Mexican-American War and the Media

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 8^th 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

RWv22i27p2c1 April 4, 1845 HON. CALEB CUSHING’S LETTER ON TEXAS
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

RW45v22i35p1c1, May 2, 1845 THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.
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.

RW45v22i35p1c5, May 2, 1845 THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND – WAR OR PEACE?
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.
Illegible.

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.

RW45v22i36p2c3, May 6, 1845 DEMOCRATIC DEMONSTRATIONS
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.

RW45v22i37p2c5, May 9, 1845 ARRIVAL OF HIBERNIA 14 DAYS LATER FROM EUROPE
From New York Express latest news from England.

RW45v22i38p1c1, May 13, 1845 TEXAS, IOWA, AND FLORIDA IN THE UNITED STATES
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.

RW45v22i38p1c5, May 13, 1845 THE OREGON DIFFICULTY AND INCREASE OF OUR NAVY.
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.

RW45v22i38p2c3, May 13, 1845 MR. CALHOUN’S VIEWS ON THE OREGON QUESTION.
Views have not changed since his speech in 1843.

RW45v22i38p2c5, May 13, 1845 THE OREGON QUESTION – VIEWS OF MR CALHOUN.
Excerpts from his 1843 speech to the senate.

RW45v22i39p1c1, May 16, 1845 BRITISH VIEWS OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS.
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.

RW45v22i39p1c2, May 16, 1845 THE MISSION TO ENGLAND - THREE REFUSALS
A more detailed history of the difficulty in finding a minister.

RW45v22i39p1c5, May 16, 1845 DON’T BE TOO GRASPING! CONFINE YOURSELVES TO PROPER LIMITS!
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.

RW45v22i40p2c4, May 20, 1845 GENERAL GAINES AND HIS FLOATING BATTERIES.
War with England should carry with it the Generals continuation of his hobby

RW45v22i40p2c5, May 20, 1845 SAM HOUSTON’S VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES.
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.

June

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

January

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.
[LLS]

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 21^st inst. Nearly 400 emigrants from Bremen had arrived at Galveston within a few days.

The Gazette of the 1^st 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
[LLS]

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.

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

RWv22i1 p2c4 Jan. 3, 1845

“TEXAS,”

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.
[LLS]

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 7^th 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 1^st of December, but on the 6^th 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.
[LLS]

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!

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

RWv22i2 p1c4 Jan. 7, 1845

“FROM WASHINGTON,”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i2 p1c4 Jan. 7, 1845

“MEXICO,”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i2 p1c6 Jan. 7, 1845

“CONGRESS, PROCEEDINGS OF TODAY,”

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

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 ********

MEMORIAL AGAINST ANNEXATION AND SLAVERY.

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.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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.

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS

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.
[LLS]

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 8^th 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.

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

RWv22i2 p4c5 Jan. 7, 1845

Keyword: Rebellion in Mexico against Santa Ana

From the N. Y. Courier & Enquirer

FROM MEXICO AND CHINA – The bark Eugenia, Captain Biscoe, arrived yesterday morning at this port from Vera Cruz which she left on the 12^th 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 28^th 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 12^th 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 6^th 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 6^th 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 6^th 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 7^th of November at the head of 8500 men, crossed rapidly the Department of Puebla, where he received some additional troops, and on the 18^th 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 29^th and 30^th 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 1^st 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 6^th) 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. 12^th] 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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3 p1c1 Jan 10, 1845

“TEXAS,”

“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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3p1c2, Jan. 10, 1845

[letter]

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

FELLOW CITIZENS:

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,

W. L. COGGIN
WASHINGTON CITY, JANUARY 1, 1845

[LLS]

RWv22i3 p2c1 Jan. 10, 1845

“REVOLUTION IN MEXICO AND FALL OF SANTA ANA!”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3 p1c5 Jan 10, 1845

“ANNEXATION,”

“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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3p2c3, January 10, 1845

“TEXAS IN VIRGINIA”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3 p2c3 January 10, 1845

Wednesday, Jan. 8^th, 1845

SENATE (of Virginia), Session of

Excerpt:

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3p2c3, January 10, 1845

“’ANNEXATION’ AGAIN.”

