The Arkansas banner., 1844-12-18

|
 allow any other nation to step Tn and frus- trae these negotiations, by overawlng Texas or coercing her into other alliances, less welcome to her own citizens and dangerous to the security of the United States.
 He further urges that good portion of Texas belongs to what is called the Valley of the Mississippi; that large portion of the citizens of the United States entertain the opinion that it was ceded to this country by France by the treaty of 1903, and unjustly lost by that of ISIS; at any rate, that its possession IS essential to the security ol our frontier, especially while important questions are pending between the United States and leading European power.
 Again, he says that inasmuch as the Uni ted States inuited Texas to negotiate for an- nexation, the consequences of her assent to the possession ought not to fall upon Texas but upon the former country, which is bound in honor to hold her harmless for entertain
 ing the proposition.
 In regard to the proposed mode of carry ing on the campaign, Gov. Shannon denoun- ces the orders under which Gen. Woll IS to act as inhuman, barbarous and contrary to the law of nations--nore lnhuman even than the orders under which Fannin and his troops were massacred. He alludes most pertinendy, to the Tabasco slaughter, urg- ing that if in time of profound peace such butcheries were committed against the re- monstrances of foreign powers, there would be no limit to the atrocities which would be perpetrated in state of war. He exposes the outrageous inhumanity of the orders to Il, af{o stS hat the United States and other civilized nations are bound to see that they are not carried into force Upon the United States, espe cially, does this obligation rest, in consider ation of her proximity to the scene oi the atrocities contemplated, and her consequent opportunities to learn the facts and to inter- pose promptly. We can go no further into this letter than to repeat that 1t is written with no little vigor, and in becoming spirit of humanity; but at the same time that it acknowledges that for twenty years the ac- quisiton of Texas has been leading object with the several administrations of our Gov
 ernment.
 Senor Rejon's reply to this letter is dated the 31st of October. It selzes hold, in the outset, of this last admission of Gov. Shan non, which 1t claims as full confession of the duplicity and falsehood with which, for twenty years, the United States has dealt
 with Mexico. It then goes on to argue that the Texan revolution was brought about en- tirely by Americans that 1t was the result } of deep-laid plot to get possession of the , country; that those who emgrated to Texas, andd eclaredher independence, never did sub init themselves to Mexican authority, but
 lived under such regulations as they chose
 to make. That they had no right to prevent ' Mexico from changing the Constitution of
 1921, or any of her institutions, as the in- terests of the nation might seem to demand :; l that they were, in fine, merely citizens ol the
 United States, who resorted to Texas with 7 the sole view of extending slavery and an-
 nexing her fertile fields to her own coun- l try. This was their object, and the real f though disguised object of the Government
 at Washington, as is proved, he alleges, by - Gov, Shannon's note; and he here again takes s occasion to repeat that this note exhibits e conclusively system of falsehood pursued d towards Mexico, which destroys every ap-
 pearance of right with which it is sought tc 8 gloss over the rebellion of the Texan colo
 nists.
 }, In answer to the argument that Texas k e independent de facto, and has maintainec l. herself as such for number of years, ht l. argues, as in the former case, that they art e not Texans who have maintained her inde 'f pendence, but that they are citizens of tho 1T southern States who have done it--not tc 'f make of Texas an independent nation, bu J. to annex her to the United States under
 show of right. The note of Mr. Shannon 1t he says, raises the veil with which this coun l, try has sought to conceal its real purpose l. and intrigues.
 With the argument of Gov Shannon as tc
 the prevalent belief in this country that Tex '- as was ceded to us in 1903, and lost unfair
 ly In 1919, Senor Rejon deals very summa d rly and with great adroiness but we hav
 not room for this part of the discussion.- d The appeal to the treaty of 1928, between
 made, the Minister deeming it impossible fo r. us to go behind that to hunt up title in law e to Texas. So, too, with the argument as tc
 the necessity of Texas to our safety H.
 replies to this that if we may take Texas fo
 this purpose, the same necessity would jus
 tlfy us in going to the Pacific and seizin! e upon the Californias Other parts of Gov F shannon's letter is disposed of in the mos l. ingenious manner; the disoyalty of the peo a pie and government of this country is con = tlnually insisted upon; and the charges ar s rung in every paragraph, almost, upon th I admission that the acquisition of Texas ha been the object of every successive admins 4 tratlon in this country for twenty years-
 The letter concludes with refusing to rein
 qulsh the Mexican claim to Texas, and de r. nyng our right to interfere with the asser s tlon ot Mexican sovereignty. The letter i F the best specimen of Mexican diplomac, we recolect to have read, but we have no room to do it justice. The following letter conclude the correspondence. We give C free translation of them, but in justice {, Q Gov. Shannon, we should state that his lette
 thus undergoes the murderous process twice