The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-12-07

sion Of Texas would be consequence 10 the
United States" This is not tue, literally or in
spirit. We endezvored to show the necessify--
the absolute necessity--ofthe possession Of Tex
as, if there were good grounds for believing iha,
Great Britain entertained the designs ascribed
to her. What is necessary must, Of course be
highly convenient: but the object Of the intelli-
gencer was 10 pervert our meaning, as much as
II II had accused US of desiring Texas as an OF
namenia appe ndage--a sort Of National pleasure
ground.
Some persons had supposed that what is
now Texas formed properly part Of Louisi-
ana" This, again, is perversion OF the truth.
The editor of the lnlelliyencer can learn from
Mr. Adams, in few minutes, if he please, tina,
our title to what is now called Texas was com
pletely made out-demonstraled as clearly as any
proposition in Euclid. |, was no more suppo.
silion than il is a surmse that two and two
make four.
THAT there is some reason to suppose that
the British Government is disposed, &C." The
reason for the superstition 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, shy
urging the negotiations, as well as by ev,ry
other means in its power" in endeavoring TO
carry its disposition into effect. Are we not TO
credit their own avowals of their earnest DISPOSE
ton?
Such, it appears, is (" the substance" of our
arguments: we think il would be convenient to
annex Texas, because some persons had some
reason TO suppose that The British Government
was disposed to propose, &c &c. Truly very
candid summing up
Aud now &c The unanswerable arguments
per contra of the Intelligencer.
The argument of convenience would with
equal force justify proposition to annex Can
ada" That is, our Southern States would be in
no more danger from a British colony of whites
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-acquisilion Of Texas.
aft 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 inf
niIely more right, as well as reason, than the
British had to lombard Copenhagen, OF the
Christian Powers of Europe TO destroy the
Turkish fleet at Navarino. The'right to object,
which we claim, rests upon the great law of
selt-preservaiion. According to the views Of
the lntelligencer, we have no right 10 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
jurisls, even then we mast be very choice and
delicate in the language of our circumstances.
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
menls as may seem necessary, and enable its
readers to draw their own conclusions ? Why
quote one part of an editorial article of Texas
paper. and omit another, which essentially mo-
difed the meaning Of u2 Why make no allu-
sion whatever TO an editorial article IN the same
paper, of subsequent date, confirming the
worst suspicious Of the designs of the BRUSH
Government Why con6ne its present quota
tons TO a solitary New Orleans paper which
originally circulated the most aggravated charges
against President Houston, vouching 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 shelving that il had but doubtful claim TO
the character Of "a well informed and judcious
paper at New Oheansn2 Certainly no swell
informed and judicious paper" would move so
precipitately in two opposite directions, like a
locomotive on trial