The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1843-11-30

John and Jacob BrinkerhoH. i nG
T,ennessee--.Mr. Milton Brown.
Vermont-Pau Dillingham;, jr.
ARGUMENT ON THE TEXAS QUESTION.
A writer under the signature of Jsstitia
in the paper ironically called the New York
American, undertakes TO argue the question o
the annexation Of Texas. We arc truly glad
10 sse any attempt at argument, for hitherto,
from Mr.. John Quincy Adams down to his hum
blest admirer, we have met with nothing on the
subject but schoolboy d. camaton The ranting
of fanatic, or the scoding Of an old woman
or what is far worse than all these, deliberate
ard crafty Misrepresentation.
The writer 10 question first gravely rebukes
the New York Journal Of Commerce, (Which i
well able to fight its own battles) for publishing,
without g one word of dsapproba,ion." letter
from Washington, containing arguments in ia
vor Of the annexation of Texas. This was,
10 be sure, gross departure from propriety in
the Journal of Commerce. and showed culpa-
Bile disregard of the morals Of lis readers. par
tculary the younger members of respectable
ia miles, who might happen to get hold of the
paper. The writer then quotes the arguments
Of the Washir gton correspondent, and proceeds
thus to demolish them
And now for the reply to these arguments. And
is it indeed the fact that Texas is circumstanced
that she cannot maintain her independence? Then
what right has this country and other powers to re-
cognise her independence To treat rcvolted col
ony as an Independent nation, that is not capable of
maintaining its independence, is act of injustice
to the other party that claims the right of sovereign
ty over it, But il Texas can maintain her indePen-
sdeEce what becomes Of those alternatives namely,
that she must fall to Mexico, Great Britain, the
United States' Again. Why would the colonizs-
ton Of Texas by Great Britain endanger the peace
and security of the Southern Statcs' No other rea-
be assigned than that she would abolish sla.
very and thus bring population OF nonslaveholders
and colored reemen in contact with population Of
shareholders and slaves. But how much would it
better the to Texas to the United States,
and continue her slavery! Would not her population
of Shareholders and slaves come in contact with the
free population of Mexico! Slavery and freedom
must necessarily come in contact, I'LL the one or the
other is eradca ed from the earth. Once more. IL,
the Journals correspondent argues, the anDexa-
ton will be dsadv1n ageous to the South, 1t Is pass
ing strange that the South should be strenuous for
it, Think We the South wishes 10 drain herself OF
population, capital and energies, without receiving
any political advantages OF corresponding import
ance," that write pretends' Not she. She is
not so stupid as this. She perceives that the
alton would open a glorious marke, for her surplus
slave population and she would immediately turn
slave-breeder on so magnificent scale as to throw
the ebreedng country of Africa entirely into the
background and We should behold American Con-
gos aud Guineas all over the South. Little, indeed,
would she for her agricultural interests while
she could have such market for slaves And as to
her political advantages, II needs no such argument
to show that the rapid increase of slaves, aud the
addition to the Union Of large number OF slave
States would add immens Fly TO that
But why did this writer stop here' Why did he
not apply one of his luminous arguments TO the re
annexation of Texas to Mexicoi 1t does not follow
that because Texas should not be annexed to Great
Britain she should therefore be annexed to the UNI
ted States What objection has the writer to her re-
annexation to Mexico' He has stated none. And
now let say, that Texas cannot maintain her in
dependence neither the United States, Great
Britain .Merico, has the right to her Our south
rons and their northern oadjutors talk just if Tex
common plumber; and as If they had nothing
but their own interests TO consult in this matter OF
annexation. But how great is the mistake under
which they labor. Why, we must obtain the con-
sent Of Mexico, as we have often attempted to do,
before have Texas We must also obtain
the consent of Great Britain; for II we have the
right interfere, and to say that she shall not have
Texas; then she has the right to interfere and to
say that zee shall not have Texas"
Ii is not necessary for us to discuss the ques-
ton whether Texas is able or not to maintain
her indep, ndcnce of Mexico. A more import
aht Ih' stlon, n present, u WnftueI sue Is VIII
ling to mailiain her INDEPENDENCE, in reality as
web as nominally, Of Great Britain. If there
was any thing cuipable in the recognition of the
independence Great Britain, France, and other
powers of Europe share the blame equally with
US. Great Britain particularly avowcdly de-
parted from her settled policy and cbersh,d
pri ci les on the subject of slavery, in recogn.
zing the independence of Texas. Why she did
30 Is now sufficiently manifest But we repeat,
that no blame can now be attached to us for the
rec ignition of Texas, without maintaining that
thu Governments of the Two greatest and most
enligh ened nations of Europe do not under
stand their rights and duties under the law Of
nations.
mo other reason" says this writer, can be
assigned why the colonization of Texas by
Great Britain would endanger the peace and
security Of he Southern States, "thau that she
would abolish slavery, and thus bring popula-
ton Of on-slaveholders and coored freemen in
contact with population Of shareholders and
slaves In the name OF common sense what
better or more powerful and urgent reason
could be assigned We think it would be n
most exquistereas son for not carrying blazing
torch into the powder magazine Of a ship-ofthe-
line, that The powder would probably take fire,
and blow the vessel and all hands into the air.