The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-06-15

rangements with each other, both in regard 10 The
abolition Of sIarery and to all other points" An
reply to this, Mr.. Calhoun says, "the President
infers that Great Britain is endeavorng, through
her diplomacy. to make The abolition Of SLAVERY IN
Ieras one Of the conditions ,chich MeTaco
should acknowledge her independence" We do.
not know the exact diplomatic mode by which ma
tons give the lie to each other-but cer'aliiy
surh language between individuals, would iooN
very much like it. All Mr.. CalAoun's reasonings
are built upon this "inference" OF the PfesiuepL
which afterwards takes the form oil !" conhrmea
Impression" and sMds IN becoming set.ieu
conviction" Mr. Calhoun says, tine ohlted
States Government remained passive with re-
spect to annexaticn) so long as the polcy on the
part of Great Britain had immediate bearing
on their peace and Safety and yet tDo disaroac-
ais of this ascrIbed policy, had been made by the
British Government, and had been in the hands
of the American Secretary of State, at least four
months before the date of the treaty, And stranger
STILL the third disaropal of the British Govern
ment, received on the 26th February, is referred
to as containing additional reasons in justification
OF the treaty, and as "provlng the necessity for
the Immediate annexation OF Texas to the United
States, as measure of self-defence, and as the
only means of saving our Union - although
says Mr. Benton, 1T seems to be understood and
admitted all round, that the treaty of annexation
was agreed upon, and uirtually concluded, before
Mr.. Upshur's melancholy death, on the 2Sth Feb
ruary. Nothing then in Lord Aberdeen's decla-
ration could have had any effect upon its forma-
stion or conclusion" Notwithstanding Mr.. Cal.
houns selection of phrases therefom in justitica-
ton of its signature. "This attempt" says Mr..
Benton, "to find in Lord Aberdeen's letter sub
seguent pretert for loha had previously been done,
is evidently afterthough, put to paper, for the
first time, just SAC days after the treaty had been
signed :"
Mr.. Calhoun's letter to Mr.. Pakenham is dated
18th April. Mr.. Pakenhem replies to it on the
18th, making the :" fourth dsavowal in the most
clear and unequivocal terms, of this new discov
cry of the old designs imputed to Great Britain -
declining any further discussion at present" on
the subject of Texas, and also airy controversy
upon Mr.. Calhoun's negro statistics of which
more hereafter. Mr.. Pakenham !" disclaims any
responsibility on the part of Great Britain, for
any consequences which may grow out of this
transaction" reiterates Lord Aberdeens state
ments. and says that whatever those conse-
quences may be, the British Government will
look forward without anxiety to the judgment
which will thereon be passed by the civilized
world in as far as shall apply to any provocation
furnished by England for the adoption Of such
measure" Mr.. Calhoun replies again to Mr..
Pakenham on the 9th April, 1874, says that Mr..
Pakenham has misunderstood his object in intro
ducing his negro statistics, goes largely into the
subject of slavery, and appears to be DESTROYS of
raising, what the lawyers call, false issue; he
reiterates the differences of the l'resdent;" says
that since Great Britain "declined to unite with
France and the United States in joint effort to
obtain recognition of the independence Of Texas
from Mexico, and that therefore it is not forced
or unfair inference to conclude, that she used in
conducting it, all the legitimate means of diplo-
macy, backed by her great influence, to effect an
object in the accomplishment of which she took
SO deep an interest, and to which she obviously
attached SO much Importance" Now let the
reader refer to Mr.. Van Zandts letter to Mr.
Webster, under date of June "a, 1943, and quoted
in No. of these communications and he will
find, that Mexico rejected the separate mediation
Of Great Britain, that triple mediation of the
United States, France, and Great Britain, was
then sought; that Great Britain leaned to an opin-
ion that it would be better, all accounts, that
each party should act SEPARATELY, but SIMILARLY
in point of tone and argument, in urging the Mex
lean Government J" and that the French Govern
n1ent approved of this suggestion. Now what can
MIR. Calhoun fairly deduce from this Certainly
not any sinister designs on the part Of Great
Britain. The parties were to "act SEPARATELY,
but SIMILARLY in tone and arguments" if there
was nything wrong in this, then the action of all
parties would be wrong, for they were to act SIM
ilariy, and France, at least, was equally to be
suspected as Great Brtan!! Mr.. Calhoun con-
cludes with not very indirectly mpeaching the
veracity Of Lord Aberdeen and Mr.. Pakenham.
Mr.. Pakenham ends the correspondence by merely
communicating the fact, that he has transmitted
Mr.. Cahoun's notes of the 18th and 9th of
April, " for the information of his Governmentp
Let US now look at two documents which have
been passed over, through desire to conclude
our notice of the correspondence between Mr..
Calhoun and Mr.. Pakenham. The first is
Messrs Van Zandt and Henderson's letter TO
Mr.. Calhoun, dated April Is, 1874. These gen.
tlemen state their confidence that should the
nexation be consummated, it will receive the
hearty and full concurrence of the people of Tex
as. They there communicate some statistical
information, which had, apparently, been inquired
about, by Mr.. Calhoun; they state the quantity of
unapprnpriated land in Texas, to be 1876, IL 1927
acres and the debt and liabilities of the republic
on the 18th Of January, 1S4l, as reported by
committee of the House of Representatives of the
Congress of Texas, to be sepen millions of dol
lars The Secretary of the Treasury Of Texas,