The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-05-20
THE COALITION.

The Globe labors to defeat the Treaty for the re-
annexation Of Texas, alleging tina, MIR. Calhoun de-
sres to il means Of dssolynR the Union, and
thereby promoting his own personal ambition. The
Globe admits that when Mr.. Calhoun entered the
Office oil was done save formal signature to the
Treaty" il is msnicst, therefore that the charge
canno, be sus,oined from anything in the treaty it,
sef--,he Treaty furnishes no proof. of Mr. Cal
houn's ambition. The Globe itself-the Senate by
its unanimous vote, and the whole country by it,
unanimous voice, called him from his retirement to
the State Department, for the purpose Of completing
what his predecessor had begun. Not finding cause
Of attack in the Treaty in the acceptance Of Office
for the purpose Of making the Treaty, the Globe is
compelled to seek some other pretencc for attack,
and hence i, alleges that his letter to MIR. Paeken-
ham was written as the mos, eTectusl way not only
Of defeating the present Treaty, bu, OF defeating the
annexation altogether"
Now If the Globe and those Of whom il is the or
gan believe that Mr.. CaIboun's purpose is to the
rejection Of he Treaty as means of dissoIving the
Union or Of advancing personal Objects and they de-
sire TO defeat his purpose II Is manifest that all that
is required Of them is TO ratify the Treaty. They
aege tina, hs object is 10 defeat the Treaty. 1t is in
their power to defeat his object by sustaining the
Treaty. Why do they not sustain the Treaty D
The Globe explains ], says: 1--WE have no doubt
the letter Ito MIR. POckenhsm) was written with the
view Of packing Mr.. Van Buren,, and in the hope OF
breaking him down in the North" A moments
consde ration will show how preposterous this charge
is. Mr. Cslhouns opin ons on the subject OF slavery
are known. The Gl,be asserts that the letter was
written the day after the Globe editorial Article in IA
vor OF the rc-snpe alton Of TEXAS pub shed and
under b,cf that the Article in the Globe expressed
Mr. Van Burens views Now, it not preposterous TO
suppose that MIR. Calhoun would write letter de-
carng his opinions, for the purpose Of breaking
down Mr. Van Buren, MIR Van Buren, is not re-
sensible for Mr.. Cslhoun's opinions and IL he
we're, Mr.. Calhouns opinions we're knowt-they
were expressed again and again in Congress, before
the Globe by the most fulsome sdulations, endeav-
ored 10 obtain from him and his friends the printing
of Congress-tbsy we're explicitly declared in hi.
letter wthdrs wing his name from the Baltimore
Convention Yet the Globe then rejoiced that the
publication Of that letter would benefit MIR Van Bu-
rem How, then, can their publication injure Mr..
Van Buren, now
We also to the history Of this letter TO show
that the imputston is mslciously untrue. The cor.
rssponJenoe shows that Lord Aberdeens letter, to
which Nr. Cslhounsis reply, was written in conse-
quenoc Of communications made to him by Mr.. Ever.
EFT, under the instructions Of Mr.. Up.huf. MI Up
shur had required Mr.. Everett ascertain the pur.
poses Of England and he was induced to do So be-
cause of the d. clsrstions made in the Anti.Shyery
Convention, and by The Ministers OF the Crown, in
both Houses OF Parliament. Lord Aberdeen . letter
was an Official avowa Of the purpose of England to
exert her influence to abolish slavery everywhere
and especially in Texas, asserting that they had en-
jesvord to induce MEXICO to make IN. abolition Of
slavery condition ofihc acknowledgment, Of the in.
dependence Of Texas. A copy OF that letter was de
livercd to Mr. Ulshur, who did not reply 10 il, be-
cause the fatal accident the Princeton deprived
bis country Of his valuable services but no one who
knew him, who has read bis letters communicated
10 the Senate, can believe that he would have an.
swercd otherwise Than AZ II wa. answered. When
MI Calhoun came into office a copy wac dsli,s Ell