The nations, at the time of this debate, are in the security of peace; their relations in the northwestern wilderness are defined by treaties, which America at least declares must be sacredly observed:  the negotiations between the countries for the adjustment of difficulties are not suspended; and in the midst of this state of the diplomatic intercourse, Great Britain attempts to throw the sword into the scale, and decide the balance by the weight of its arms.

            There is nothing in what has transpired to call for, or palliate, at this time, the excitement in the British Parliament.  That America holds the country of the Oregon to be her own, is no new doctrine.  She first discovered the Columbia at its mouth, and first discovered its source; Spain relinquished its claim to her; her citizens took possession of it; Great Britain itself, in the hour of returning peace, restored American jurisdiction on its bank; American statesmen have never breathed a doubt of the justice of our claim; successive administrations have asserted it; the people have confirmed it; the American Senate has passed upon it; the House of National Representatives has maintained it; and now, of a sudden, the British government assumes to be angry, seeks to insulate the new administration from Congress and from the people, and to overawe the President in the discharge of his constitutional powers, by a threat of resorting to war.

            The theatrical preparations by which the menace was attended – the evidently concerted speeches – the distribution of parts between the rashness of Lord John Russell and the greater caution of the Premier – the keeping back of the steamer a day for the purpose of taking over the debate – all seem to show that the scene was designed as an experiment on the nerves of the administration.  In this point of view it is ludicrous.  The day had gone by when a menace of war on the part of England could away a negotiation with the United States.

            But England cannot be serious in her menace.  Her manufacturers must leave their mills idle, unless America supplies them with cotton.  Her merchants know their ships must fall a prey to American privateers, that would not leave a sea unvisited.  Her success, too, would be fruitless; for if she took Oregon as a wilderness, she would conquer but rocks and forests, and the privilege of garrisoning a solitude; and if she should attempt to form a colony there, the colonists, whensoever they come, will insist on governing themselves.  Nor is this all.   The oppressed […] in England would not tolerate war with America.  A war between Great Britain and the United States would be the signal of a strife throughout Christendom of the old aristocracies with the millions.   Neither Sir Robert Peel, nor France, nor Russia, nor any of the monarchies or aristocracies of Europe, can wish to see that war begun.  America does not wish it; for, having faith in the principles of freedom, she has never been a propagandist, but is willing to await the quiet influence of truth, and the amelioration of society by the gradual and certain progress of civilization.

            If the menace is designed to produce an effect on the re annexation of Texas, by intimidating its people, the duty of American government is too obvious to be mistaken.  Texas must be more and more earnestly welcomed to a participation in our confederacy; and her citizens must be made to feel that they are invited on terms the most liberal, not so much to common danger as to the boundless benefits that are to spring perennially from union.

            Or is the menace of Great Britain seriously intended? – The United States of America, under the blessed influence of democratic institutions, are rapidly developing their resources, and exciting the envy of powers whose laws and constitution are less favorable to freedom.  Would Great Britain seek, by force of arms, to arrest that progress which is the admiration of the world, ought to be a source of delight to every friend to his race?  The attempt would prove a vain one.  The expansive power of popular freedom cannot be restrained.  The tides of the Pacific might as well be arrested, as the progress of American principles beyond the mountains.  Nothing can stay their advance but the waters of the great ocean.  If England is serious in her menaces, we are well warranted in believing that the administration will assert, and inflexibly maintain, the position assumed by the President in his inaugural address to his constituents.

            If England looks to war as one of the means of attaining the gratification of her ambition, how admirable is the contrast afforded by America!  Our policy is peace.  We seek no government over men but through their free consent.  The genius of our institutions forbids conquests – If provinces were to be reduced, our system provides no method of governing the unwilling.  Thus the contrast between America and England becomes here, as everywhere, a contrast of principles.  The menace of arms on the one side is met by the irresistible elements of peaceful progress on the other.

            It is common to say that England is well prepared for war, and that America is not.  It is no doubt true that the immediately disposable naval and military force of Great Britain is far greater than our own.  But this by no means proves relative weakness.  England has gained her greatness by scattered conquests in every party of the world, and holds it by the power of arms:  America is compact; its territory all contiguous; its greatness the result of a system, which sprang from the free choice of the people, and which is maintained by the consent.  It has no acquisitions to make by arms, and none to defend by arms.  Her States are bound together by their own choice.  She has no motive to injure others; she has no desire to ravage the coast of England, or burn its commercial towns, or deface its […], or with semi-barbarous passion, destroy its public buildings.  Governing herself by free consent, and having no motive to restrain, or limit, or impair, the prosperity of other nations, she has no need of a vast standing army, or of a navy like that of England.  But when the question comes as to which has the most considerable disposable force to occupy the country of the Oregon, we think the Great West must be summoned to connect.  The people of the Mississippi valley must make answer.  The bands of emigrants bearing the axe and rifle, the men trained in republican feeling, and made still more impatient of authority by their […] on the frontier, - these form the strength of America.   They are indomitable in spirit, and unapproachable by their distance.  Against them the fleets and armies of England are powerless.  Let Sir Robert Peel attempt to plant himself in the gaps of the Rocky mountains, and intercept them in the passes.  He might as well attempt to stop the Columbia itself.  The combined Powers of all Europe would tail in an attempt to set bounds to their progress.  That progress is to be self-circumscribed by the respect for right and the sacred regard of America for the inviolability of treaties.

            The Administration may, then, safely assume that England cannot permanently occupy any part of the American wilderness, but by the consent of America itself.  If England chooses to interrupt negotiations, the crisis must be met; if negotiations continue, the Administration can know but one rule – “TO DEMAND NOTHING BUT WHAT IS RIGHT, AND TO SUBMIT TO NOTHING THAT IS WRONG!”  Let the people support the President with union, and a sentiment of nationality, and no foreign Power will adventure an aggression.

Friday, May 2, 1845 RW45v22i35p2c5  912 words


            The following broadly satirical article from the London Punch.  We ask those who are so clamorous for “immediate annexation” to read and ponder upon it, and then tell us candidly whether there is not more in it than “meets the eye.”  Whether it does not comport with the facts in relation to this Texas movement – a movement conceived in political corruption, prosecuted for gain, and consummated by an outrage of the Constitution.  It is worthy also of the perusal of those Whigs, who, knowing that this Texas plot has succeeded in blasting the hopes of the patriot by robbing our country of the services of one of the greatest Statesmen the world ever saw, still give their countenance to the advocates of Annexation by Joint Resolution.

            “John Polk was put to the bar changed with robbing the Mexican minister of a favorite dog, named Texas.  The circumstances of the case Don Bernardo Murphy stated to be simply these: –

            Some months since, John Polk sold his Excellency the dog, (a very large animal, spotted black and white, that used to run under his carriage,) subsequently a fellow, by the name of Houston, a countryman of Polk’s, who had been in his Excellency’s service, absconded with the dog, and he had that day seen it at Greenwich Fair, whither he had gone in company with Chevalier Bunsen.  The animal was tied to a wan, belonging to the prisoner, and from which he was […] to the company at the fair.

            Policeman, X.21 said – Please your Worship, there has been more picking of pockets around that ere psalm-singing wan, than in any part of the fair.

            Mr. Aberdeen. – Silence, Policeman.  What has that to do with the complaint?

            The Mexican Minister continued, in a very agitated manner, “I instantly recognized my dog, and gave the scoundrel yonder in charge to a policeman.”

            “Scoundrel!” the prisoner cried, (a very sunctinonious looking fellow, who held the dog in his arms) – “Am I in a Christian land, to hear myself called by such names?  Are we men?  Are we brethren?  Have we blessings and privileges, or have we not?  I come of a country the most enlightened, the most religious, the most freest, honestest, punctuallest, on this airth, I do.”

            Mr. Aberdeen (with a profound bow.)  You are an American, I suppose?

            Polk. – I thank a gracious mussay I am!  I can appeal to every thing that is holy, and, laying my hand on my heart, declare I am an honest man.  I acorn the accusation that I stole the complainant’s dog.  The dog is my dog – mine by the laws of heaven, airth, right, mature, and possession.

            Don Bernardo Murphy, very much agitated, here cried out – How yours?  I can swear to the animal.   I bought him of you.

            Polk – You did.  It’s as true as I’m a free-born man.

            Don Bernardo – A man who has an old servant of yours comes into my service and steals the dog.

            Polk – A blesseder truth you never told.

            Don Bernardo – And I find the animal now again in your possession.

            Polk (cuddling the dog.) – Yes, my old dog – yes, my old Texas, it did like to come back to its old master, it did!

            Don Bernardo (in a fury) – I ask your worship isn’t this too monstrous?

            Mr. Aberdeen. – Your Excellency will permit me to observe that we have not yet heard of Mr. Polk’s defence. – In a British court justice must be shown, and no favour.

            Polk. – I scorn a defence. The dog returned to me by alor of nature.  If I sold the dog, and by the irresistible attraction of cohesion, and the eternal order of things, he comes back to me – am I to blame?  It’s monstrous, heinous, regular blasphemy to say so.

            Mr. Aberdeen appeared deeply struck by the latter observation.

            Polk (continued) – I didn’t steal the animal. Steal! – Is a man of my character to be called a thief?  I re-annexed him – that’s all.  Besides, what jurisdiction has there here court?  What authority has any court on airth in a question purely American?  My bargain with Don Bernardo Murphy took place our of this country – the dog came back to me thousands of miles away herefrom.

            Mr. Aberdeen. – In that case, I really must dismiss the complaint.  Allow me to state my opinion, Mr. Polk, that the dog is yours; I have no business to inquire into questions of annexation as you call it, or of robbery as his Excellency here (very rudely, I must think,) entitles your bargain.  I entreat rather that gentlemen so respectable should live together in harmony; and – and, I wish you both a very good morning.

            Mr. Polk then left the office whistling to his dog, and making signs of contempt at Don Bernardo Murphy, who slunk away in a cab.  He had not been gone an hour when Policeman X 21 came into the office and said, “Please your Worship, the Yankee annexed your Worship’s Canadian walking-stick in the passage.”

            Mr. Aberdeen [sternly] – Mind your own business, fellow.  Mr. Polk is perfectly welcome to that stick.

            Presently another member of the force [O’Ragan by name] entered and swore the incorrigible Polk had stolen his beaver had.

            Mr. Aberdeen [good humoredly.] – Well, well, I dare say the hat wasn’t worth twopence halfpenny:  and it’s better to lose it than to squabble about it at law.

            O’Ragan left the court grumbling, and said it wasn’t so in Temple’s time.

Friday, May 2, 1845 RW45v22i35p4c2  547 words


If the paragraphs in the Mexican Diarie [government journal] which we referred to yesterday, intimating that certain “warlike governments” were on foot, not predent to disclose, but the successful issue of which was speedily expected to transpire, have any significancy at all – are not mere gammon for amusement and edification of the belligerent spirit rampant in Mexico – they must forbode either reprisals on American citizens resident in Mexico, after the fashion suggested by the Courrier des Etats Unis, or a demonstration to be attempted on some exposed quarter of Texas.  If the former, of course Mexico will have it, for the time being, all her own way; but she will be guilty of an unprecedented and unwarranted outrage on private individuals, which will call for and bring upon her summary and signal retribution from the government.  If it is against Texas that a movement is proposed to be made, the Mexican arms will not probably achieve so complete a triumph as in the other case; but they will still be committing an offence against the United States, that will call, not perhaps for reprisals, but certainly for resistance.  The United States have assumed towards Texas a position that will not permit an attack to me made on her from any quarter, without regarding it as an attempt on their territories absolutely in possession, and more especially if the attack were made, as in the present instance would be the case, in consequence of measures which this country had taken.  We could not of course, first provoke an assault against Texas and then leave her to battle it out herself.  Moreover, good policy as well as good faith would require us to protect her.

            We are inclined to the opinion, however, that the Mexican journalist, in his mysterious giving out, though he chooses to employ the phraseology of war, is rather foreshadowing some great feat which he expects to be accomplished in the diplomatic way, than any actual demonstration of force.  We come to this conclusion the more readily from noticing the alacrity of movement continued to be displayed by Her Britanic Majesty’s naval express between Galveston and Vera Cruz.  It is impossible that those dispatches are coming to and fro without some object; and we cannot imagine any sufficient object, unless the Mexican Government, through the intervention of the British Minister, is making final a final effort to forestall the action of the United States, by negotiations with Texas; and, of course, to such a purpose, any warlike movements against either Texas or this country would be fatal.  We take it, therefore, what it was with an account of the successful result of some trick of diplomacy that the DIARIE hoped to electrify its readers, rather than with any remarkable achievement of Mexican valor.  In either case, however, the course of this country is plain.  Whether the assault on Texas, during our present relations with her, be by predatory bands of Mexicans, or by the diplomatic chance of Great Britain, in either case, good faith, second policy, self respect and self preservation, would all require the prompt intervention of the United States.  In either case, indeed, though Texas were made the field, the United States would be the real object of the attack. – N. O. Com. Bulletin.

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p1c1  “MR. GARLAND’S LETTER” Illegible.

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p1c4  651 words.


