The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1843-12-08


ana" This, again, is perversion OF the truth
The editor of the Intelligencer can learn iron
Mr.. Adams, in few minutes, ifhe please ina
our title to what is now called Texas was com
| pletely made Out-demonstrated as clearly as any
proposition in Euclid. II was no more suppo
silion than il is surmise that TWO and twt
make four.
"That there is some reason TO suppose ina
the Brush Government is disposed, &C." The
reason for the supposition is the explicit avow-
al made in Parliament by the British Minister
of Foreign Affairs, that the Government was not
only SO disposed, but was actually engaged, "by
urging the negotiations, as well as by every
other means in its power" in endeavoring to
carry its disposition into effect. Are we not to
credit their own avowals oftheir earnest DISPOSE
tiOn2
Such, it appears, is /" the substance" OF our
arguments: we think il would be convenient TO
annex TEXAS. because some persons had sonas
reason 10 suppose ,,as,he British Governnest
was disposed 10 propose,A &C SC. Truly very
,s~ss.ss~ow IsssTisr lnsnsHtssbls 4arguirs a's
per co,tsru Of the Intelligencer.
The argument Of convenience would with
equal force justify proposition to 'aDnex' Can
ada" That is, our Southern States would be In
no more danger from British colony ofwhites
and free negroes in Texas, than our Northern
States are in from their vicinity to Canada.
And this is an argument addressed 10 the grown
up readers of the Intelligencer.
The treaty of 1919 between France and Spain
conveyed away our right to Texas This may
be granted but the argument has nothing what
ever to do with the grounds upon which we
have urged the re-acquisition of Texas.
"If the people of Texas choose to abolish sla-
very in their territory, the Government OF the
United States has no right to object to IT," We
should have no right, perhaps under the strict
law of nations; although, we should have lnf-
ni,ely more right, as well as reason, than the
British had to lombard Copenhagen, or the
Christian Powers of Europe TO destroy the
tn kl,h feet at Navarino. The right to object
which we claim, rests upon the great law OF
According to the views Of
the Intelligencer, we have no right TO object to
any means which other Governments may de-
wise for comprising our destruction, provided
that they keep within the limits of the law: and
if they should happen to transcend them, accord
ing to The admission of their own statesmen and
jurists, even then we must be very choice and
delicate in the language of our remonstrances.
"There is not only no evidence of any such
design on the part of Great Britain, but all the
credible testimony on the subject is directly in
the teeth of such an assumption" Then why
not produce all the evidence, with such COM
ments as may seem necessary, and enable It's
readers to draw their own conclusions Why
quote one part of an editorial article Of Texas
paper, and omit another, which essentially mo-
dified the meaning Of il? Why make no alIu-
sion whatever to an editorial article III the same
paper, of a subsequent date, confirming the
worst suspicious of the designs Of the British
Government Why con6ne its present quota
lions to solitary New Orleans paper which
originally circulated the most aggravated charges
against President Houston, vouchipg in the
strongest manner for the intelligence and respec-
liability of the authority upon which they were
made, and afterwards suddenly recan'ed them
and belied its esteemed correspondent in Texas
thus showing that il had but doubtful claim to
the character of "a well informed and judicious
paper at New Oreans"2 Certainly no "well
informed and judcous paper" would move so
in two opposite directions, like a
locomotive on trial