“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.

LILBURNE.”

[LLS]

RWv22i3p2c4, January 10, 1845

Correspondence of the Whig. (Il Secretario)

WASHINGTON, January 8^th, 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?

IL SECRETARIO.

[LLS]

RWv22i3 p1c6 Jan. 10, vol. 22

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, (United States),

Excerpt:

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3 p2c6 Jan. 10, 1845, vol. 22

House of Representatives, the “State” of Texas,

Excerpts:

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 4^th 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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3 p2c6 Jan. 10, 1845

“From Texas,”

By the arrival of the Steamer Republic we have received our files of Texas papers to the 28^th 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.
[LLS]

RWv22i3p4c2, January 10, 1845

“HIGHLY IMPORTANT FROM MEXICO.OVERTHROW OF SANTA ANA. FORMATION OF A NEW GOVERNMENT.”

From the N. O. Bee

On Saturday the schooner Ventura from Vera Cruz arrived in our port bringing dates from that city to the 13^th inst., and from Mexico to the 9^th. 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,

JOSE J. DE HERRERA.

Mexico, December 6^th, 1844.

On the 7^th 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, 11^th 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 29^th 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 9^th, 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.
[LLS]

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.”
[LLS]

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?”
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

Jan. 17, 1845, RWv22i5p1c2

“Texas,”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i6p1c3, January 21, 1845

“MR. BRINKERHOFF”

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.”
[LLS]

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. 1^st,. 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

ANDREW JACKSON”.

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?
[LLS]

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!

[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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!
[LLS]

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.

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p1c6

“Mexico,”

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; 1^st, 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.
[LLS]

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 7^th 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 4^th, 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 19^th, 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 27^th 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
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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

[LLS]

Jan. 21, 1845, RWv22i6p4c5

“Mexico,”

The department of Tabasco has pronounced against Santa Ana’s Government. On the 9^th 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 6^th of December. This letter is a reply to a dispatch addressed to Santa Ana by Canalizo, and dated the 4^th. 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 8^th 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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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 4^th March: But there is supposed to be decided majority against annexation, by legislation in any shape, in not by treaty, too.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i8p2c1, January 28, 1845

“FROM MEXICO – LATE AND IMPORTANT”

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 27^th 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 25^th 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 28^th, 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 25^th 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 18^th 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 6^th 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 21^st 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 17^th 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 25^th 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 17^th 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 27^th, 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 27^th 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 25^th 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 25^th 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 16^th 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 1^st inst., brought nothing from the capital. Letters from Puebla, date the 29^th 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.
[LLS]

February

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 27^th, 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.”
[LLS]

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 1^st 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!
[LLS]

Feb. 4, 1845, RWv22i10p1c6

Keyword: constitutional argument

To the Editors of the Whig:

Messrs. Editors – I read in your daily paper of the 28^th 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 15^th 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 15^th 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 4^th 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)

[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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 [ . . . ].

IL SECRETARIO.

[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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!
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.

Texas:

“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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

Feb. 7, 1845, RWv22i11p4c6

“From Texas,”

We learn from Capt. Peterson, of the brig Najade, arrived from Vera Cruz, sailed 6^th 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
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.

- OVID

[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

Feb. 11, 1845, RWv22i12p1c2

“Later from Mexico,”

The brig R. de Zaldo, at New York, sailed from Vera Cruz on the 14^th 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 12^th 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.
ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANA

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.
[LLS]

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:

“COL. BENTON’S BILL”

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.
[LLS]

March

RWv22i18p1c1, Mar. 4, 1845

“TEXAS PASSES THE SENATE!”