            A rumour is in circulation, that it is the intention of the Administration to send a special Embassador to England to negotiate the Oregon difficulty.  The “U.S. Journal,” the organ of one wing of the Democracy, strongly urges the appointment of Mr. Calhoun, pledging its “word for it, that he would not refuse to serve his country at the hour of her need.”

            But the New York papers have rumour of the probably appointment of a very different personage – ex. President Van Buren.  This latter report, on every account, we take to be the must more probable one.

            We copy from the N.Y. Commercial:

            “A BIG RUMOR. – It has been whispered in Wall street this (Wednesday) morning and yesterday, that the result of the President’s deliberations with his Cabinet, on the Oregon question was a determination to follow the example of the British Government on the Maine boundary affair, and send a special Minister to London.  Even the Minister has been named – Mr. Van Buren – and we have heard also, in this connexios, the name of another distinguished leader in the Democratic party.  We have not been able to trace the rumor to any authentic source, and it is very possible that I has no other foundation than the sources […] which are always generated in the preeinets of political gossip, when the […] of men are strongly fastened upon any public questions of importance.

            There are some considerations, indeed, which bear against it – foremost among which may be mentioned the belief prevalent among all discreet, judicious, and well-informed men, that there is no probability of war, as a result of the Oregon dispute – that the question, in fact, is not one very difficult to adjust by the ordinary means of negotiation.  As we have said before, there is a vast deal of foolish and ill-considered talk afloat on this subject, as there was in reference to the Maine boundary, which will also be remembered hereafter as talk, and nothing more.

            But, on the other hand, there are some considerations which have a bearing the other way.  Mr. Polk may justifiable desire to gain for his administration the renown of bringing this vexed question a settlement – although he may not care or wish to have, if the only glory of his four years in power, as the adjustment of the Maine boundary was of Mr. Tyler’s.  It would not be ungraceful, either, to reciprocate the compliment paid to the Union by the British Government in making the preffer of a special mission; and we can imagine a variety of reasons which might influence the President to make a tender of the honorable task to Mr. Van Buren.

            For instance the selection of an ex-President would be though very complimentary in England – of a man who had filled the highest office knows in our political system, who is looked upon by the mass of the English people as a sort of retired King.  Moreover, Mr. Van Buren was personally very popular among the English aristocracy, and especially among the Conservatives, who were in power when he was there, as they are now; and his position of ex-President may be supposed to place him beyond the ordinary influences of party, and entitle him to act and be considered as the representative of the whole country.

            Whether he would accept such a mission may be doubted:  but that doubt would not probably have much influence toward withholding the offer of it by Mr. Polk.  On the whole, therefore, we are of the opinion that much stranger things have happened than the ultimate verification of the rumor.

            Touching the other distinguished gentleman whose name has been mentioned, we presume that there are insuperable difficulties in the way of his present appointment to such a mission; but those difficulties may cease to exist before the times comes when it would be necessary to consummate the arrangement.”

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p1c4  532 words.


            The Washington “U.S. Journal”, edited by Messrs. Dow & Fisk, which says that no political journal was ever commenced under more favorable circumstances, and that in six months it will have the largest circulation of any paper in this country, manifests a spirit, which threatens to disturb the calm which Old Huckerdom fancies is to brood for year over parties in this Republic.  To possess our readers of the temper of this party, which promises to bring about a new and better order of things, we copy the following from the Journal:


            “There is a new spirit abroad in the land, young, restless, vigorous, and omnipotent.  It manifested itself in infancy at the Baltimore Convention.  It was felt in boyhood in the triumph election of James K. Polk; and in manhood it will be still more strongly felt in the future administration of public affairs in this country.  It sprang from the warm sympathies and high hopes of youthful life, and will dare to take antiquity by the beard, and tear the cloak from hoary-headed hypocrisy.  Too young to be corrupt, and too honest to be corrupted, it loves liberty for liberty’s sake, and scorns the advances of treason.  It has no false prophet or blood-stained General for its leader – but was called into being, a young giant, by the voice of the Almighty, moving over the masses of truth and patriotism.  It cannot be temporized with, nor will it book the shackle of the exclusive, or the clog of the timid.

            If the old and craven cry out, “there is a lion in the path,” the more eager is it to walk therin, for it is curious to see lions.  It cannot be quieted, like Cerberus, with a sop; not, cur-like, be whipped to silence by a liveried groom.

            It is not Young England, aroused to a sense of starvation by the calls of hunger, but it is Young America, awakened to a sense of her own intellectual greatness by her soaring spirit.

            It stands, in strength, the voice of the majority.  By ever rule, it must rule.  Its voice is vox Dei to us, and we shall give utterance to it, let its thunder disturb whom it may.

            It demands the immediate annexation of Texas at any and every hazard.  It will plant its right foot upon the northern verge of Oregon, and its left upon the Atlantic crag, and waving the stars and stripes in the face of the once proud Mistress of the Ocean, bid her, if she dare, --------------- “Cry havoc, And let slip the dogs of war.”

            Already the mountains and vallies, the towns and cities of this great nation, have caught the glad tidings from every breeze.  the depressed and the rejected have been called from exile.  The dry bones of the valley have been breathed upon as with fire, and the old skeleton’s have gone forth clothed in beauty of youth, and filled with the spirit of manhood.  It is destined to expose false theories and extend the principles of truth and virtue.  It will change the moral condition of man and the physical aspect of things.  God save Young America.

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p1c4   2,382 words.


            The new organ of the Administration comes freighted with dissertations on the vexed and momentous question, which has arisen between this country and England, touching the Oregon Territory.  The leading article, evidently not from the pen of the pen of the editor, but, in all probability, from the State Department, breathers a better spirit, than has been wont to animate the editorials in the same paper on our Foreign Relations.  The most important feature in it, is the assertion that Mr. Polk’s declaration that “the claim of the United States to Oregon is unquestionable,” does not close the door to negotiation, as interpreted, and very naturally, by the members of the British Parliament, and was not so designed.  Such a declaration, it is argued, is mere brutum fulmn, coming from an American President, who holds not in his hands the power of peace or war; but the case would be very different, if the same assertion were made by the British sovereign, who can, without the intervention of another branch of the Government, declare and wage war.

            The “Union” says:

            A British sovereign possessed himself ample powers to protect his subjects in such a case, without reference to another branch of the government, much less to the people.  He can terminate the existing convention with regard to Oregon, by a letter from his foreign office to his minister at Washington; and can cause the country to be occupied, and forts to be erected in it, by another letter from his admiralty to the commander of his naval forces in the Pacific, or from his colonial secretary to his governor general in Canada.  He has therefore no need, and certainly no desire, to introduce the subject in a message to Parliament; and when legislative action becomes necessary, his ministers are in both Houses to make the necessary arrangements and procure the requisite number of votes in their own way.  A President of the United States is in a different position; he can take none of these steps until authorized to do so by Congress, which is itself dependent upon the popular voice.  His assertion “that the claim of the United States to Oregon is unquestionable,” means only that he will exert his influence in maintaining and establishing it.  From a British sovereign, the same assertion would announce to the world his determination to employ his power for that purpose.  It is as much the duty of the President to use the influence of his declaration upon the people of the United States, or upon the world, for the advantage of the republic, as it is of the sovereign to direct his forces for the benefit of his kingdom.

            The President is, neither in an address to his fellow citizens, nor in a message to Congress, bound by the rules of observations of diplomatic discussions.  His object on such occasions is to submit the course which he means or wishes to pursue, to the judgment of the people, or of the legislature, that they may, in a proper way, express their sense of it. He does so openly; and if he enlightens other parties as to his views, they have no right to complain of it.  Offensive language is of course not to be employed by a public functionary on any occasion; but the President may assert what he conceives to be the right if his nation in terms of strength proportioned to the importance of the subject and the profoundness of his conviction.  

            The President of the United States emanates from the bosom of the people.  He is their trustee.  He has no hereditary pretensions to the seat which he occupies.  He has no powers which the constitution doest not confer upon him.  He must administer those powers, not for this own benefit, nor his own honor, but for the good of his country, to which he is responsible.  It becomes his duty therefore, at all times, whilst communicating with the people themselves, in his inaugural address, or in his messages to their representatives in Congress, to speak in frank, clear language, in relation to the common rights and interests of a free people.   Whilst he takes care, in performing this duty, to give no unnecessary offence to foreign States, he is bound to speak, plainly, and to assert, in the clearest and strongest terms, the rights of his nation.  In his diplomatic intercourse with foreign nations, he will seek to guide his course by his conceptions of the rights of his country, and to carry out, as far as possible, the views which he has formed.  It depends upon his own discretion to decide what course he shall pursue in the conduct of foreign negotiation.  It will remain for Great Britain to decide how far she will assume the responsibility of defeating a wise and amicable negotiation, by making demands which are extravagant in themselves, and well calculated to prevent a most desirable adjustment of our differences. 

            It is also a problem worthy of Sir Ro. Peel’s and Lord Aberdeen’s consideration, whether they, who profess to object to Mr. Polk’s declarations to his countrymen in his inaugural address, should, in their places in Parliament, adopt a style of speaking which is equally exclusive, and strongly marked with a “blustering” spirit of intimidation.  In other words, whether it is respectful to the Government of the United States for Sir Robert Peel to declare, in the House of commons, “That we consider we have rights in respect of the territory of Oregon which are clear and unquestionable; that we trust still to effect an amicable adjustment of these claims; that we desire to effect that adjustment; but, having exhausted every effort to effect that arrangement, if our rights are invaded, we are resolved, and are prepared to maintain them.”

            And it well becomes Lord Aberdeen to consider whether he can fairly reconcile his criticism on our President’s language with the spirit of his own declaration in the House of Lords: “Should it be otherwise, I can only say that we posses rights which, in our opinion, are clear and unquestionable; and, by the blessing of God, and with your support, those rights we are fully prepared to maintain.”

            Mr. Polk has thrown out no threat.  he asserts the rights of his own country without any blustering or bravado.  We leave it to an impartial world to decide which conduct best becomes the executive agents of a great country.

            In conclusion, we must repeat our opinion that this debate in Parliament is to be regarded only as the result of a pre-arranged attempt by Lord Palmerston and his friends to embarrass the ministry.  Lord Aberdeen doubtless anticipated it, and being uncertain how it might end, he retained the steamer one day, in order that he might fashion his instructions to Mr. Pakenham according to circumstances.  A close examination of the principal London newspapers, we moreover repeat, leads us to the belief that very little real excitement was produced in the House of commons, (among the lords non is ever expected;) and that the whole matter has been, are this, dropped for the season.  At the same time, however, it would be unwise to suppose the existence of anything like apathy on the part of a government so watchful and energetic as that of Great Britian; of that silence in London is incompatible with activity in Canada and on the north Pacific.”

            It is in our view of very little consequence whether the distinction here sought to be drawn between the executives of the two countries, be well founded or not.  The important matter is the concession, that Mr. Polk’s blustering speech from the Throne was not intended to arrest the progress of the negotiation.  We have no idea that War could be the result of such a question between two countries so strongly allied by blood and by interest, unless by the most bungling diplomacy.  We know the vast numbers, which war per se enlists at all times and in all countries. – All who are connected with the army and navy are prima facie its advocates – because it opens the grand road to promotion; and all those, who are as badly off as they can be, and cannot be worsted – a mighty host in every densely populated country – are the natural supporters of war, convulsion and change.  But in spite of this great phalanx in both countries, eager for the conflict, we cannot doubt, that the cause of humanity, civilization and liberty – so intimately dependant on Britain and this Republic, will triumph, and the great curse of war will be postponed to a day far distant!

            Our belief, that the braggart tone of Mr. Polk had been assumed to subserve the ends of the Demagogue and to impress his Democratic supporters with the idea that he is a fire-eater, is strengthened by the tone of other articles in the Executive organ.  One of them, the authorship of which cannot be mistaken by any one who ever heard the original remark touching the incapacity of the Bourbouns for learning of forgetting anything, or the not less characteristic one in regard to the number of swallows which it takes to make a summer, proves that the design of the Administration is to agitate the Oregon question, just as the Texas question was agitated, for the purpose of playing upon the popular cupidity, and profiting by the passion for territorial aggrandizement, which pervades the entire Anglo-Saxon race. – War is not the object of these interested patriots – but party – party capital and the spoils – and to retain these they would not scruple to sport with the highest interests of the Republic and subject it to the direct calamities which can afflict nations.

            We subjoin the article from the “Union” – which by substituting Texas for Oregon, may be found in the Richmond Enquirer of last year:

                                    “A CAUTION TO THE WHIG PARTY.

            We appeal to the whigs, by their regard to their own party interests, and by the still higher motives of country, not to convert this rising question of Oregon into a party measure.  They must see now – or, like the Bourbons, “they learn nothing and forget nothing” – that the unfortunate blunder of Mr. Clay and his friends about Texas has contributed more to their defeat, than any error of his whole life.  Will they remain blind in spite of experience? or will they again attempt to make party capital out of a miserable opposition to the true interests of their country?  They were shipwrecked on the question of Texas.  Will they expose themselves to similar destruction on the great measure of Oregon?  If they commit a second egregious blunder of this description, they would be better fitted to fill a cell in bedlam, than tho executive chair of this great republic.

