The Arkansas banner., 1844-06-05


 6. The annexation is tlisapproyed by others, because considered unconstitutional. But as the provision for introducing new States was altered in its progress through the con- Yentlon, so as 10 leave the language broad enough to include territory without as well as within, our original limits; and us the ad- mission of Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri snce into the Union, though not embraced within our old boundaries, besides the pur- chases of Florida and Louisiana as territories have talked place, the question should be re- garded as officially settled in favor of annex alion.
 In reply to some questions which have been urged against the admission of the whole territory of any State, rather than part, and oi lts sovereignty, as well as territory. the principles involved in the above decisions and the language of the Constitution and the pre- cedents, are ali broad enough to include the whole-and they thus accord with what is the constant usage of other Conlederacics. both in Europe and South America. Nor is any sanction to such admission required un- der our Constitution, and the principles of public law, except the consent of those ceded on the one hand; and on the other, that of Congress, by proper laws and treaties. And Il the people and the independent Republic oi Texas are, for this reason, not as compc- tent to unite with Us entirely, as they are to eede only a part of their territory, then the absurdity would seem to follow, that they never can be competent for admission into Union, though recognized by Mexico, and no shadow of war existing, till they become qualified by abandoning their independence, repudating republcansm, and as seryile dependency or reconquest of the monarchs of Spain or Mexico, be sold as a portion of her territory to the United States.
 Lastly, this measure is opposed by some from fear that such step will subject us to war with Mexico, or some other foreign power
 But the right of Texas 10 cede, and the right of the United States to accept, her teri tory, and admit it into the Union, without producing any exposure to just war from any quarter, Is, in my opinion. clear.
 In the purchase of Louisiana, we obtained within her limits of Texas, as certainly as we obtained ''the Island of New Orleans,'' according to the opinions of such jurists and dplomatiss of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Livingston, Clay, and even Adams, in ISIS, and, as since developed, of Don Onis himself, if not of the Spanish Government. But we having ceded il away by treaty ratified i'll 1920, the revolution from that year until lS24 breaking out, and rpening in all the Spanish provinces west of us, each acted and made constitutions for itself, like ourselves after 1776, as independent States. Texas and Geahuia making one for themselves, joined the Mexican Confederacy in 1891, as an independent State; remained faithful to it till dissolved ten years after by the usurpa- lions of Santa Anna; refused, as was their light, to unite in his new consolidated Gov ernment built upon the ruins of the former Conlederacy; and has remained and acted since as she began, an independent sovereign ty. What duty then-to Mexico has she vio- lated? The wrong is on the other side. Where is the justice for Mexico now to hold, or now to rule her? And more especially on the principles now set up by Mexico; when twelve years before the latter was re- cognized by spain as independent, Texas had established her own Constitution, and two years before that event had seperated entirely from the Mexican Confederacy.
 But if this view of the case should appear i'll any respect objectionable, there is another, which shows the annexation to be proper and just
 As we purchased Texas in 1903, within the limits of Louisiana, and then engaged by treaty to admit her i'll the Union :. as soon as possible" consistent with the principles ol the Constitution, and to allow to her inhabi- tants all the rights and immunities of citizens, how could NC rid ourselves of that engage ment, without first getting the consent ol France, with whom the treaty was made, or of Texas, which was the party more imme- diately to enjoy these benefts2 Yet, without asking the consent of either, we unadvisedly. in 1919, undertook to cede Texas to Spain This cesson, being without authority, seems in law to have been imperfect or imperative and Texas to remain still possessed of right which she now virtually asks, to enter into the Union, and to have conferred on her peo- pie all the privileges which the original treaty promised In this aspect of the case, if we would not violate good faith and the sanctity of treaties, we ought 10 execute the stpula- tlOu litSl iilcANs DN liph udhiittli ilCi anu II any injury should result therelrom to Spain or Mexico; under the provisions ofsubsequent treaties not being able 10 be longer fulfilled the amount of damage ought to be paid to those who suffer. But when it is recollected that we have never guarantied the integrity ol the territories of either of them, and the very defective tide, if any, which either retains over Texas, there could not be great difficulty in estimating this damage.
 So far as regards war on this account, the just cause for one seems to be on the part ol France or Texas, if We do not re-annex the latter, rather than on the part of Mexico i we do. The solemnity and inviolability o the treaty of 1903 must be quite as great as that of either 1919, 1928, or any other more recent.
 But, finally, supposing that both these views of the subject are untenable; and, for the sake of argument, indulging a moment in the idea that Texas was not embraced within the linn its of I.ouisiana. or. if so was legally ceded