The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1843-12-04

But let US examine the ground upon which
this constitutional scruple Of Mr. Jefferson rest
ed. Il is merely "thst the limits Of the United
STATES are precisely fixed by the treaty Of lisa"
and that "the Constitution expressly declares
itself TO be made for the United Ststss."
Now, in point OF fact, the limits OF the United
States were not precisely fixed by the treaty OF
1873. The limits which that treaty intended
TO prescribe were not finally ascertsined and adj
jusled until the recent and last treaty with
Great Britain; and that treaty was the result OF
a compromise, in which we transferred por-
ton Of territory which we believed TO belong 10
as, and received, or dnnered, another portion
which we kneU did not belong TO us. The
limits, therefore, were actually fixed by disre-
garding the scruple which Mr.. Jefferson sug-
gests; and it is not believed that they ever could
have been fixed without disregarding it. This
Is sufficient 10 show how extremely inconven nj
emit, 10 say the least, such a scruple would have
been found in practice.
But, though we have the utmost respect fol
every suggestion of MIR. Jefferson, we do not un-
derstand upon wha, principle the treaty Of 1888
should have been considered as irrevocably fix
| ing the limits Of the United States, and depriv-
| ing the General Government of all power either
toa annex or ALLEVIATE territory, no matter how ur-
gent the necessity might be. The individuality
Of State does not alter, by increase or dmi-
mutton in the extent Of It's territory, any more
than that of an individual does, by changes
which take place ia his physical being. Would
We have allowed any foreign government to plead
in bar OF treaty, made with US prior to the ces-
sion Of Louisiana, that we were no longer
the United States of 1882 Would we our
selves have refused to conform, towards the
French Emperor, with stipulations entered into
with the French Republic And if the prnci-
pie is inadmissible between nations, why should
it be sound between People and their govern
ment? Has the acquisition of Louisiana and
Florida discharged the allegiance due from The
People of the United States TO their Govern
menl? II so, then any acquisition of territory,
no matter how smal-an important fortress con-
quered in war--a natural strong hold, likely, if
not retained, to subject us to endless expense,
trouble and danger, would have the same effect,
fol tn. principle does not depend upon the &c
tent Of territory acquired. We have as much
right to annex hundred thousand square miles
Of territory, as single acre.
But it is needless to pursue the inquiry how
far treaty made with a foreign power, should
restrict the sphere of action of our General
Government, in matters which have no bearing
on the slipulations of that treaty, nor affecting
any of the obligations imposed by ii: how far it
should restrict its power, to subject the country
to all the vicissi.udes of war, and TO prevent or
remedy those vcissitudes by making treaties.
The constilutonally of the annexation of
Louisiana and Florida has been acquiesced in
by men of all parties-Federalist and Demo
Gratis, Latitudinarians and Strict-constructon-
ists-aud, if we had not acquired those terri
tories by treaty, we should undoubtedly have
been compelled, before this, 10 take and keep
possession of them by force of arms. In fact,
the chief objection of the Federal party, in 1903,
to the acquisition Of Louisiana, was that it was
to be acquired peaceably, and not by force
They would have urged the country to wanton
and unnecessary war with France for the pos
session OF the territory and Mr.. Jefferson was
rebuked for his pusillanimous" disposition in
wishing TO negotiate for it. The following ex-
tracts from the Boston Centinel of 1903, will
show that the anglo-mania, which has Away.
characterized portion Of the Federal party,
would then have plunged the country into for
eign war in order 10 effect annexation, with as
little compunction as it would now foment dis
union and instigate civil war in order to prevent
annexation:
From the Boston Ceniinei June Is, 1903
Since the adoption of the Federal Constitution no
subject has more forcby affected the feelings of the
citizens Of the United States than the 'occlusion of
the port Of New Orleans by the Spanish (or French)
Government 1t is subject TO which the attention
of the reader cannot too frequently be called. The
President Of the United States has not hcstated off.
cially TO declare that, by this measure "rghts the
most essential TO the welfare of the American Peo-
pie have been violated and nfracton OF the tire aty
committed without color or pretext:" the spirit OF
that people has been alive to the injury-and was
ready to make any sacrifice to rcdess the wrong
but because the Federais in Congress felt the full
glow Of this spirit and took the lead in proposing the
necessary H. forciblel measures to give it efficacy
rather than they should derive any honor from their
success, the administration having the power subs-
tuied pusillanmous negotiation, and degrading en-
treaty, for that spirit Of action which manly resent
men for violated rights and broken faith, so loudly
and so justly called for.
From the SAM, July q 1909
The question will ever be " az the mode of octtino
the territory the best the cheapest the honora
bic for the pstion' is the way Of negotiating cash
in hand q. cheap or honorable as that Mr.. Ross re-
We could have had it for nothing.
From the same, August l3, 1903.
Like true spaniels, we are the most servie 10
those who most insult US. We receive back our
night as great favor, and pay tribute for that
which the despoiler could no longer Withhold
the free navigation Of the Mississippi, and