            But if we had the pleasure of expressing our sentiments freely to Mr. Pakenham, we would advise him not to mistake every idle expression of a Whig journal for even the voice of the Whig party, much less for the voice of the nation.  It is not every swallow that makes the summer.  We make this suggestion in consequence of the idle clamor of a few of the Whig presses, such as the following from the “Portland Advertiser:”

            “Whatever may come out of other questions, there will be no war about Oregon.  Mr. Polk will not fight for Oregon.  He has no idea of any such thing.  He could not be kicked into a war with England, about Oregon, or any other issue now between us.  What he said in his inaugural was mere clap trap.  It is upon the inferior level of a common partisan letter, such as Mr. Polk wrote in April last about Texas.  ‘Let Texas be re-annexed,’ ‘Oregon is ours’ – these are the phrases, not of a Statesman, impelled by a public necessity to raise critical and vital issues, but of a mere partisan leader, who is flush of his talk, but will take good care to keep the peace.  How can it be supposed that the Polk party going to war for Oregon, when the Polk majority of the Legislature of Maine, under the auspices of Mr. Ebenezer Otis and Mr. Elbridge Gerry, undertake to pass and have passed very warlike resolutions about Oregon, while, by their own showing, they are totally ignorant of the latitude of the American claim?”

            Such was the language which was employed in 1811 by the federal party.  They then said that Mr. Madison “could not be kicked into a war,” and England was misled and encouraged to continue her aggressions upon our commerce and our seamen.  And what was the result?  That Mr. Madison, amiable as he was in all his relations, and as great a “friend of peace” as the Indian Logan himself, was impelled by the wrongs of his country into a recommendation of war.  We are sure we need not remind the British Minister of the results of that war.  The whole transaction is written in lines of glory for our country.  We will not say in what manner it terminated for the British arms.  The same blunder at the present time, will terminate in the same results.

            The “Portland Advertiser” is more ignorant of Mr. Polk’s disposition than the federalists of 1811 were unacqusiated with Mr. Madison’s character.  Mr. Polk, as a wise statesman ought to be, is “the friend of peace” but still more the friend of the rights and honor of his country.  The republican party sympathize with his sentiments, and it is to be hoped the great body of the whigs will see their true interest in the same spirit.  The President is, withal, a firm man.  He was called the “Little Hickory” during the late campaign; and he deserves the distinction, for he has the spirit of “Old Hickory” in him.  He will never sacrifice the honor of hi country to any idle apprehensions of war or, we beg leave to say, the still more idle declarations of the statesmen of England, in the midst of the imperial Parliament!  Let not, then, the peace of two great people like those of England and the United States, be disturbed by any factions declarations of any of the Whigs present.”

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p1c6   35 words.


            It is announced in the Washington Union, that the Mission to England had been tendered to Mr. Pickens of S.C.

            The same paper discredits the report of Mr. Van Buren’s appointment, as a Special Embassador.

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p1c7  71 words.


            We learn (says the Columbia Chronicle) that Col. Elmore has declined the appointment of Minister to England, tendered him by President Polk.  In these selfish days, when corruption and intrigue are restored for the purpose of obtaining place and power – and by those too who consider themselves the magistrates of the land – it is quite refreshing to meet one man who is unambitious enough to decline office and employment. – [Charleston Courier].

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p2c3


War Meeting in Philadelphia.

            The Philadelphia papers teem with accounts of a meeting of meetings held in that city last week, to adopt resolutions in favour of warlike measures in support of our claim to the Oregon Territory.  It appears that the meeting was disturbed by factions, and by rival competitors for notoriety and Effecutive favour, and after much hubbub, and sundry fist-fights, it was resolved into two separate meetings, with separate officers – each of which, amidst tumult and confusion, adopted resolutions strongly asserting our rights to the Oregon Territory, and very valiantly defying the British lion. That the reader may be able the better to decide how much weight should be attached to such popular demonstrations in favour of war, we subjoin sketches of the proceedings of the meeting from both Whig and Democratic papers.

            We are not at all surprised at the warlike outgivings of the fierce Democracies.  “The cankers of a calm world and a long peace,” that now so greatly abound in all our large cities, and in a manner hang upon the skirts of the Locofoco party every where are, as a matter of course, the advocates of confusion, change and revolution.  They cannot be worsted:  They bear not the burnt of battle, and supply not the sinews of war.  they are therefore the willing and eager aiders and abettors in all measure and systems of policy which tend to unsettle the existing order of things and produce convulsions.  In this they but exhibit the same spirit, which has ever animated men similarly situated.  They envy the good, and abhor all who, by a life of industry and virtue, have amassed fortunes, and obeyed the Scriptural injunction of providing for their households.  Like their predecessors of the Jacobin Club in France, they crave change, and they are indifferent about the means of gratifying their wishes.  Indeed, we have witnessed in American Locofocoism, [in a form to be sure somewhat medified by circumstances,] the same spirit of restlessness and of envy at the ascendancy of superior merit, and the same fell purpose of leveling all above them, which characterized the largest French liberty party during the “reign of Terror.”  In Paris, it was accounted monstrous and intolerable that one set of men should fare sumptuously every day, while the patriots of the Fauxbourg St. Antoine were perishing of hunger.  The rich were consequently condemned to the guillotine, and their property disturbed among the “virtuous poor”!  In New York, we have seen flour stores mobbed, on the same high and holy principle of justice and equality, and their contents scattered among the suffering patriots of the “Five Points”!  In Paris, to wear fresh linens or ride in a carriage was tantamount to a confession of aristocracy and incivism, and consigned the unfortunate man guilty of it to a prison, where he was speedily septembrised.  Here, a like indiscretion and violation of the cardinal principles of Locofoco cleanliness and equality, incurs an equal odium in the forum of Locofoco public opinion; and, time and opportunity concurring, would subject the delinquent to a like penalty.  It is recorded, that the “largest liberty” men in Paris waited impatiently, without food or refreshment of any kind, from sunrise to sunset, to see the venerable Marquis de Favas led to execution.  He was the first noble who was brought to the guillotine, and while his death established their great principle of equality in all things – in life and in death – it soothed their vanity and appeased their envy to see one of illustrious birth reduced to the same ignominious punishment which was accorded to the vilest malefactor; and they accompanied him to the scaffold with wild howlings and shouts of joy.  The same species of savage exultation.  Unrivalled excellence – the greatest and most meritorious man of the age had been humbled!  Their self-love was thereby saved from a wound – their envy and malice, and hatred of everything great, was gratified and soothed!

            As we are not surprised, neither do we regret to see these disorganizing demonstrations by the Democrats of Philadelphia.  they are premature, and they will recoil upon the heads of those who have conceived them:  They will tend to excite a timely apprehension in the bosom of all conservatives in the Union, under whatever party designation they may be found; and lead them to band together to preserve order and public liberty.  The Destructives and levelers as yet constitute but a small portion of our population.  A large portion of the Democratic party are essentially conservative – i.e. they are content with the regulated freedom which the patriots of the Revolution achieved for us, and are only desirous of preserving, in their purity, the institutions which those great men bequeathed us!  All who are of this way of thinking will take the alarm at the leveling, disorganizing, and destructive projects which American Jacobinism is attempting to introduce into this country, and they, as wise men and patriots, will co-operate with those who think with them, and will rally cordially to the support of the institutions derived from our revolutionary fathers.  In this way, and by this means, conservatism and destructiveness will become the test and the dividing lines of party.

            But, to the warlike demonstrations, and the grave deliberation, which characterized them: 

From the Philadelphia Post.



            Who will now dare to dispute the claim of the U.S. to Oregon, Texas, or indeed, (if we may judge from the boasts of the speakers at the meeting yesterday afternoon,) to the whole of this continent, should the Administration demand it?  But our present object is not to interrogate – it is to terrify the Britons and Mexicans by recording the proceedings of the meeting alluded to, and in doing so, we shall speak only of what was really done and said.  Would that our memory would enable us to tell the whole truth on this occasion; but it will not, and we are of opinion that those even who conducted the meeting, will find it impossible to tell half that was done.

            Most of our readers are probably aware that for several days a call for a “war meeting” (as it may be denominated,) had appeared in all the locofoco papers of this city; but doubtless very few have heard that at a preliminary gathering on Wednesday evening, after a row characteristic of the “harmonious democracy,” the old Hunkers retired and the “Young Democracy” elected officers for the meeting to be held on the following (yesterday) afternoon, in Independence Square.  The “Hon. Thomas M’Cully” was to be chairman.  The old Hunkers who retired, were in favor of placing in the chair the Hon. Charles Jared Ingersoll.

            Well at four o’clock, P.M., on the 1st day of May, A.D. 1845, the drizzling rain with which our city was visited at that hour did not prevent several hundreds of both factions of the “unterrified Democracy” from wending their way to Independence Square, for the purpose of veining with each other in their manifestations of patriotism, and of hurling defiance at Great Britain.

            Many Whigs were present to enjoy the anticipated sport.  At the appointed hour a rush was made for the stand, which was soon taken possession of by the representatives of both the “Old Hunkers” and the “Young Democracy” – the former led on by the valiant Col. Lee, and the later by Benjamin H. Brewster, Esq., Attorney at Law, etc, etc.  Immediately, amid huzzas, hisses, and groans, some sort of a motion was made by somebody; but whether or not it was carried, we were unable to decide!  Soon some person on the stand moved Benjamin H. Brewster, Esq., off of it! – He, however, regained his position […] and commenced talking, (at least so we inferred from the movement of his lips and hands, for the confusion prevented us from hearing him.)  Col. Lee, who had been for some time jostled about by the crowd on the stand while he was attempting to make his voice heard, now mounted a chair or bench and shouted louder than before – the gamblers and bullied on the stand, who considered it their duty to back their respective friends swore outrageously – Mr. Brewater, assisted by Mr. M’Cully, attempted to read some resolutions, or something else, and at last Col. Lee was very suddenly removed from the stand to the ground!  He, also soon regained his position, and a disgraceful conflict ensued, [which to the credit of the audience be it said, was confined exclusively to those on the stand.]

            After this scene, Judge Barton made his appearance, but the belligerents would not be quieted.  Their voices were “still for war!”  Fight they must – if for nothing else than to show the subjects of Queen Victoria if any of them were present, how they would be treated should the British Government persist in asserting her claims to Oregon – and fight they did!  The only serious injury observable after the battle was the destruction of the steps and other conveniences attached to the rostrum.

            At about five o’clock, peace was partially restored by the division of the audience – the old Hunkers taking a position west of the rostrum, and the young Democracy, east.  A meeting of those on the west side was then organized – resolutions were adopted, and addresses were delivered by Col. Page, Col. Lee, Wm. D. Kelly, Esq., and another individual whom very few seemed to know or care anything else.

            All the speeches were made and resolutions adopted amidst alternate cheers, hisses, and groans and therefore we were not able to hear much that was said.  What we did hear, however, was sufficient to convince us that although the speakers – including the two Colonels – were bravely defying Great Britain to maintain vi et armis her asserted rights, they would prefer an office under the present Administration to a commission in the Army, should a war ensue.  The meeting finally adjourned – those on the stand jumped off, and all departed, leaving the owner of the stand to decide the question, which he considered most important, who broke the steps?

            To be serious, this was the most disgraceful scene we ever witness in this city.  We doubt whether the walls of Tammany Hall could, were they possessed of vocal power, speak of transactions so disgusting and outrageous as were witness by un in Independence Square yesterday afternoon.  We looked with indifference upon the quarrel, because it was a family affair altogether, and it was of little consequence to us which faction should triumph; but aside from politics, we must regret that any thing of the kind should have occurred in the city of “Brotherly Love,” and in the vicinity of old Independence Hall.  However, we are certain that those who are acquainted with the facts, will exonerate the respectable of all parties, by whom the conduct of those who call and conducted the meeting, was condemned.  Should England accept the invitation which some of the valiant speakers yesterday seemed disposed to tender her, they would certainly run away!  They can talk of war, but they have no idea of risking their precious lives by a conflict in which bullets and bayonets must be introduced!

            We said in the outset that we should not attempt to tell the whole truth.  Our memory will not serve us, and if it would, we have not space for all the details.  One of the speakers took occasion to say, we believe, that the spectacle which had been presented to the audience was humiliating – he felt it to be so – and we think we have said enough to convince our readers that it must be so to all order loving citizens.

            Some of the speakers boasted yesterday that they belonged to the truly Democratic, patriotic war party, and were ready at a moment’s warning, to march to the battle field and meet the troops of Great Britain face to face.   And who, distant reader, do you suppose these very gentlemen wished to preside over their meeting?  For whom did they fight so valiantly yesterday?  Why, Charles Jared Ingersoll, the man who says he would have been a tory had he lived in the days of the revolution!  Who will hereafter doubt their patriotism – who question their motives – or who assert that they are not entitled to the confidence of James K. Polk and Thomas Ritchie?

Tuesday, May 6, 1845 RW45v22i36p4c4  1,067 words


            The Journal of Commerce of Wednesday contains an article, apparently founded on authentic information, in contradiction of some of the statements that have recently been disseminated through the New Orleans press, concerning the movements of Texas on the subject of the pending proposition to incorporate that Republic with the United States.