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 ACTION OF THE SENATE

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:

JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXING TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES.

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i18p1c2, March 4, 1845

“FEU DE JOIE FOR TEXAS!

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!
[LLS]

RWv22i18p1c2, March 4, 1845

[Correspondence of the Whig]

WASHINGTON, 27^th 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.

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

RWv22i18p1c4, March 4, 1845

“TEXAS IN THE SENATE!”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i18p1c4, March 4, 1845

“TEXAS IN THE HOUSE!”

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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i18p2c4, March 4, 1845

“MR. NEWTON”

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.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i18p2c4, March 4, 1845

“JEREMIAH MORTON, ESQ.”

This gentleman’s second address to the People of the 9^th 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.
[LLS]

RWv22i18p2c5, March 4, 1845

“CORRESPONDENCE OF THE WHIG”

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.

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

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.,

Yours,
A DEMOCRAT.

[LLS]

RWv22i19p1c7, March 7, 1845

“MEXICO”

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

Mr. Gomez [ . . . ] arrived at Vera Cruz on the 11^th 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 7^th, 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
[LLS]

RWv22i19p2c3, March 7, 1845

“DESPATCHES TO TEXAS.”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i19p2c4, March 7, 1845

“TYLER!”

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.”
[LLS]

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.”
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i19p2c5-6, March 7, 1845

“FROM MEXICO.”

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 10^th and from Vera Cruz to the 14^th 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 8^th 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.
[LLS]

RWv22i19p4c2-3, March 7, 1845

“TO THE WHIGS OF THE 9^th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.”

In the Whig of the 25^th 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.

JEREMIAH MORTON.

The Richmond papers, the Alexandria Gazette, and the papers of the 9^th Congressional District, are politely requested to copy.
[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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.

IL SECRETARIO

[LLS]

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.
[LLS]

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?

CHESTERFIELD

[LLS]

RWv22i21p2c2, March 14, 1845

“THE LATE ACTING PRESIDENT,”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i21p2c5, March 14, 1845

“MEXICO”

By brig Abiano, we have received Mexican papers up to 12^th February.

Santa Ana was to be tried on the 24^th 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.
[LLS]

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:

1^st. 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 1^st 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!

SHOCKOE.
Richmond, March 15, ’45.

[LLS]

RWv22i22p1c5, March 18, 1845

“WILLIAM C. RIVES.”

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i22p2c3, March 18, 1845

“MR. WILLOUGHBY NEWTON.”

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,
WILLOUGHBY NEWTON.”

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!
[LLS]

RWv22i22p2c5, March 18, 1845

“JNO. BOTTS.”

The Convention held on the 20^th 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.
[LLS]

RWv22i24 p1c1 March 25, 1845

MR. WILLOUGHBY NEWTON.

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."
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i24 p1c1 March 25, 1845

COMMENTARY.

"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.
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845

PUBLIC MEETING

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.
[LLS]

RWv22i24p2c5 March 25, 1845

Monday, March 24^th, 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.
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845

"MANY WHIGH VOTERS"—ANNEXATION—AND MR. LYONS.

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!
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845

ANNEXATION!

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!
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845

We give two articles of interest, from Texas papers:

FROM THE GALESTON CIVILIAN

"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.
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i24 p2c5 March 25, 1845

FROM THE (TEXAS) NATIONAL REGISTER.

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."

[JS-LLS]

RWv22i25 March 28, 1845

Wednesday Morning, March 28, 1845

CITY CANVASS – "DICTATION," &c., &c.

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!
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i25, p1c4, March 28, 1845

WHIG FEUDS IN THE CITY

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!
[JS-LLS]

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.
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i25, p2c4, March 28, 1845

THE MEETING WEDNESDAY NIGHT

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.
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i25p2c5 March 28, 1845

THOMAS RICHIE!

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.
[JS-LLS]

RWv22i25, p2c4, March 28, 1845

ONE WHO KNOWS

MR. WILLO

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