The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-12-04

Bot let US examine the siouhu wy" ""'~
this constitutional scruple Of Mr.. Jefferson rest
ed. |, is merely shat the limits Of ihe Uoitsd
States arg precisely fixed By the treaty Of i7sS'"
and that 'sthe Constitution expressly declares
itself 10 be made FOR the United States"
Now. in point Of fact. the limits Of The United
States were not precisely fixed by The treaty OF
1853. The limits which that treaty intended
10 prescribe were not finally ascertsined aud ad-
iusted until the recent and last treaty with
Greal Britain aud thai treaty was the result oil
a compromise, in which We transferred pof-
lion Of territory which we believed to belong 10
US, and received, or annered, another portion
which we kner did not belong 10 US. The
limits, therefore, were actually fixed by disre-
gardng the scruple which Mr.. Jefferson sug-
sests; and il is NJ believed that they ever could
have been liked without disregarding II. This
Is sufficient 10 show how extremely inconvrni-
ent, TO say the least, such scruple would have
been found in practice.
But, though we have the utmost respect for
every suggestion Of Mr.. J .fierson, we do not un-
dersiand upon what principle the treaty OF 1888
saould have been considered as irrevocably fix
ing the limits Of the United States, and depriv-
ing the General Government Of all power either
10 annex or aiirnate territory, no matter how VI
gent the necessity might be. The individuality
of State does not alter, by increase or dimi-
mutton in tie extent Of its territory, any more
than thai Of an individual does, by changes
which take place in bis physical being. Would
we have allowed any foreign government plead
in bar OF treaty, made with us prior to the ces-
sion Of Louisiana, that we were no longer
the United States of 1888? Would we our
selves have refused TO conform, towards the
French Emperor, with stipula,ions entered into
with the French Republic And if the princi-
pie is inadmissitle between nations, why should
il be sound between People and their govern
menl2 Has the acquisition Of Lou;siana and
Florida discharged The allegiance due from the
People OF the United States 10 their Govern
menl? If so, then any acquisition of Territory,
no matter how .small-an important fortress con-
qucfed in war-a natural strong hold, likely, if
not retained, to subject US to endless expense,
trouble and danger, would have the same effect,
for tn, principle does not depend upon the err
tent OF territory acquired. We have as much
right to annex hundred thousand square miles
of territory, as single acre.
But il is needless TO pursue the inquiry how
far treaty made with foreign power, should
restrict the sphere of action of our General
Government, in matters which have no bearing
on the sipulations Of that treaty, nor affecting
any of the obligations imposed by il: how far it
should restrict its power, to subject the country
TO all the vcissitudes of war, and TO prevent or
remedy those vicissitudes, by making treaties.
The consttulionalily Of the annexation OF
Louisiana and Florida has been acquiesced in
by men Of all parties-Federalists and Demo
Gratis, Laliludinarians and Suct-construclion-
ists-and, if we had not acquired those terri
tories by treaty, we should undoubtedly have
been compelled, before this, TO take and keen
possession Of them by force of arms. In fact,
the cnIeT opJecuUn the rueraI parry, III Iovo,
to the acquisition Of Louisiana, was that il was
TO be acquired peaceably, and not by force
They would have urged the country to wanlon
and unnt cessary war with France for the DOS
session Of The territory and Mr.. Jefferson was
rebuked for his puslsnimous" disposition in
wishing TO negotiate for il. The following ex-
tracts from the Boston Centinel of 1903, will
show that the anglo-mania, which has always
characterized portion Of the Federal party,
would then have plunged The country into for
eign war IN order 10 enec, annexation, with as
little conjunction as il would now foment dis
union and iusigate civil war in order to prevent
annexation:
From the Boston Ce,,iinei June Is, 1909
Since the adoption Of the Federal Constitution no
subject has forcibly aicctedhc feelings of the
citizens Of the United States than the occusop of
the port Of New Orleans by the Spanish (or French)
Government II is subject to which the attention
Of the reader cannot too frequently be called The
President Of the United States has not hesitsted Off
cially to declare that by this measure, "rghs the
most essential 10 the welfare OF the American Pco-
pie have been violated and an nfraction OF the treaty
committed without color pretcxt:" the spirit of
that people has been alive to the iniury-and " as
ready TO make any sacrifice TO rcdess the wrong:
but because the Federaliss in Congress felt the full
glow Of this spirit and took The lead in proposing the
necessary H. e. forciblel measures to give II efficacy
rather than they should derive any honor from their
success, the administration having the power, subst
tu'ed pusilanimous negotiation, and degrading en-
treaty for that spirit Of action which manly resent,
ment for violated rights and broken faith, so loudly
and so justly called for.
From 0ie sam :, July 2, 1893.
The question viii ever be, The mode OF getting
the territory the best the cheapest the most honors-
bic for the nation Is the way of negotiating cash
In hand as cheap or honorable INA, MR.. NUS re-
commended' We could have had j, for nothing.
From The same, august 10, 1903
Like true spaniels, we are the most servile TO
those who most insult us. We receive back our