            In regard to the mission to England of Mr. Ashbel Smith, the present Secretary of State for Texas, the Journal argues that it may have in view objects in every way proper and expedient, an entirely distinct from any design to embarrass the measure of annexation; because, even if the Texan Government sincerely desired annexation, and entertained the fall expectation that such would be the issue of the overtures now pending, it would be no more than due to the courtesy heretofore manifested towards Texas by England and France, in the early acknowledgement of her independence, and in many subsequent acts of kindness, to explain to them, in the most respectful manner, the present posture of affairs, the general sentiment of the people, and the probably result; and the Journal maintains that such an explanation would be doubly due, if those Governments procure the acknowledgement of her independence by Mexico, and if they had generously and faithfully exerted themselves for that end.

            The Journal then proceeds, on the authority of an intelligent gentleman just from Texas, who has taken a deep interest in the affairs of that country, and in ever practicable way informed himself as to the present state of opinions and acts, to deny that Mr. Smith’s mission is in pursuance of any plan of operations agreed on by the Texan Cabinet, in consultation with the British Minister in Texas, having for is object to put off all action on the Joint Resolution for Annexation until further advices can be hand from England.  The present being an important moment for Texas, whatever coarse she may determined to pursue, there is at least a propriety in her having an accredited Minister at the Courts of England and France:  and no new man could be so well qualified as Mr. Smith, who has resided at those Courts nearly three years, and been an instrument in all that transpired between those Governments and his own during that period.  This is the whole reason why the “Chief Officer of State in Texas” was appointed to the mission in question.  There is no evidence that Mr. Smith or the Texan President and Cabinet are opposed to annexation – they having deemed it proper, in the present crisis, to avoid any public declaration of their views on this subject.

            The Journal also says it is not true that President Jones has been tampered with by the English and French Ministers, or that he has promised them any delay in submitting the propositions of the United States Government to the Congress of People of Texas.  On the contrary, it was well understood that as soon as the President should be formally in possession of the overtures of the Unites States Government, he would submit them directly to the people for their adoption or rejection.  Besides the expense of an extra session of Congress, his mind was doubtless influenced by the further consideration that the members were not elected with any special reference to the question of annexation, and that, even if referred to them in the first instance, it must after all go back to the people for final decision.

            The Journal further says, it is true that Mexico has offered to acknowledge the independence of Texas, if the latter will renounce forever the idea of annexation to the Unites States.  It may, however, be presumed that in proffering such an acknowledgement, Mexico would seek to place the dividing line as far east as possible, and perhaps also require a certain amount of indemnity as a salve for her honor.  On each of these points the Texan Government must have a definite understanding with Mexico, before it will be able to judge whether the propositions of the latter is worthy of serious consideration.  Such an understanding may possibly be gained through the instrumentality of the British and French Ministers, both of whom decidedly prefer independence to annexation.  Should a direct offer of a satisfactory character be made by Mexico, before the question of annexation is submitted to the people, the President may deem it his duty to present both propositions to them simultaneously – viz:  Annexation or Independence – that they may choose between them.  There is, however, no reasonable doubt of the result.  Almost all the Americans, who constitute the great majority of the population, are favorable to annexation.

            It is denied that Mr. Donelson, our Charge d’Affaires, was treated with discourtesy or neglect on his recent arrival at the seat of the Texan Government.  He arrived on Sunday, and was courteously received by President Jones on the next day, to the entire satisfaction of Mr. D.

            It is not true (the Journal continues) that Messrs. Elliot and Saligny, the British and French Ministers, left Texas for the purpose of visiting Washington. [this city]  Mr. Elliot had no special object in going to the U. States, other than recreation.  Mr. Saligny went only to New Orleans, where he is accustomed to spend the greater part of his time, making occasional visits to Texas as circumstances require.

            It is not true that Messrs. Elliot and Saligny visited Texan capital (Washington) immediately on the arrival of the British frigate Euridice with despatches from Vera Cruz.  The despatches which induced them to visit Washington were not brought by the Euridice, but came from England and France by way of the west Indies.  The despatches by the Euridice met them on their return from Washington to Galveston; and, after opening them and partially reading them, they continued their course to Galveston, and had not again visited Washington.

            In conclusion, the Journal expresses its belief that the Texan Government is pursuing an honest, patriotic, and judicious course; and adds, on the authority before cited, that ten percent duty on imports is sufficient to raise all the revenue necessary to meet the ordinary expenses of Government, and that fifteen per cent would leave a considerable surplus.  The actual public debt is between $12,000,000 and $13,000,000; the country is extremely prosperous; business good; the products of the earth abundant; and the currency unquestionable, consisting of gold and silver. – Nat. Int.

Friday, May 9, 1845 RW45v22i37p1c2  39 words


            See the Intelligence of a late date, from the city of Mexico.

            The Mexican Congress talk in a bellicose strain.  But talking won’t do.  They must fight, or they must give up all claim to be ranked among nations.

Friday, May 9, 1845 RW45v22i37p1c2   163 words


            The Washington Union in commenting on an article in the Intelligencer, signifies more distinctly than it had one, that the Administration back out from the position, which it was understood, Mr. Polk had assumed in his inaugural, touching Oregon.  The negotiations is to go on!

            The Union says:

            “We certainly do not understand that the negotiation about Oregon is at an end; or that our administration is determined or willing to terminate it; or that there is no prospect of amicably adjusting the dispute; or that it must necessarily end in breaking up the peace of two great countries.  We see no necessity, therefore, of analyzing the triple alternative, which the National Intelligencer is please to make out in its elaborate article of near one column and a half.   We yet trust that “this case may go forward to its peaceful and reason decision;” in spite of all the unnecessary menaces of the British ministers and all the blustering of the London Journals.”

Friday, May 9, 1845 RW45v22i37p1c2  140 words


            It is said, that if Mr. Pickens does not accept the mission to England, it will be offered to Mr. Homes of Charleston.  Some of Mr. Calhoun’s friends is to have it, if any one can be prevailed upon to take it.  There may be in this repeated offer of the same post to Mr. Calhoun’s friends, and their continued refusal, something more than meets the eye.  Is it that the acceptance of it will be construed into a pledge of indiscriminate support of Mr. Polk, by Mr. Calhoun and is Mr. Calhoun shy of giving such a pledge?

            It is suggested, that Mr. Pickens is of late more an ostensible than a real friend of Mr. Calhoun.  If that be so, it would not be fair to tax Mr. Calhoun for the mission to England bestowed upon Mr. Pickens.

Friday, May 9, 1845 RW45v22i37p1c2  1121 words


From the N. O. Tropic

            By the arrival, last evening of the schooner Yucatan, from Vera Cruz, we learn that General Almonte had arrived at that port, where he still remained when the Y. left.  We also learn that four American, two Spanish, one English, and on French men of war were lying at Vera Cruz.  We did not receive any letters or papers by this arrival, but thanks to the courtesy of our neighbors of the “Bee,” who received full files of Vera Cruz papers to the 21st and city of Mexico papers to the 17th instant, we are enabled to lay before our readers the following particulars.

            The Joint Committee of the Mexican Congress, to which had been referred the subject of Texas, reported at length on the 7th instant.  We have no space to devote to a description of the bombastic phraseology of the document, but at once proceed to give the concluding part, as furnished to us by the “Bee.”  It recommends two projects, as follows:

            THE FIRST is preceded by a preamble, declaring that, whereas the United States have resolved to annex the territory of Texas; and, whereas, such a mode of appropriating foreign territory to which other nations lay claim, is a monstrous innovation upon the peace of the world and the sovereignty of other powers; and, whereas, this act had long been in preparation, even while the United States were professing peace and friendship for Mexico, and while the latter respected and observed scrupulously the terms of existing treaties between the two countries; and whereas, the said annexation is a violation of every conservative principle of society, an assault upon the rights of Mexico, an insult to her dignity as a sovereign nation, and menaces her independence and political existence; therefore, the Congress of the Mexican Republic solemnly declares, that the law of the Unites States for the annexation of Texas to the American Union, in no respect impairs the rights which Mexico possesses, and will maintain to that department.

            Furthermore, that the United States having disregarded the principles upon which are based treaties of amity, commerce and navigation, and more especially of boundary, Congress considers them violated by the United States.

            The second project, consists of four articles, as follows:

            First – The Mexican nation calls upon her sons to defend their national independence, threatened by the usurpation of the territory of Texas, which is sought to be consummated by a decree passed by Congress and sanctioned by the President of the United States.

            Second – Therefore the Government will consider itself at liberty (prodra poner) to call forth its entire, permanent and active military force, agreeably to the authority given to it by existing laws.

            Third – For the preservation of public order, and the maintenance of her institutions, and if necessary, as a reserve for the army, the Government, in virtue of the power granted to it on the 8th of December, 1844, may levy the troops to which said decree refers, under the name of defenders of independence and the laws.

            Fourth – With a view to the efficient maintenance of the rights of the republic, the Government, is authorized to procure all extraordinary resources which may be deemed necessary, making known to Congress the necessary steps to be taken, conformably to the constitution.

            We do not find any account of any action by the Mexican Congress on the foregoing projects.  They have been laid before that body, and that is all we learn respecting them.  It is clearly evident that the government and people of Mexico are decidedly indisposed to surrender Texas, and the tone of the public journals is exceedingly warlike; still, as long as the Mexicans confine themselves to making reports in Congress and firing broadsides in their newspapers, there does not seem any immediate prospect o hard knocks.  To be sure, it had been suggested that Mexico may undertake to annoy us by crippling our commerce in the Gulf, but while there are some of our floating batteries well manned and equipped, in the immediate vicinity of Vera Cruz, there appears to be but a slender chance for the Mexican flag to become distinguished on the high seas.   

            The agency for the payment of the Mexican debt to Great Britain has been taken from the house of Lizardi, in London, and given to Schneider & Co.

            There is not a particle of intelligence about Santa Ana.  He appears to be quite forgotten in the prevailing excitement.

            We copy from the slip furnished to use by the “Bee,” the following account of another earthquakes in the city of Mexico on the 10th inst, three days after the former one, and which appears to have been very destructive.

            ANOTHER EARTHQUAKE. – Our readers doubtlessly remember the details we published a few days since, of a frightful destructive earthquake which was experienced at Mexico on the 7th inst.  We have not to add a reputation of this awful disaster in the Capital on the 10th inst.  An examination of the papers has failed to enable us to discover many details of the amount of ruin and desolation occasioned by the convulsion; but from the fact that the journals quite in describing its effects as terrific, we presume the destruction must have been great.  The Diario the 11th states that the earthquake occurred about 10 o’clock, A.M., and lasted forty seconds; that it overthrew many new buildings, and many other that had escaped the former violation; that most of the inhabitants, stricken with terror, left their houses, and took refuge in the open fields and public squares, passing the night without shelter and in the utmost consternation.  The “Veracruzano” of the 14th instant, states that private letters furnish a gloomy picture of the destruction that has fallen upon Mexico.   The “Hesperia” of the 12th states that the earthquake of the 10th complete the destruction of the cupola of Santa Teress, and increased the damage done to the church of Santo Domingo and San Francisco.  But for the shortness of its duration, the entire city could have been laid in ruins.  Mexico did not suffer alone. The shock was felt in a number of towns and villages within a radius of several hundred miles.  At Puebla, the earthquake was experienced on the 7th about 4 o’clock P.M., but its effects were comparatively light.  Several churches were injured, and many private edifices were greatly damaged; though non were absolutely destroyed.      

            At Acountillo and Talaco the effects of the shocker were more considerable.  At Gaudalojaro, Morella and Vera Cruz, the earthquake was experienced both on the 7th and 10th; the earthquake was experienced both on the 7th and 10th, but on neither occasion was the business very serious.

Friday, May 9, 1845 RW45v22i37p2c3  361 words


            It would seem from the tone of public sentiment in Texas, that this grand project is on the point of consummation, on the terms and conditions of the joint resolutions of our Congress.  Well, if it must come, the sooner the better!  We only pray, that the evils we dread from it, may never be realized; that no visitations from on High may overtake our hitherto favored land, on account of the rapacious and unjust spirit which prompted the act; that the bands of our glorious Union may not be weakened, but be made more strong, and that rich blessings may be multiplied and showered down upon every portion of our wide spread confederacy.

            The New Orleans Bee publishes the following letter from “one of the most influential and respectable citizens of Galveston – the statements of which may be relied upon.”

            “I am most happy to assure you that the demonstrations throughout the country, have been most unanimous, warm and decided in favor of closing at once with the propositions now before the country without further delay, and apprehensive as many men in different countries were, that our Executive and most of his immediate partisans would do every thing they dared to do, to postpone and ultimately defeat the measure, meetings were held in several countries proposing that the people should at once move in the matter, by requesting their respective members of Congress to assemble about the middle of May, to advise and deliberate on the matter.  Our President, however, at length issued his proclamation to convene the Congress in June, with which we are content.  Although most of us believe it was made so late in order to give the British intriguers time to mature all their plans for its defeat.  But as public sentiment is so entirely overwhelming, we are satisfied that there was no chance for the success for their machinations, and consequently acquisesce in the late day fixed by the President rather than throw the country in a state of anarchy and confusion.  If there had been the least fear that the enemies of annexation could have succeeded, we should have gotten up a revolution instanter.”

