The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-03-22
From the ". S Gazette

WARRINGTON, March l6, 1874.
DEAR SIR! The annexation of Texas having been
now formally bro9 ched, by the motion Of Mr.. Win
throp in the House, and through the editorial Co
umns Of the lntelgencer il is both just and proper
that the people should be correctly informed upon
the subject. As the writer knows you view this
question great national one, not to be limited by
party lines depending upon party support, he has
the assurance that you will give 10 your readers all
the information necessary to right understanding Of
this affair either side. propose, therefore, in
this and few succeeding letters 10 state some mat
tiers connected with the subject appropriate, though
somewhat abridged.
In the first place the cesson of Texas according to
the opinions of MIR, Adams and Mr.. Clay, was clear
ly abandonment of rights and ought not to have
been made. If do not err, MIR. Adams stated o en-
ly in Congress that " it OF he who had caused
the cesson, the responsibility Of that act resting up
on o gentleman in the other chamber of Congress- -
the writer has learned that Mr.. Adams was voted
down in Cabinet Council on this question, and con
cuded the treaty under instructions and in violation
of his own conviction that we were cedng portion
of our rightful domain. Mr. Clay opposed the ratif
cation of the treaty with more than his usual warmth
and with all his ability. General Jackson urged the
annexation during his administration, and Mr. Van
Buren,, as Secretary of State, wrote an able paper
advocating IT there is no for supposng that
any Of these parties have changed their opinions al
though MIR. Adams may now deem it inexpedient.
will confne myself IN this letter to a few brief
gencer, which that paper styles the chief reasons
for opp sing the anne xation.'
The first reason is, that il will involve our coun-
try in war" This we deny, and assert tina, there
is no just cause for war; Mexico herself entered in
TO negotiations with while yet IN state of active
warfare with Spain, and when the condition of Mex
leo was far more qu stonabe than that Of Texas
now Is. The treaties which we sought to make
with Mexico, after a much shorter period from her
declaration, were quite as good causes for war by
Spain, as Is the annexation of Texas to Mexico
But supposing there should be in this act Just cause
of offence TO Mexico, will Mexico forthwith declare
war, without having first sought redress for the
wrong which she may deem this TO be Will war be
the only means and the first by which Mexico will
seek reparation' Is il necessarily the only remedy
which Mexico has for real or fancied grievance
done her by this act Ii il be not the onlu remedy
then we not justified in supposing that she will
not make the ultima ratio, her first means of yind-
cation but that she viii first exhaust all the ordinary
modes resored TO by nations in such Is there
any thing in the relative position Of Mexico aud the
United States to invite that nation 10 overlook the
ordinary modes OF redress and TO resort at once 10
war; Is Mexico likely 10 gain more from US BY
force Of arms than by an appeal {, our Justice p
Will not these questions suggest for forbesr
ance 10 Mexicoi We may presume TO say that they
WILL and that fair and full discussion of the oues
ton will satisfy Mexico that she has suffered no
wrong at our hands theIe can be fear of q war
most assuredy no reason 10 appreeend immediate
war, and we do not say so without reason.
The second reason Of the lntelligeDcer is that
we cannot annex Texas, without a violation of Ma
tonal h, nor by taking possession of a territory 10
which Mexico still maintains her right We deny it,
and say that Mexico does not maintain her right 10
the territory she asserts il not only has she proved
herself utterly unable TO maintain it, but her Pres-
dent, the now ruling President, concluded treaty
with her acknowledging her independence. 1t would
be easy to point 10 analogous ia which other
nations holding or pretending TO hold tie incest
Of honor have done the same thing. The acknow-
ledgment Of the independence OF Texas was predi-
Gated upon the ground that she was so de faeo and
that Mexico was incapable of maintaining her rights
of sovereignty. We have made treaties with Texas
in violation of the sovereign rights of Mexico if she
were able to maintain them, and yet if Mexico were
to seize our vessels entering the ports Of Texas upon
the plea that Texas was her Territory we should
not acknowledge her right to do so. Her claim has
become obsolete, she may refuse for hundred wear,
the acknowledgment Of the Inde pendence of Texas
but having proved herself unable to maintain her
sovereignty, her asserted claim must be disregarded
II IS mere br1auDi hdmen. The claim Of Mexico
should be argued from the probability Of her enforc
ing her asserted rights, the Of doing So and The
probable value Of the acquisition. The whole
question Is one for settlement by negotiation, not
by war
The thirl ground OF objection is, that our country
IS already too large. This is mere matter of opin
ion, and were the proposition simply take it, or TO
let alone we might discuss IT, 10 ,hoto that Ire Fsd
eral potrer gathers strength Cih thu addition Of spey
nur STATE and TO show further that there would be
much greater danger Of dissolution with few States
than with many. II we had thirteen States a defee
ton by one would be a serious matter and its pro-
portion TO the others such to give, il dangerou. inn
portance one Of fifty would feel itself too insigrf
cant 10 be troublesome However much State
Rights men might oil ject to the increase Of Terri
tory and States, is novel objection for those 10
urge who wish TO strengthen the Federal Govern
ment
The fourth objection by the Inengenoer is. that
one third Of the Union is opposed to the measure
This is assuming fact which is not granted on the
contrary we believe, Of the enumerated population
nothing ike that proportion is opposed and when
the facts Of the case shall have been understood Inv
all, il will be scarcely less popular thas is now the
acquisition Of Louisiana. But Il 1t were So we are
willing to allow all due consideration to their right,
and wishes may it not, however, be possible Thai
other two thirds have rights and interests at stake s
well one third and IS II therefore a ,eq,fif,p as
the lntellgenccr um 3, that the two thirds mus,
yield 10 the one third Had we acquired Canad, n,
conquest would the wishes Of the then one third of
the Union have prevailed TO restore Canada, because
the balance a. II is termed, had been lost and the
country become too large AT the period If MIR
Foryth's correspondence, Mexico held very differ
ent relation to Texas, from that in which she now
stands, and there is every reason to presume from
their known opinions that he would not advocate the
annt ration
These remarks have been very hastily thrown
together, and contain but the seminal ideas upon
those points
1t IS desirable in every view that the question be
discussed national one untlng,d by party or sec
tional hue. The tone Of the lnielligencer sound,
Anti American. AMERICA
tvs FoRruchTIoS BuL wa, taken up in the Uo,s,
Of Representatives, and some progress made In o..