The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1844-08-19
From the Democratic Wing.
Mr. Clay on ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

! 1t has been strenuously urged by some persons,
that Mr. Clay would go Cor annexation in case bare
majority Of the country should be in favor of it. His
frs. letter could with any OF fairness be SO
construed, to settle tho matter he has written second
! letter which leaves for usconstruction
lie holds with former Legislature of Vermont that
the Union is a partnership in which the States arc
members; and he believes that partners TO the
firm should not be admitted without the common con-
sent. Thus in his first letter he said
81 do not think that Texas ought 10 be received
into the Union as an integral part Of it, in decided
opposition TO the wishes of considerable and re-
spectacle portion OF the Conledernoy."
Mr. Clay was asked whether he did no; mean by
this language that the decided dssen, of portion Of
the States should be bar to annexation. He an
swcrs in the affirmative, and goes 10 show that he
had the Sntes Of Ohio, Vcrmoat and Massachusetts
in mind when he wrote the passage; we come to
this definite point MIR Clay wouIdnot consent TO
nexaton irthree States should be opposed TO it, Whyl
Because the States did not bind themselves, whep
they entered the onion, to admit partner from
foreign territory; they did not bind themselves to
submit such question even TO Congress TO major
ity of the States The power Of each State is
pIete refuse such partnership it was in the
first place 10 refuse into the Union all. l.,
follows, then, that II Texas IA orced upon US, Ner-
mont or any other State is absovcd from the Union If
she chooses to be-the Union with Texas is not the
one she joined. The consequence Of annexation is
therefore virtual, and probably actual dissolution
of The UAion,hc greatest Of calamles, in Mr. Clay's
view; and this is the for not asserting to an
nexa,on, so long as Vermont, Ohio, and AIassachu-
sets, shall refuse their consent. The humbug that
Mr. CLAW will consent annexation, il Congress
should agree TO it is completely exploded.
My DEAR S1R;--I received and thank you for
YOUR friendly letter, and the copy Of the Monitor
You have Justly conceived my meaning, when I re-
rerred in my Texas letter Il consid CRADLE and re-
spectacle portion Of the ConTcderGcy And you might
have strengthened your construction of the paragraph
nv reference the fact that, ut the date of my let
ter the States of Ohio, Vermont and Massachusetts
had, unanimously declared against annexation; the
Legislature OF Georgia had declined to recommend it,
and other States were believed to be opposed TO the
measure. AS TO the idea ofmy counting tho aboli-
ionists, it is perfectly absurd No man in the Uni
ted States has been half as much abused by them az
have been
consider the Union a great political partnerr
shin: and that members ought not to be admitted
into the concern tho iminert hazard of its dssolu
ion. Personally, could have objection to the
Of Texas; but certainly would not be
wiling to see the existing Union dissolved serious
ieopardcd for the sake Of acquiring Texas. If any
me desires to know the leading and paramount OBJ
iect Of my public life the prefer, alton of this Union
will furnish him the key.
From Developments now being made in South CIR