Friday, May 9, 1845 RW45v22i37p2c4  69 words


See the details by the Hibernia.  The news is of little interest – and the only feature worthy of notice is the fact, that the apprehension of difficulties in respect to the Oregon question, appears to have subsided.  The money and produce markets – which were agitated for a few days pending and after the debate in Parliament, have become quiet and gone up or settled down to the peace establishment.

Friday, May 9, 1845 RW45v22i37p2c4  250 words


The Independence (Jackson co.,) Expositor of the 19th says on Wednesday and Thursday we note the arrival at Hansford’s Independence House, of Messrs Leitenadorfer, Branham, and twelve or fourteen companions from New Mexcio.

In the way of news we have little to communicate.  The governmental affairs had remained perfectly quiet up to the 1st of March, the date of their departure.  They had not yet received the intelligence of the final defeat and captivity of Santa Anna.

Business had been dull all winter.  The non retail law in full force.  This law it will be remembered, prohibited the retailing of goods by any, except Mexican subjects.

Mr. Speyre it is said met with further loss between Santa Fe and Chihuahua.  One hundred and sixty-five of his mules were run off by the Apache Indians in that portion of the road known as the Jornada del Muerto.

Mr. Owens was expected to reach Santa Fe by the 1st April, and may be looked for here in three or four weeks.

Richard McCarty, Esq., of this place died in Santa Fe in February Isst.

The news of the slaughter of the traders among them by the Yute Indians is verified.  It is supposed Antoine Robiboux must have perished, as nothing had been heard from him during the winter.

            The yield from the Gold Mines in New Mexico this winter, had been small, owing to dry weather and scarcity of winter.  Forty of fifty thousand dollars is the supposed yield. – St. Louis Republican.

Tuesday, May 13, 1845 RW45v22i38p1c1  132 words



            It would appear from the following, that the friends of Texas, Iowa, and Florida, are determined to have them in the United States, whether they are willing or not:

            “Mr. Dallas’s late visit to Washington was, it appears, to make room in the Senate Chamber, for Texas, Iowa, and Florida.  He decide to add another row of seats to the inner circle, in front of the chair.  Texas, Iowa, and Florida are there to be accommodated.  The sofas outside of the bar, it is further said, will afford room, hereafter, for Wisconsin, Nebraska, and the States hereafter to be carved out of Texas and Oregon”

            It will be see that Oregon, when she does come into the confederacy, together with Wisconsin, Nebraska, and perhaps Canada, will all have to take back seats.


June 3, 1845, RWv22i44p1c6, From Texas

We are indebted to Captain Hoffman, of the Barque ‘William Ivy,’ from the Matagorda, for the Weekly Dispatch, of that place, of May 3.

It is filled with animated expressions of the public voice in favor of Annexation.

It contains the proceedings of a meeting of the inhabitants of Matagorda county – Seth, lagram, in the chairman and Thomas Harvey, Secretary.

In pursuance of resolutions adopted at a previous meeting, the Representative and Senator in Congress from the county of Matagorda, were appointed Delegates to meet the delegates from the other counties, in convention at the seat of Government, on the 31 Monday in May, in order to adopt such plans as they may deem most proper to obtain the action of the people throughout the Republic on the question of annexation. Among the resolutions adopted by the meeting are the following.

“Resolved. That we have heard with astonishment and indignation of the appointment and embarkation of a Minister from this government to England and France, which, in conjugation with the delay used by they executive, in calling together the Congress is well calculated to excite out distrust in the action of the President.

“Resolved, That delay is useless, as we wish to see no overtures from any government save that of the United States.”

The columns of the Despatch are full of severe but justly merited invective against the president Hones for his unreasonable delay in convoking Congress for the purpose of deliberating on the propositions of out government relative to the admission of Texas into the Union. Mr. Jones received those propositions on the 20th March; his proclamation for the meeting of Congress was only on the 15th April, and he has fixed the day of assembling on the 16th June. The Despatch says: - “The public feeling is forced into its utmost tension to tolerate this delay. This distasteful and nauseating duty has been wrung from him by the united voice of all Texas – he discharged it amid the murmurs of public discontent – we are indebted for it to no lofty impulse nor noble sentiment of patriotism – it is the unwilling tribute of a craven spirit and a coward heart.”

The Despatch contains also a letter from Mr. Richard Roman, Senator from the Matagorda district, to the Annexation Corresponding Committee, which expresses, says the Despatch, the sentiments of nineteen-twentieths of the people of Western Texas. In this letter Mr. Roman declares that ever since the commencement of the Texan revolution he had “an abiding hope that annexation to the United States was the ultimate destiny of Texas. Such was then, and has over since been the general conviction of the people.” He goes on to state that the hope of its consummation was so strong in 1836, that the existing government at that time submitted the question to the people simultaneously with the constitution. The people were unanimously in favor of the plan. He says the present government of Texas was instituted for temporary purposes only. Mr. Roman concludes with expressing a firm resolution to promote the measure of annexation on every occasion – and if it fail, he will think that Texas has struck a blow for liberty in vain, and he will feel the humiliation of defeat.

It is plain that the PEOPLE of Texas, the real people, are full of enthusiasm for the consummation of a measure which they contemplated ever since the battle of San Jacinto, as the reward of their toils in the settlement and defence of the Territory against the Mexicans. It will he an exceedingly dangerous experiment for Mr. Hones and his advisors to undertake by open violence or secret intrigue to disappoint the wishes of the public. Not only will the experiment be dangerous, but it cannot succeed. Its success is impossible. The moment Mr. Hones and his co-intriguers attempt by an open act to counteract the measure, the whole republic will be in a flame – there will be a simultaneous rising of the people from Nacogdoches to the Rio del Norte. Nothing will be able to withstand them – they will demand annexation, rifle in hand – the present government will be abolished, and they will call a convention, who will order the measure to be carried into effect without a moments delay.

The people of Texas were indignant when they heard that president Hones had despatched Ashbel Smith as minister at the courts of Paris and London, for the purpose of completing his private, secret, dirty negotiation, to prevent, if possible, the republic of Texas from joining our confederacy. –It turns out that Smith, instead of going to Europe, went to Vera Cruz, and is now in the city of Mexico, with Elliott, the British minister to the republic of Texas. This face is positively asserted by the Picayuno of this morning, and the assertions is based on information undoubtedly authentic, transmitted to the editors of that paper by their correspondents in Mexico. These two individuals, it was, unquestionably, who made the proposal to the Mexican government which induced it to acknowledge the independence of Texas. This recognition, as the Picayune justly observes, is conducted “under the auspices of England, its object being to check the progress of this country, cripple her influence, and baffle the will of the American people.”

Whatever may be the determination of our government under the state of things that now presents itself, we have no apprehension but that they are prepared and ready to defeat by force of arms any conspiracy of foreign enemies with domestic traitors, that has for its object to disappoint the wishes of the people of the United States and of Texas for the junction of the latter to our confederacy. We entirely coincide with the Picayune that our government is bound by a regard to the honor and safety of the country and by the sacred obligation of good faith to the people of Texas, to interpose its whole power in order to save them from falling under the domain of traitors whom they abhor or of England, which from their infancy they have been taught to look upon as the sworn enemy of those free and liberal institutions, under which they desire to live or not to live at all.

We copy the following from the Picayune of this morning:

“ The bill allowing the Minister of Foreign Affairs the power to negotiate a Treaty with Texas for her Independence, with the provision that she shall not be annexed to the United States, passed the Mexican House of Representative on the 3rd time by a vote of 41 for and 13 against it, after a strong debate of 3 days. It was immediately sent to the Senate, where it was believed it would be concurred in unanimously. A report to that effect reached Vera Cruz some days before I sailed, but the last mail, of the 16th, brought no confirmation of it.”

June 3, 1845, RWv22i44p1c6, From Mexico

The Picayune also contains interesting accounts respecting the condition of Mexico. Distraction and discontent everywhere prevail. The states of Pueblo and Tabasco have already declared in favor of the federal constitution, and a general meeting was held at Vera Cruz, but active measures were suspended at the request of the governor who is not averse to the object of the meeting.

Santa Ann was still confined in the Castle of Perote – but it was thought he would soon be liberated – and probably would be at the head of the government in a few months.

The present army of Mexico is said to consist of 21,000 officers, and 20,000 private soldiers.

There was no declaration of war against this country and no prospect of such an event.

In regard to the presence of the American squadron at Vera Cruz, the correspondent of the Picayune gives the following information:

“The arrival of our squadron at Vera Cruz created a great excitement, and also at the city of Mexico, where it was represented to consist of twenty-on sail of men of war! The unexpected presence of this squadron had no doubt, a salutary influence, and possibly might have caused the mission so privately determined upon to the United States.”

Mr. Shannon, the Minister of President Tyler to Mexico, is not the man for such a state of uncertainty and turmoil as now prevails in that country. It is said he has been living in the utmost obscurity, without knowing or caring what was doing on. We are glad to hear that he is on his way homewards.

June 3, 1845, RWv22i44p2c3, Texas will accept bid to the union

By late arrivals at New Orleans from Texas, it would appear that there is no longer any doubt, as to the probability of the People of Texas acceding to the proposition for annexing that Republic to the United States. President Jones has, accordingly, issued a Proclamation calling upon the People of Texas to hold a Convention, to form a new Constitution as a State about being numbered among the States of this Union. We publish below, the Proclamation, which has been put forth in anticipation of the Congress of Texas acceding to the proposition from the United States:

June 3, 1845, RWv22i44p2c3, A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, the People of Texas have evinced a decided wish that prompt and definite action should be had upon the proposition for annexation, recently submitted by the Government of the United States to this Government, and that a Convention should be assembled for this purpose, and,

WHEREAS, it is competent for the people alone to decide finally upon the proposition for annexation, and “by deputies in convention assembled.” To adopt a Constitution with a view to the admission of Texas as one of the States of the American Union, and,

WHEREAS, no authority is given by the Constitution of this Republic, to any branch of the Government to call a Convention, and to change the organic law, this being a right reserved to the people themselves, and which they alone can properly exercise,

THEREFORE, be it known, that I, ANSON JONES, President of the Republic of Texas, desirous of giving direction and effect to the public will, already so fully expressed, do recommend to the citizens of Texas, that an election for “Deputies” to a Convention to be held in the different counties of the Republic, on Wednesday the fourth day of June next, upon the following basis, viz: Each county in the Republic to elect one Deputy, irrespective of the number of voters it contained at the last annual elections. Each county voting at that time three hundred, and less than six hundred to elect two Deputies. Each county voting at that time six hundred and less than nine hundred and upwards, to elect four Deputies: and that the said Deputies so elected, do assemble in Convention at the city of Austin, on the “Fourth of July” next, for the purpose of considering the proposition for the annexation of Texas to the United States, and any other proposition which may be made concerning the nationality of the Republic, and should they judge it expedient and proper, to adopt, provisionally, a Constitution to be submitted to the people for their ratification, with a view to the admission of Texas as a State, into the North American Union, in accordance with (illegible)

June 3, 1845, RWv22i44p2c4, The Texans

The Texans in this country are in a great bother about the negotiations said to be in progress between the President of Texas,(Jones) and Mexico, through the agency of the British Minister, Capt. Elliott. General Ashbel Smith’s movements, too, seem greatly to annoy them. When it was reported that that individual reached New York on his way to England for the unavowed purpose of defeating annexation, in some way or other, he was roundly berated by these same gentlemen. But now, when it is announced, that instead of going to England he took shipping to Vera Cruz, and is now in Mexico with the British Ambassador, their indignation knows no bounds. We agree with the gentlemen, that his movements are certainly circumbendious – to coin a word for the occasion; and it looks highly probable, that he and President Jones, in conjunction with Captain Elliott, are making strenuous efforts to defeat annexation. But the Texan prints in this country assure us, that all their efforts will prove in vain. We will rely upon that assurance, and haughty negotiators to the tender mercies of the aforesaid prints. They will do them enough!

June 3, 1845, RWv22i44p2c5, Later From Texas

The fine steamship New York, Captain Wright, arrived home on Saturday, in 33 hours from Galveston, bringing papers to the (illegible)

President Jones has issues a proclamation dated “Washington, May 5, 1845, in which, after reciting that “the people of Texas have . . . [illegible] . . . a decided wish that prompt and definite actions . . . [illegible] . . . be bad upon the proposition for annexation.” And that a Convention should be assembled for that purpose also, that “it is (illegible) for the people alone to decide finally upon the proposition for annexation and by Deputes in Convention assembled to adopt Constitution with a view to the admission of Texas as one of the States of the American Union,” and that no authority is given by the Constitution of the Republic to any (illegible) of the Government to call a Convention, and to change the organic law, that being a right reserved to the people themselves, and stating that he is “desirous of giving directions and effect to the public will, ” he recommends to the citizens “that an election for Deputies (illegible) Convention by held in the different counties of the Republic on Wednesday, the 4th of June next; and that the said Deputies so elected, do assemble in convention at the city of Austin, on the Fourth of July next. “for the purpose of considering the proposition for the annexation of Teas to the United States, and any other promotion which may be made concerning the nationality of the Republic; and should they judge it expedient and proper, to adopt provisionally, a Constitution to be submitted to the people for their ratification, with a view to the admission of Texas as a State into the North American Union, in accordance with the terms of the proposition for annexation already submitted to this Government by that of the United States.”

