The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-10-28
MIR. ADAMS AND TEXAS.

We adverted some days ago 10 an Incenuiary
and reasonable address TO the People OF The
free States of the Union, put forth in May last
BY the Hon. John Quincy Adams, signed by
hnseIf and twelve of his representatives
--congenal spirits--in the late Congress. II
appears that the address, shortly after its first
publication, received the signatures Of eight
other members Of the same Congress and pro-
badly additional names have since been affixed
10 II.
The document is therefore Of some import
ance, partly from the fact that so many mer
possessire as a;sh. ..a influence IN their respec.
tive sections Of the country, have thus publicly
and solemnIy p0ged themselves TO dissolu-
ton Of the Union, in the event Of the adoption
OF measure which they are pleased 10 condemn
in advance Of any discussion Of il; and partly
because Mr.. Adams, the leader Of this move
meni, notwithstanding the doubts of his sanity
occasionally expressed, rather in jest than seri-
ously, has still large body Of admirers. who
entertain great reverence for his mental powers,
aud who believe that, however apparently ex-
uavagant he may be al times, he never delibe-
ratrly assumes position which is not logically
and legally unassailable.
We will recur, therefore, 10 the resolutions
offered by him in the House of Representa-
tives on tie 2Sth Of February last, which are in
the following words:
RESOLVED, That by the Constitution of the United
States no power 10 delegated to their Congress, 10
any department departments Of their Government,
to aix to this Union any foreign State the people
thereof
Resolved, That any attempt of the Government OF
the United States by act Of Congress by treaty
to annex to this Union the Republic of Texas, the
people thereof would be violation Of the Constitu.
ton of the United States null and void and to which
the free States Of this Union and their people ought
not to submit"
In the first Of these resolutions, which we pre-
sumo were carefully worded by so gsea, preci
sian in language, Mr.. Adams lays down the
PROPOSE ion that il would be unconstitutional "to
affiI 10 this Union any foreign State or the peo-
pie thereof" He does not affirm that ii would
be unconstitutional 10 annex territory to the
Union which, indeed, would be asserted with
81 ill-grace by the man who negotiated the
treaty annexing Florida to the Union, aud would
be equivalent 10 confession thai, in order to
retain his pos, at the head Of Mr.. Monroe's Cab
met, he became willing and active instrument
In infIcting most serious wound on the Con-
stitution. And man who was in public life
when the cession Of Louisiana took place, would
find II difficult TO convince the world that, at
this la.e day, new lights had broken in upon him
respecting the constilulionality of annexing ter
rtory to the Union. The question of conslilu-
tionality, as 10 annexing territory to the Union,
has been settled by precedents which are in
their nature reversible; or which could be re-
ver,ed only by expeng Louisiana and Florida
from the Union.
But it is unconstitutional, Mr.. Adams says, TO
afhx any foreign State to the Union.
The answer to this is obvious. There is no
clause in The Constitution expressly permitting
the annexation Of territory TO the Union. 1t is
altogether silent upon the subject, and therefore
makes no distinction between State and Terri
tory. Nor could any distinction well be made,
or any limit OF conditions imposed on he acqui-
sition of territory. lf we have a right, under
the Constitution, to affix single acre of ground,
or single square mile or territory TO the Ubion,
We have the right to sfhx ten or fifty thousand
square miles. If we have right TO purchase
any potion Of the territory of foreign govern
ment we have a right TO purchase the major
portion, or the whole OF it. We have as much
right to purchase, or acquire in any way, the
half or three-fourlhs, or the whole Of Texas, as
TO purchase or acquire single acre Of it, and
circumstances might arise which would render
the acquisition Of part Of il indispensable.
he Iof, "a
is carollary or prouacted application of the
first. 1t would be unconstitutional "to annex
10 the Union the Republic of Texas, or the Peo-
pie thereof"
1t is plain, we think, that it would be quite as
constitutional to annex any part or the whole of
Texas TO the Union as it was to annex the
Floridas or Louisiana. If by annexing the Re
public of Texas to the Union is meant per-
pelual alliance offensive and defensive between
Texas and he United States, we can only ex-
press doubt whether any one has dreamed of
such annexation. But we could constitution
ally annex the whole territory of Texas: and as
10 the People Of Texas we have as much right
TO admi, them into the Union as citizens as we
had TO admit the inhabitants Of Louisiana
and Florida.
These propositions seem so plain and ndis-
pu'ablc as hardly 10 require argument, If il were
not evident tina, Mr.. Adams in these resolutions
seeks to draw quibbling distinction between
a0iriag "a foreign Stale" and annexing ter
,itory.
The question Of constiiutionaity, as to an
nexing territory to the Union has been so much
debated and is so ef.ctually decided, that i,
would be idle TO attempt to reopen il. The
practice OF annexation has been continued I'D |
10 the late treaty Of Washington by which
portion of British territory, occupied by British
uhiects was af6redu To the JTnion