Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1844-06-05

pendent Republic Of Texas are, for ,hi
reason, not as competent 10 unite with u
entirely; as they are 10 cede only part o
their: teritcry,th that the absurdi1y woult
seem 10 follow, that they never can b
competent for admission into the Union
Though recognized by Mexico, and nj
shadow Of war existing, till they become
qualifedby abandoning Neutrality-suspicious.
repudiating republican;sm, and as ser,
vile dependency Of reconquest of the mon
}!archs Of Spain or Mexico, be sold merely
as portion Of. their territory to the U. s.
4 Lastly, this measure is opposed BY
some from fear that such step will subjec,
us TO war with Mexico, or some other
foreign power. ~. :.
BdtiFe right of Texas to cede;, and the
right Of the United States to accept, her
territory, and admit i, into The Union, with
out producing any exposure TO just war
from any quarter, is, in my opinion, clear.
In ihe purchase of louisiana, we OBJ
tained sEitbiR. .Ror Limits Texas, as GER
tainly; as we obtained "the island Of New
Orleans" according TO tho opinions Of
such jurists and diplomalists as Jefferson,
Madison, Monroe. Livingston, Clay, and
even Adams, in 1918; and. as since dc.
veloped,; of DoI Onis himself. iEnot of the
Spanish Government. But we have ceded
it away by a treaty ratified ip 1920, the
revolution fromth year .until1ag4 break:
ing out, and ripenipg in all the Spanish
provinces west Of US, each acted aud made
constitutions for itself, like ourselves after
.1776, as independent. States, Texas and
Coahula making one for themselves, Joined
the Mexican Conlederacy in. 1924 as an
independent State; remained faithful to
it till dissolved ten years after by the usur--
pations Of Santa Anna refused, as was
their right, 10 unile in his new consolida-
red Government, built upon the ruins of
the former Confederacy; and has remained
and acted since as she began, an indepen.
dent sovereignty. What dutyzlhen to
Mexico has she. violated The wrong is
on the other side. Where is the justice
for Mexico now to hold, or now 10 rule
her? Aud more especially on the princi-
Piles now sci up by Mexico, when twelve
years before The latter was recognized bv
Spain as Independent. Texas had estab-
lished hef own Constitution, and two
years before that event had separated en-
iirely from the Mexican Confederacy.
But if This view. Of the case should ap-
pear in any respect Objectionable. there is
another, which. shows the annexation 10
be proper and just. -. H..
As weipurchased TEXAS in 1903, within
The limits Of Louisiana, and then engaged
By treaty TO admit her into. the Union, .'.as
soon as possible" "'consis,ent with the prin-
ciples of,lhe Constitution, and 10 allow to
her3in inhabitants all the rights and immu-
nuties of citizens, how could wc rid our
selves of that engagement, without hEst
getting the consent of France, with whom
the treaty was made. or of Texas, which
was the party more Immediately to enjoy
those bene6tsl Yet, wilhout asking the
consent of either. We unadyisedly in 1919,
undertook 10 cede Texas to Spain. This
cession, being without authority. seems in
law 10 have been imperfect or imperative,
aud Texas TO remain still possessed of a
right, which she now virtually asks, 10 en-.
Ter the Union, and TO have conferred on
her people all the privileges which the
original treaty promised. In this aspect
of The case, if we would not violate good
faith and The sancli:y OF treaties, we ought
10 execute the stipulation first made. by
now admitting her; and if any injury
should result therefrom to Spain or Mexi-
co, under the provisions of subsequent
treaties not being able to be longer-fulfill-
ed, The amount ofdamage ought tobe paid
TO those who suffer. Butrwhen it is rec
ollecied that we have never guaranteed
the integrity Of The territories of either Of
them, and The very defective tile, if any.
which either realms over Texas, there
could be no great difficulty in estimating
This damage.
So far as regards war on this account.
the lust cause for one seems to be onlhe
pari of France or Texas, if @e do not re-
anoexthe latter, rather than: or the part
.of NJ exico if we do. The solemuity and
inviolability ofthe treaty oflSO3 must be
quite as great as that Of either 1918, 1928,
or any other more recent. .:..l -, !.
But, finally, supposing that bolh these
views Of the subjects are unleuable; and
for the sake of argument, indulgins a mo-
mcnt in the idea that Texas was not emu.
braced within the limits of Louisiana, pl
ifso, was legally ceded to Spain, and taf:.
terwards became an integral part Of the
Mexican empire-had she NOT, when The
terms Of her confederaey with that Go;
verumenl became wanlonly violated, he'
citizens imprisoned, and her privilege:
oulraged-had she not riehtso assert anc
maintain her independence. Would she
not have been false TO her American blood
not 10 hnve done it on The; field of Sal
Jacinto, as we'll as down. TO the. presen
moment -, 80: = s
She has done:it. too,,in snchmanner ant
form, no less than substance, as in my ap
ptehension jdstifes other actions in Stfeat
Ing her as q de jure as well as de fact
| government, and, competent, u9deEafb
2 ~,