Speaking of the business which Congress, at the extra session will have to transact, the Houston Telegraph says:

The Convention, not being a body recognized by the Constitution, can pass no law requiring the Treasurer to pay on any money, and this officer would be compelled by his oath of office to refuse to pay any portions of the expense of the Convention, unless Congress should make the necessary appropriation for this purpose. One of the main objects therefore of Congress will be to provide the necessary means to enable the Convention to proceed to business. Another object will be for Congress to express its assent to the resolutions submitted by President Polk. Those resolutions provide that the assent of the existing Government of Texas shall be obtained before they shall go into effect. The terms “assent of their existing Government” is rather indefinite: but it was the opinion of President Polk, and of the American Charge here, that the term implied the assent of the Executive and Legislative Department of our Government. For this reason the American Charge was exceedingly desirous that Congress should be called at an early period to give its assent to the resolutions passed by the American Congress. We understand that the President and several of the members of his Cabinet entertained the opinion that Congress had no right to act upon this question until it had first been submitted to the people, and they had instructed their Representatives to adopt or reject the terms proposed by the American Government. Hence the delay of the President in calling the extra session of Congress. He was willing to call it at an earlier period, if he had been able to ascertain that the people were willing to accept the terms as submitted by President Polk. The people having met in their primary assemblies in all or nearly all the counties of the Republic, and expressed their approbation of the terms for annexation, the members of Congress doubtless considered themselves as being specially instructed to express their assent to these terms, and it is probable that a joint resolution, testifying the assent of the Government to the terms submitted by President Polk, will be passed by our Congress. There is another subject that will engage the attention of Congress. A question may arise whether it will be expedient that an election shall be held in September next for members of Congress, or whether the election shall be deferred until the American Congress has acted upon our Constitution. If that Constitution is adopted in January it will be necessary for an election to be held immediately after its adoption for the members of a State Legislature, and it will probably be advisable that the election of the members of the next Congress should be deferred until it is ascertained whether that Congress shall give place to the State Legislature. These and perhaps one other question, relative to the extension of the boundaries of the Northern and Western counties to the Northern limits of the Congress. They can all be disposed of in a very short time, and it is not improbable that the extra session will no continue more than six or eight days.

The National Register says that the proposed Convention will, according to the basis proposed in the President’s proclamation consist of 61 deputies as follows: the 12 western counties will have 14 deputies, the 5 northern counties 11 deputies, the 8 eastern counties 13 deputies; and the ll middle counties 23 deputies.

The Houston Telegraph expresses the opinion that the people will assent to the President’s recommendation with great unanimity. In Milam, Robertson, Brazos, Washington, Montgomery, Harris and Austin countries, the people, it is stated to have already agreed to elect delegates.

The Civilian of the 17th, has the following paragraph:

A gentleman from Washington informs us that a party of Commanche Indians, numbering between three and four thousand, are encamped near Mr. Torry’s trading house on Little River, and have sent two of their number, accompanied by a white man, to inform the President that they (the whole body of Indians) are on their way to the Mexican frontier, to make reprisals for some losses they have recently sustained in that quarter, that they will strictly abstain from any act of aggression upon Texas, and to request the President to give notice to our citizens that such are their designs, in hope that their intentions may not be mistaken, and war made upon them by Texas. We have not understood what answer has been returned my the President, but presume that the Indians will neither be encouraged to make war upon the feeble frontier of Mexico, or permitted to come within the vicinity of our own settlements. –Had Texas been disposed to imitate the examples of some older nations in the employment on Indians as soldiers, many calamities might have been inflicted upon Mexico which have been prevented.

The Houston Telegraph of the 14th says: -

We learn from the LaGrange Intelligence that a party of Indians appeared near Corpus Charieti on the 15th ult. Killed two Mexicans, wounded a third, and drove off a large number of horses belonging to Col. Kinney. A company of marauders has been ranging between the Rio Grande and Nneces for several weeks and cut off all communication with the Mexican settlements. Trade is therefore very dull. Scarcely any traders have visited the port for the last three weeks. We learn from other sources that a large number of troops have been sent to Matamoroe and to different points on the Rio Grande, by order of General Arista. It appears that the Mexican government fears that an attack will soon be made upon that frontier by American troops. It does not appear, however, that the number of troops on the Rio Grande has been much increased. –The whole force along the line of the Rio Grande does not probably exceed one thousand men.

The steamboat Lady Byron, while crossing the bar at the mouth of the Brazos, a few days ago, sunk and is a total loss.

June 13, 1845, RWv22i47p1c1, Violence of the Texas Presses

A crisis is approaching in the affairs of Texas, which seems to excite much uneasiness in the minds of the friends of annexation. They profess indeed not to be in the least apprehensive of the result, but the profession is not sustained by their conduct.

We have heard all along and did not ourselves doubt it to be so, that the Angelo-American population of Texas, constituting the cast majority, were nearly of quite unanimous in favor of annexation. . . . [illegible] . . . ow certain that the President of Texas, (Jones) has secretly negotiated a Treaty with Mexico, at the city Mexico, (as alleged under British auspices,) the leading feature of which is that Mexico agrees to recognize the independence of Texas, on condition that the latter declines annexation and remains independent.

If the fact be so, and it seems well avouched, the reader will in the first place find himself puzzled to account for the conduct of President Hones. If the people of Texas be so unanimous for annexation, why should their President negotiate a Treaty which he cannot but know will be as unanimously rejected by the Congress of Texas? –Why should he so unnecessarily and gratuitously forfeit his popularity and expose himself to legislative censure and popular indignation? Or why should England desire so vain a thing to be done as the formation of a Treaty which, she knew would be rejected by the people and Congress of Texas.

Theses are points which appear to us difficult of solution, if it is possible to solve them except by the supposition either that a change is expected to be wrought in the popular inclination of Texas, that that change has already been wrought, or that there has all along existed more opposition to annexation in that country than was admitted in the U. States.

We quote the following bitter Philippie from the New Orleans Courier of the 2nd, a leading Texas print for the purpose of exhibiting the rage into which this Treaty of President Jones has thrown those who could find no fault in a similar proceeding by President Tyler.

June 13, 1845, RWv22i47p1c1, Mexico and Texas

We have received dates from Vera Cruz of the 22nd ult. By the British frigate Eurydice, and of the 28th from Galveston by the steamer McKim.

The Eurydice is off the mouth of the river, and several of her officers, with Capt. Elliott, the notorious charge d’affaires of England to Texas, came up to the city, and lodge at the St. Charles Hotel. The face of Elliott’s arrival here with dispatches from Mexico for the agent of his government, gives us ground to presume that the treaty has been concluded between Mexico and Jones of Texas. To the eternal disgrace of that person and every Texan who approves of his treason, that treaty was negotiated under the superintendance of Elliott; the Texas agent was protected in the Mexican capital by the same British missary, where neither his nor any other citizen of the republic would have dared to place his foot with no other guarantee of safety than that of Texan citizenship –he was introduced to the Mexican Secretary of Satate by the same enemy of his country –who (illegable) Mexican government, as a favour to Great Britain, the acceptance of the proposals from President Jones. We heard some days ago that the treaty was colcluded, where by Mexican acknowledges the Independence of Texas, and the latter republic is pledged to refuse the offer made by our government to receive her into the confederacy. The lapse of a few weeks will make known the consummation of this dark intrigue, or its utter defeat. It will be a phenomenon of human Independence, should Jones dare to lay before the Congress of Texas this fruit of his “coquetry with a foreign nation,” as General Houston calls it. If he should have the hardihood to do so, we have little doubt it will be accounted and hooted by the members –but that for any consideration the citizens of Texas will tolerate its ratification or submit to its stipulations, no matter what the consequences may be, we have not the slightest apprehension.

The Jeffersonian of this morning says the “Texan or English commissioner, whose name is never heard, was to leave Vera Cruz on the 3d ult. for Galveston in a French brig of war.” The commissioner, here spoken of by the Jeffersonian, is the famous man in the white hat, respecting whom the same journal gave us a good deal of amusing gossip some two weeks ago.

The affairs of Texas never were in so critical a state as they are at this moment. Betrayed buy her executive and my others whom she placed confidence, if the treachery of these men should pass unrebuled before this representatives of the people in Congress, and the treaty should be ratified according to the forms of the constitution, the only means of safety for the people will lie in their own courage and in the protection of the United States. These will be effectual against all who may see to drive them from their purpose and they will be secure from the machinetions of traitors and the assaults of enemies. But the crisis will call for the exercise of all their virtue and all their constancy. They must prevail eventually, and they and their posterity will repose in peace and happiness under the folds of the proud banner of the United States."

June 17, 1845, RWv22i48p1c2, Texas and the Treaty

The N. Orleans Courier, next to the Washington Union and the Richmond Enquirer, is the most indefatigable and intolerant Texas print in the Union. It has teemed for 18 months with the most inflammatory appeals in favor of annexation, addressing them to the worst passions of the multitude, and it ever ascribes the worst motives to those who think proper to oppose that hazardous measure.

That such a paper, so near to the scene, hitherto so confident of the adoption of the Joint Resolutions by Texas, and so exultant, should now betray alarm, proves the existence of danger to the project, and that that danger is greater than is admitted.

The last Courier says:

“Well –the treaty being concluded, what is to prevent President Jones from laying it before Congress, which is to assemble on the 16th of the present month, and what security have we that if will not be ratified in proper and constitutional forte?

“It is a bad sign, a sign at least that is ominous of no good, that the National Intelligencer publishes the news concerning the treaty with so much satisfaction. The failure of annexation would be mortifying to the pride of this country and extremely detrimental to our best interests as a nation. It would, on the other hand, be very agreeable to Great Britain and to the British partisans in the United States. It would redound to the advantage of no power on earth except Great Britain –and hence, the pleasure with which the prospect of its accomplishment is regarded by the Intelligencer. Bet the Intelligencer and its patrons in England will be disappointed in the long run. Should the treaty be ratified by the Texan congress, annexation to the United States will be postponed for a while; and possibly war between this country and England may be the consequence. But admitting these things; admitting the treaty to be ratified by the congress of Texas and war to ensue –what then? Annexation will be delayed –that is all. England, France and Mexico combined have not the force to prevent the measure from being accomplished in the course of the present year. The people of Texas will trample on a treaty which sells them to the British, which was prompted by corruption and concluded by treason.

“But, after all, we have scarcely any apprehension that the treaty will be ratified by the Texan congress. We are informed on good authority that there are not in all Texas a sufficient number of citizens, formerly belonging to the United States, to make a quorum of either house of congress and who are opposed to annexation. Jones and his little band are under the influence of a peculiar kind of motives, which cannot reach the majority of either branch of the legislature; and in spite of the whishes and predictions of the National Intelligencer, we have hopes, amounting almost to conviction, that the congress will, in accordance with the indignant voice of their whole constituency, refuse even a reading to the infamous treaty with England and Mexico.”

We point the reader’s attention to the first paragraph. –“What security have we that the Treaty “President Jones’ with Mexico) will not be ratified by the Texas Congress!” Indeed! What! Is not security enough that the Anglo-Americans of Texas, constituting nearly the whole population, are, according to the Courier itself, within a cery small fraction of unanimity? Can there be any danger that the Treaty will be ratified when this is the case? Will the Congress of Texas so grossly misrepresent its constituency? Or is the object of the Courier to insinuate remotely, that they are purchaseable, and may yield to the temptation of British Gold? We can in no other way reconcile the first paragraph we quote from the Courier and the two which follow it; its assertion of the unanimous desire of the People of Texas for annexation, and its evident fright lest the Representatives of that unanimous people, may ratify Jones’ Treaty, defeat their will, and defeat the darling Scheme of Annexation.

Our persuasion is, that the Courier has secret information which does not disclose, and that the information renders the ratification of Jones’ Treaty, and the consequent defeat of Annexation, highly probable, by the Congress of Texas: We have little question either that a reaction has taken place against Annexation in Texas; for we cannot believe that, if the People were unanimous, as is represented, in favor of it, the People’s Representatives would dare to oppose it. The supposition of the employment of the bribery would not explain the Phenomenon. Bribery is for the few not for the many: Nobody ever heard of a whole Congress being bribed. It the Treaty is ratified and annexation rejected, we may feel quite confident that such is the will of the people of Texas, though certainly not the wish of the Courier of its Texas allies in this country. The recognition of Texan Independence by Mexico vitally changes the whole aspect of the question, and safely and Liberty secured, the warmest advocates of annexation in Texas might very consistently change their ground. The Congress of Texas meets the day after tomorrow, and we shall soon know the result. It appears certain from the language of Gov. Jones’ Official, that a Treaty with Mexico has been negotiated, and that it will be laid before the Congress of Texas by the same message which communicates the Joint Resolutions from the United States.

