The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-11-28

Great Britain 10 colonize Texas, aud thaI on'
of,he main objects aud necessary results Oh ne'
colonization of il will be the abolition oil slave
~. the field of argument on the Texas question
viii be- very much abridged, aud the dispute
soon settled
But how would il better the case" con
tinues the writer, "to annex Texas 10 the oni-
ted States, and continue her slavery Would
not her population Of shareholders and SLAVES
come in contact with the free population OF
Mexico" The People of the South are album
dainty willing 10 encounter all the dangers IKE
ly TO result from contact with the free popula'
ton Of Mexico. They would infinitely prefer
that, TO the success of The inrigues OF the pow
erful government of Great Britain with nation
composed of our own brethren, speaking The
same language, and 20 sesslng the same inieli
gence aud spirit Of enterprise. To convert 'hen
into enemies, 10 free theis slaves and place them
in situation readily to communicate WIN ou'
slave population, would expose Us to The mos
obvious and imminent danger. But Mexico
with her debased aud mongrel population, noni'
nally free, but in reality more ensaved ana op'
pressed than our Southern negroes, would have
far more reason than Us 10 dread the consequent
ces Of too close neighborhooI.
We venture TO assert that the effect Of The
annexation of Texas, in merely opening "a
glorious marker for slaves, and encouraging the
breeding Of them, has never entered into The
calculations Of any Southern v Specu a.
lion on contingent profits is mol - quiek'witicd
in the South The objee, Of the soathern II, o.
pie is self-preservaton. and not commercial
gains of any kind. The writer says tina, the
South would care little "ior her agricultural III
terests, while she could have such a market toI
slaves" This shows strange degree OF igno-
rance. The agricultural interest, which is para
mount every whefc throughout the country,
could hardly be neglected with safety in The
South, which has neither commerce nor manu-
features. Ii would be a much more plausible
objection, TO urge in the South, that the annexa-
ton of Texas would tend 10 drain it OF its CAPT
tai aud laboring population, and thus diminish
the value Of land.
AS to tie remuneration Of Texas 10 Mexico,
an lnsupcfaUic ulIHCuty III the way vi IL "ou'u
be decided objection on the part of the People
OF Texas to that measure. Would the writer
have us assist Mexico, or would he have US
quietly look on while other nations assisted her,
in reconquering her former province? This
would be asking rather too much, at least from
Southern paticace.
The right Of Mexico TO Texas cannot be ad-
miued by Us, who have recognised the i.depen-
dence of Texas, nor contend, for by the Bri-
fish Government, which has done the same
1t is not ncce ,sary for u, therefore, TO Obtain
the consent, either of Mexico or of Gfeat Bri-
tain, 10 the annexation of Texas TO this country.
Texas is an independent State, and she may do
with her territory what she pleases. If she
choo .es to make it theatre for the operations
Of the British Government against slavery in
this county, it viii not, perhaps. be a drecl in
fraction OF the law OF rations; but it would be
a blow so obviously directed against the wei
fare, integrity and existence of our Union as 10
authorize resort TO the great law Of self preser-
walton, and justify US in enec,ing the anncxa-
self" and Obtaining as good tile rs the Span
iards, through whom The Mexicans claim, bad 10
the empire Of the Az,ecs, or the domnions Of
unfortunate Montezuma.