June 17, 1845, RWv22i48p1c2, Peace or War

The Cincinnati Gazette wisely says:

“Let us, on this question of peace or war, wave all minor matters. The Union need not fear the loyalty of any party, if conflict comes with any foreign nation. Americans will be Americans in that hour. Oppose its coming –regret it –dread it –all this may be with a portion of them. But there will be no fear –no division, when the hour is; we shall all move together no one man –as a party. –Nor should the Union trouble itself about the London Times. That Journal neither sways the British Public, nor speaks for the British Ministry. And if it did both, the Official misunderstands the real drift of its articles about Mexico, if we read them aright.”

Yes, and many of the most forward and clamorous for war now, will then leave those to fight its battles whim they stigmatize now as the “British party,” because they will not consent to put rapacity and cupidity before national justice and national honor, while they remain home!

June 17, 1845, RWv22i48p3c3, From Texas

By arrival of the steamship New York, Captain Wright, we have received our files of Texas papers to the 2d inst, inclusive. They do not contain any intelligence of the moment. The Galveston News comments at great length and with much severity upon the presumed machinations of President Jones, Mr. Smith and “the man with the white hat,” to defeat annexation by a triple alliance with England and Mexico. The Telegraph, which is said to be in the confidence of Jones, declares that the functionary “has made no proposals to Mexico and authorized the messenger to proceed to Mexico with proposals,” and suggests that all these negotiations have originated in fraud, and a forgery of the great seal of the Republic. This extraordinary explanation will find few persons credulous enough to swallow it more especially as Capt. Elliott had reached Galveston in a French sloop of war, from Vera Cruz, and proceeded on to the seat of Government, bearing with him the propositions from Mexico, acknowledging the independence of Texas. We have no doubt that the whole of this deep and dark intrigue will be defeated by the people of Texas.

The western countries of Texas are opposed to the Convention, and consider the power of Congress ample and plenary on the subject of annexation. A meeting had been held at Bastrop, presided by General Burleson, and a series of resolutions adopted denouncing Jones; proclamation as dictatorial, and designed to frustrate the anticipated action of Congress.

The crops of Texas corn, cotton, sugar and tobacco are represented as flourishing. The cotton is, however, some what infested by the coco grass.

We regret to learn that on Saturday evening last, Mr. Wells, the splendid Dancer, and the principal Musician of the Theatre, while bathing in the Gulf, was attacked by some unknown species of fish, supposed to be a Shark, his side cut and much bruised and two ribs broken. He is now confined to his room under the attendance of Dr. Carper. This is to be more regretted, for not only the accident and the pecuniary loss, which will fall on his gentleman, but that the Theatre for a time, will be deprived of his valuable services. Mr. W., we learn, is mending.

June 20, 1845, RWv22i49p1c2, Late From Mexico

The Mexican steamer Neptune, Captain Parkinson, arrived at Charleston on Thursday, it’s the short run of three days from Havana. This vessel is bound for New York but . . . [illegible] . . . into Charleston for a supply of fuel.

Capt. Parkinson states that British mail steamer Medway arrived at Havana on the 7th, instant from Vera Cruz, which ort she left on the 1st, having on board as passengers General Santa Ana, Lady, and Family, who had been banished from the Mexican territories. They were to proceed to Venezuela. The British mail steamer Deealou arrived at Havana on the 7th instant, with General Bustamente on board, on his way to Mexico.

No particulars are given as to the course pursued by the Mexican Government in banishing Santa Ana, but Captain P. understood that the decree presented an absence of ten years, that his private property was respected; that he had with him a large amount of money and was in good personal health.

In one of the Havana papers it is recorded that the French Legation had been insulted in the streets of Vera Cruz just previous to the sailing of the Medway, and that the Minister had demanded from the Mexican Government immediate reparation for the indignity offered, or the alternative of furnishing him with his passports.

It is stated that all anticipations of war between the United States and Mexico had subsided; and a strong practical evidence that such was the case (says the Charleston Courier) is the fact that the Neptuna, the property of Mexicans, had been ordered to New York to refit, which would of course, not have been done if the owners were apprehensive of such an event.-Nat. Int.

June 27, 1845, RWv22i51p1c3, Banishment of Santa Anna


Banishment of Generals Santa Ana and Canalizo,and the ex-ministers arrival at Havana of Santa Ana and Bustamente-the French legation assaulted by Mexcicans.

By the brig Tiri arrived at this port yesterday, we have received files of Mexican papers to the 27th, ult.

The English steamship Medway arrived at Havana in 4 days from Vera Cruz and Tampico, with Gen. Santa Ana on board; who had obtained permission to banish himself from Mexico. On the same day, and almost at the same hour of is arrival, Bustamente, another ex-president, who had been wandering for many years an exile in foreign lands, arrived at Havana, in another steamship from Kingston, Jamaica.

The meeting of these two men in this manner is extraordinary, one going into banishment with his wife and children-the other returning from exile and on his way to his native shore.

We give below the news received by this arrival,which we copy freom the Courier of last evening:

The Spanish brig of war Habanero left Havana on the 28th.

These papers contain the amnesty, as follows:

Art. 1. Amnesty is accorded to all persons accused of political offences before the publication of this law with certain restrictions and exceptions.

Art 2. Those who take the benefit of the amnesty will preserve their grades both civil and military-but they shall not exercise any power, nor discharge any functions conferred upon them in consequence of the national movement, 6th Dec. 1844.

Art. 3. General Santa Ana is excepted from the benefit of this amnesty,unless he shall embark, in compliance with his own request, within the delay fixaed by the government and qui the territory of the republic, according to his abdication of the Presidency.

Art.4. General Canalizo and the ex-Minister Bassadre are also excepted in this amnesty, unless they shall within three days from the publicaton of this law apply to the tribunal charged to try them and engage to absent themselves from the republic for ten years.

Art.5. The preceding articles apply also to the ex-Ministers Crescentio Rejon, Manual Baronda, and Antonio de Haro Flamiriz; and if any of them have fled, the Government will point out the place where they shall reside.

Art.6. To each of the persons mentions in the three preceding articles, the republic will grand a pension equal to one half their pay in their employ before the 29th November, 1844. Any one of them shall be deprived of his pension who may quit the place of residence pointed out by the governments, and if he shall return to the soil of the republic, he shall be liable to the penalties of the laws.

Art.7. The foregoing six articles shall not dissolve (illegible) engagements before they quit the Republic, Generals Santa Anna and Canalizo and the four ex-ministers who signed the decree Nov. 29, 1844 shall establish their claims and satisfy those which may be brought against them.

The papers are silent on the subject of Texas, Mr. Shannon had arrived at Vera Cruz from Mexico. He was robbed and ill-treated on the road by a banditti.

The Mexican Congress was engaged in modifying the tariff.

The powers of the Executive to great with Texas were published as follows:

“The Congress authorize the Executive to receive the proposals of Texas to proceed to a definite arrangement, and conclude a treaty, suitable to the interest and honor of the republic-the same be submitted to the examination and sanction of Congress.”

Gen. Don Jose Juan Landero is appointed commander of the fortress of San Juan de Uloa.

A large manufactory of forged money was discovered at Mexico.

It was understood that the Department of California was restored to order. The troops sent by sea were not opposed in their landing.

The Vera Cruzano of the 18th ult., complains that there were hardly any merchant vessel in that port, and ascribes this circumstance to the expectation that the tariff will be amended, in consequence of which all orders were suspended. (N.O. Crescent City, June 18th.)

June 27, 1845, RWv22i51p1c3, Important from Texas

From the New Orleans Bee

By the arrival of the steam packet New York, Captain Wright, we have been put in possession of our files of Texas papers, to the 14th instant inclusive. They contain information of importance and interest. President Jones, after months of tortuous duplicity and hypocritical double dealing has boldly thrown off the mask, and virtually . . . [illegible] . . . has disgraceful overtures to Great Britain and Mexico. And his deadly hostility to Annexation. We cannot in the crowded state of our columns, comment upon this intelligence at the length we could desire, and must content ourselves for the present with a synopsis of the (illegible).

The Galveston News Extra, publishes a third proclamation of President Jones, preceded by a prolix preable, in which that worthy attempts to gloss over his conduct with the usual of a spurious patriotism. He begins thus:-

The executive is now enabled to declare to the people of Texas, the actual state of affairs with respect to Mexico, to the end that they might direct and dispose of them as they shall judge best for the honor and permanent interest of the Republic.

He then goes on to say that last summer he learned from credible sources that the Government of Mexico, was disposed to acknowledge the Independence of Texas, upon the understanding that Texas would maintain her separate existence that in March last the representatives of G. Britain and France jointly renewed the offer of their intermediation with Mexico for this purpose; that as they were unaccompanied by any entangling conditions, he could not consent to reject them, and therefore placed in the hands of their representatives statement of conditions preliminary to a treaty of peace. These conditions having been accepted by the Government of Mexico, through the friendly interposition of England and France, he deems it his duty to issue the following proclamation:

(The Proclamation will be found in another column)

Most of the papers that we have seen are excessively indignant at these developments, and even the most moderate, such as the Houston Telegraph, express and emphatic belief that the proposal of Nesico will be promptly rejected by Congress.

The election returns for the Convention were coming in fast. At Galveston, Col. Love and Richard Bache, were chosen. In Harris, (Houson) Messrs. Brashear, McGowan, and F. Moore are elected. In Montgomery, General Sam Houston, with four others, is chosen.

Captain Elliott is to remain at Galveston, to await the action of Congress on the proposals of the Mexican Government.

More Indian Murders:-We have learned with bitter regret, that the son of Mr. Hornsby and Mr. Atkinson, were murdered by Indians, near Austin, on Saturday last. The Indians came upon them while they were fishing in the river, and killed them with spears. The body of Mr. Atkinson was found on Monday morning, pierced with seven wounds. – Houston Telegraph 11th inst.:

Some specimens of Texas sugar have been manufactured by Mr. Mercer, a planter on the Colorado. With four hands he has this year raised 50,000 lbs. Most of it sold at eight cents a pound.

Colonel H. Kenney and Mr. Mann, arrived yesterday from Corpus Christi, by the Revenue . . . [illegible] . . . Alert. –The former gentleman has been elected from San Patricio to the convention, and the latter to Congress to fill the vacancy made buy the resignation of the Hon, S. L. Jones. We learn no important news by this arrival. The trade is rather dail. Colonel Kenney has lately been with a company within forty or fifty miles of the Rio Grande. He could obtain no more information of the reported concentration of troops upon the frontier. He, However, informs us that he has very late intelligence from Mutamoros by a person who left that city only seven days ago, on the 6th instant. All the inhabitants of that (illegible) city and of the neighboring . . . [illegible] . . . were required to perform (illegible) regularly. –To this government order there was no exception, as it embarrassed all classes of citizens. The probability is that the . . . [illegible] . . . order is enforced throughout the whole century of the Rio Grande. –Galvesion News, 14th

The crops along the Brazos are remarkable fine. The cotton will be open and fit for picking in July.

June 27, 1845, RWv22i51p2c1, The annexation of Texas


My Friends, -I had lately occasion to write to you on the subject of slavery, and I, now feel a desire (talking so deep as interest as I do in your political welfare) to write to you again on another not less important subject, -I mean the annexation of Texas to your republic –a measure which will not only extend, but perpetuate the sufferings of the negro race. Perhaps you will immediately reply, “What necessity for this, when both our Legislatures have already passed a bill for this great measure, and when it has been signed by the President, and when, therefore, it can neither be altered nor undone?” I know all this; but I deny that it is yet a perfect bill, for it wants the acceptance of the Texas Government and people. There may be a considerable interval of time before all the necessary arrangements for the object can be completed. This interval may be of great importance to you who hate this measure, as you may use it much to your advantage.

How do you know, in the first place, that the Texans will accept your offer? There is a very strong party in Texas who prefer a connection with England rather than with America. Texas may no so easily come in the American Union as you may imagine. Will there then be difficulties in the way besides? –no disputes, which it will take time to settle, before the object can be accomplished? I have heard of one case already which will occasion discussion. Some people In America think that the Union will not be safe if it be based only on the Resolutions of both Houses of the Legislature and signature of the President. Others think that it will be secure only by a Treaty. But will there be no other subjects for dispute where the interests of so many thousand are concerned? It will take time on the part of Texas also to determine how many new States are to be created, what are to be their boundaries, of which Maps are to be made, -and which of them, after many consultations of the inhabitants of Texas, are to be the Slave States, and which of them are to be free. In fact, there will be plenty of work beside, to be done by the Texans themselves, before annexation can take place. Again, are you sure that then Indians in the neighborhood of the Texan provinces, who know, to their cost, that Americans under no other character than that of money making of land, will not put a spoke in the wheel of such a union, and appeal to arms, rather than have such enemies of mankind in their neighborhood? Again, are you sure that Mexico will be a quiet spectator, and see her former province wrested from her, and not proclaim ware either against Texas or the United States? If she proclaims war against Texas, with what face can the American states justify themselves in the eyes of the civilized world for the part they have taken in drawing off Texas from Mexico? Again, are you sure that the Powers of Europe will not, somehow, or other, be dragged into the contest, and particularly when they see that the effect of victory on one side will only be aggrandizement, without any other result than to entail unparalleled miseries for ever upon a vast portion of this unoffending human race? Again, and lastly, will you my friends on the northern states, take no part yourselves against annexation, -give your neighbors of the south no trouble, but let them have their own way without a constitutional resistance to the measure? No; I believe you will rise as one man against it. You have been too long in chains to the south ever to wear them again, if am opportunity should ever occur of getting rid of them. Such an opportunity for asserting your own liberty appears to me to be at hand; and, as there may be (as I have just shown,) in carrying the measure, many obstacles in the way, many contingencies to rise up, all of which it will take time to meet, a sufficient interval of time will be given you, before the final settlement of the contemplated change, in which to make successful efforts to extricate yourselves from your present bondage.

That the northern states have been in bondage to the unprincipled slaveholding people of the south is a notorious fact. They have been robbed of their rights by the latter. They cannot make laws for the whole American community, as the south do; but must submit to the laws which the people of the south may choose to impose upon them, however cruel, however unjust, however revolting to their consciences. They have not a fair representation in Congress. This every American knows; and of this every American of the north bitterly complains. But how did this hateful –this abominable distinction as to privilege, arise! I will not tell you myself, lest I should be thought partial; I had rather it should come from some person of authority such for instance, as from Judge Stroud, an American judge. IN one of his books, published in Philadelphia in 1827, entitled A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery in the several States of the United States, we find the following passage: -“The equal representation of the states in the Senate, it will not be pretended, confers undue power upon the large non-slaveholding states. ON the contrary, this is known to be the result of a compromise, in which the interest of the small states only was consulted.” Again, page 155, he says: -“Politically speaking, a majority of the states would have been benefited had the same caution been observed with respect to the constitution which had been pursued in reference to the declaration of independence and the articles of confederation. This appointment of representatives among the several states was, however, a subject of such prominence as to claim the earliest attention of the convention. In an evil hour the important advantage was conceded to the slaveholding states of including within the enumeration of inhabitants, by which the ratio of representation was to be ascertained, three fifths of those who were held in slavery. For the surrender of right involved in this anomalous arrangement the large non holding states, such as New York and Pennsylvania, obtain not even a normal equivalent.” This unfair representation, then, unfair indeed to two such noble states as New York and Pennsylvania, (both situated at the north) arose, it appears, originally from a compromise, and not in the common ordinary way of doing business at conventions; but, as the judge does not say much to us of the nature of this compromise, or how it was carried on, or of the names of the persons concerned in it, and as he mentions it with disapprobation, and as a hard, unjust transaction, calling it an evil hour in which it was brought forth, we may conclude that some, and not a little, intrigue was practiced on the occasion, and that the superiority of the south over the north in point of representation was obtained only by base means of kindred alliance with the character of slavery. I never yet saw an American from the north who did not speak of this compromise in the most angry and bitter terms, and as a source at times of considerable uneasiness, vexation, and even suffering. A this very hour a master has a cote for every three slaves out of five, and this was a part of the compromise.

But is it really true that this compromise has been attended with such vexatious effects? I repeat, that it is true. I assert, that the good people of the north cannot even now mention it but with some indignation, for they may be said to feel it daily. Some one circumstance or another is frequently rising up which puts them in mind of their degradation. In the first place, every sacrifice is made by Congress to uphold the Slave-holding interests of the South in preference to any other interest. If the People of the North have a point to carry, however beneficial to the country at large, yet, if it meddles in the least with Slavery, they are sure to be outvoted; and if the People of Planter of the South have in their turn a point to carry, however cruel and unjust, or however contrary it may be to their consciences, and even to the Laws of God, it is sure to pass into a law. But this superiority of the South over the North as it relates to the number of cotes, is often very vexatious and harassing to the subject in bills or acts of Congress, where personal liberty is concerned. A few years ago conversation in America was directed more than usually to the wickedness of Slavery, so that it could not escape observation as a common topic. Upon this the Planters were . . . [illegible] . . . and it was resolved that the evil taking was so vitally detrimental to the interests of the south that it should be immediately stopped; but how was this to be accomplished? And now I have to record an instance of audacity in the American Congress not paralleled in the representative history of the world. Congress resolved that the inhabitants of the whole of the United States should be tongue-tied. What did they forget their duty as representatives of a land of which they boasted as the more free in the whole world? Did they not as once think that they were invading by such a measure of the liberties of the people? No; no such thought ever once came over their minds. Whatever the outrage might be, a sacrifice must be made for the good of the south. The consequence was that they passed what were called the gagging bills. The people were denied the liberty of speech as to any censer upon slavery, and the postmasters in all the towns of the different states were enabled and commanded to open all suspected letters and parcels, and to make their contents known. And breach of this law was accompanied with penalties. In short, every thing was done, both as far as speaking and writing were concerned, that not a murmur against slavery might transpire, and that slavery might go on uninterruptedly, and with all its miseries and norrors, without a censure or reproach. This act of Congress was only worthy of the Sultan at Constantinople, or the Emperor of Morocco, the lives of whose subjects, such is their degradation, are entirely at their command. What would have been said by the Americans if the Parliament of England had done such a thing? I know what the people of England would have done on such an occasion. They would have raised their voices as one man against it. Indeed, I cannot anticipate what would have been the consequence. An instance occurred only a few months ago of a member of the English Cabinet, high in office, opening a letter to a foreigner in London. This happened to be discovered. Both houses of Parliament rang almost immediately with disapprobation of the deed. Week after week the subject was resumed in the House of Commons, as if no mercy was to be shown to the delinquent. All the London papers as well as the provincial joined in the outery, and the whole population was in a terment. I trust that this expression of utmost universal indignation will operate as a warning to hose, however high in office, who may think of making an attempt of the same sort again. And here let it be noted, that all this ferment was occasioned by the opening of the letter of a foreigner; whereas Congress gave an unlimited power to the postmasters to open all suspected letter and parcels (which might amount to some thousands in the year) and tongue-tied all the population besides. The ferment, though it continued for many months, has but just now subsided.

Let me mention another instance where the people of the northern States had reason to be dissatisfied with the people of the south, and where they could not help themselves. Congress, at the instigation of the planters, made war upon certain of the Indians, whole tribes of whom were exterminated during the contest, merely upon the plea that their lands were too near to the American plantations of the south, and that these plantations might be disturbed ast some time or other, and, at any rate, that they might afford a hiding place of place of refuge for fugitive slaves. A great majority of the people of the north, as religious men, deprecated this war. It was founded on a mere supposition of injury. They contended that this proximity of the two lands was not the fault of the Indians. Congress had sold land to those who would buy it. They who bought it were anxious to settle it as soon as they could. This one plantation after another rose up, and this so rapidly, that in a few years the new plantations of the settlers came near to the Indian frontier. The Indians, therefore, were not to be blamed for this, but they did not advance upon the settlers, but stayed at home, and the settlers advanced upon them. They contended, again, that as the war was not undertaken on their account, but wholly on account of the slaveholders of the south, they ought not to share in the burden of the expenses of it. –Now, what was the answer which the southern members in Congress gave to those remonstrances? An answer worthy of slaveholders, -“that a civilized people, inhabiting any country, had a right to . . . [illegible] . . . of their land, if residing on it, or in the neighborhood, because soon people did no good to themselves or to others.” I should like to know which were the barbarians, the Congress or the Indians? We see in these two instances, as I have observed before, without mentioning others, that everything was to be sacrificed so the slaveholding interests, and that the compromise before mentioned, obtained originally in an evil hour, rendered the people of the north helpless as to any opposition to the south, however, unjust the measures of the latter might be. Is it not a gralling matter, a matter of constant irritation to the former, living under the same Government, and as good subjects as the latter, to feel as they are to obey laws which their conscience disapprove, and to feel, moreover, that they have no hope of an ameliorated system? –for slavery has been so firmly riveted and ramified into the customs of the state by the machinations of the Legislature, first suggested by the planters, that nothing but the abolition of slavery itself can give any hope of reformation. No man is chosen to take office under the Government (and how many hundred public offices are there in the United States) who does not pledge himself by an oath that he will take up and secure every fugitive slave he may meet with, that he may be returned to his master, even though such a return in prohibited by the law of God. The consequences of such a law has been, that some of the best magistrates in the land give up every year their offices, not being able to reconcile this injunction to their consciences and the laws of God. Thus every thing is done by a slaveholding Government to uphold slavery. If a door is left open to public emolument, a man is thrust in who is made to change his views with respect to slavery, and to swell the suffrages of the southern free-holders.

But will the good people of the north consent to live under the chains of the south forever? Will they consent to have no will of their own in legislation? Will they be any longer the degraded gaolers of the south for all their fugitive slaves? Will they be pleased with any more gagging bills? If they submit to this, then they must be content with their present degraded constitution. But will they be better off if Texas should be annexed to their republic? No. If Texas should bring with her into the union a number of new slave states, and two representatives should be allowed to each, as is proposed, then the number of votes hostile to the north would be increased, so that the people of the northern states would have no hope whatever, from their votes, of a change in their political condition. Their chains would be only riveted the faster, for they would still have a slaveholding Cabinet, and a slaveholding Congress, and their enemies would be more numerous than before. Now what good is to be expected from such men as these, as to an upright administration of the affairs of state? Men of hardened hearts, men daily familiar with cruelty and injustice, men who act on the principle of expediency, instead of that of honor and honesty, and who appear to have no fear of God before their eyes. The people of the north have already seen such men in office to their cost; and will such men lose their habits the less because they are more in number than formerly? There is no hope then of an amelioration of the representation if Texas should be added to the union, and this is what the northern states what, and all they want.

And now, my friends of the North, suffer me from the love I bear to you, and as a long-tried and uncompromising enemy to slavery, to give you my advice at this particular crisis. I have already told you that a considerable interval of time must elapse before the negotiations to bring about the annexation of Texas can be finished, and I have told you also that you ought to use that interval with all your energies, in case the union of Texas with your republic should be resolve upon –I repeat, to use all your energies to shake off the yoke under which you have so long groaned. Well, then, an opportunity now occurs for your so using it, which will never occur again. You are going to have a change in your constitution; that is, you are going to have a newly-created Congress, constituting of Americans, as before, and Texans mixed, the latter of whom are foreigners. It will perhaps be said that there can be no violation of the Constitution in creating such a Congress. I have to say in reply, that, if I am properly informed, it is a violation of the present law of right to citizenship, which is a part of the present constitution. I have always understood that if a foreigner marries an American woman, he becomes an American citizen, and that residence for a certain length of time in the United States entitles him to the same right; but here are people clearly all foreigners, and no one of whom probably ever resided in the country for perhaps a day, made citizens at once. The old constitution never contemplated such a change, nor does any law now existing sanction it. The vote of Congress for annexation is therefore an innovation, as far as right to citizenship is concerned; and Congress, I apprehend, must make a new law for purpose, or annexation will not be valid.

I would advise you, then my friends, at every next meeting of the Congress, to prepare a petition to that body from the whole of the inhabitants of the northern states, stating first, that as they (the Congress) are going to make a change in the constitution of the United States, by receiving foreigners into the union, they would take the case of the north into consideration, and grant them an equal representation with the people of the south.

2. That some of the laws of the south now in force are so repugnant to the consciences of those in the north, that they cannot give their support.

3. That is was naturally expected that when the Convention came to deliberate on the great question of representation; the people of the north would have been allowed equal rights with the people of the south; but this expectation was defeated by a compromise begun and carried on by intrigue, and that the petitioners therefore beg leave to demand restoration of those rights which they were so unjustly deprived.

4. That any change or innovation of the constitution of the United States to suit the annexation of Texas would be less of an innovation than that of an alteration in the representative system, because such an alteration is only a restoration to a natural right.

Having now given you my idea of the sort of petition, leading you to use your own words and ideas, I recommend that this letter of mine should be extensively circulated in the northern states, and directed to such persons as are most estemed by their fellow citizens for their judgement and the integrity of their character; and if it should appeal by their answers that a great majority are favorable to the views it contains, then take measures to get it signed, and to appoint a most respectable depuation to present it to Congress to introduce and argue the matter there.

I do not think at present that I should add anything more to the petition. After the petition has been read and commented upon, you will know the mind of Congress as well as who are your friends and who your opponents, and judge accordingly. It will be quite time after this to resolve what to do. If it be found that it is the will of a great majority of the people of the north that there should be a separation into the two states, you will act accordingly; but at any rate it will be more handsome to begin the amelioration you wish for in this than any other manner.

Playford-hall, near Ispwich, April 26.


June 27, 1845, RWv22i51p4c2, Very late from Mexico

–The bark Anahuac, Capt. Wilson, arrived this morning in 22 days from Vera Cruz. Governor Shannon, our late Minister to Mexico, came passenger in her.

Capt. Wilson, with Mr. Shannon and his passengers and letter bag, came up this morning in the eight o’clock boat from Quarantine. The political condition of things was very unsettled. It was the general belief that there would be another revolution in Mexico. The Government was very poor, and unable to pay the Army or Navy with any degree of promptness. The general belief among all classes in Mexico, was that Texas would not accept the terms offered by the congress of the United States, and that consequently the country would not be annexed. There was a very hustle feeling against Americans, and the people believed that, should Texas be annexed, a declaration of war would follow. –N. Y. Express. [BJM]

The information on this site is intended for personal, non-profit, and/or educational purposes only.

VT Logo | Department of History | Site Map | Contact Us |
©2005 Linda Arnold