The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1844-09-06
fulfil any other object falling within the
scope of their power.

scope of their power.
In negotiating the treaty for the ennex
a,ion of Texas, which was rejected by the
Senate, natives hnye been ascrihed TO the
Administration which had no place IN lis
mind or heart. One gentleman, occupy
ing prominent place IN tue Democratic
patty, whether for good or evil /, does not
become me to say, has assigned IN an adj
dress, recently delivered in Missouri, two
prominent motives for It's negotiation: list,
personal ambition, and 2dly, purpose To
dissolve the Union. Mr.. Clay, also, IN
recent letter, written 10 the editor of n
newspaper in Alabama, has called the .
treaty infamous, and asclibed 10 II, IN lis
origin, sinister objects. | repol both their /
assaults upon The treaty and It's negoIla.
tors. What object Of mere personal am.
bi,ion in any way connected with office
could have influenced the Administration
in negotiating the treaty The public ar.
chiyes furnished the strongest reasons 10
believe tina, the treaty would have met tho .
unqualified approval Of both MIR. Clay and
Mr.. Van Buren,. While the one was Se- .
cretary Of State TO MIR. Adams, and the
other 10 General jackson, each IN his turn
attempted 10 obtain the annexation Of
Texas.
/ Mr.. Clay's negotiations was carried on
with Mexico in the third year Of her re.
yoIutionary struggle, while Spain regarded
I her as a revolled province, and her armies
were in possession Of many Of the strong
holds of tho country. What reason, then,
could | have had for supposin. for an in.
slant tina, treaty with Texas, after eight
years Of actual independence, with M
/ Mexican soldier within her territory, and
I subject only 10 occasional border Interrupt.
linn, could or would have net with opposi-
tion from him or his friends and meeting
with no such opposition on the part either
Of MIR. Van Buren, or Mr.. Clay, and their
friends, it would puzzle a sounder casuist
than profess TO be, 10 conceive in what
possible way it could have interrupted the
relations OF those two gentlemen, who
stood at the moment at the head Of their
respective parties, and were looked upon
:! BY all as competitors for the Presidency.
II is well known that, when the negolla.
ton for the acquisition Of Texas was COM
menced, and up to n period succeeding the
). ning Of the Treaty, il was my confident
conviction, expressed 10 many, that il
would, from the circumstances have STA.
ted, receive the supper, both Of MI. Clay
and Mr.. Van Buren,, so that neither would
be effected by its negotiation.
IL il had been charged that This admin.
istraIion was prompted by the ambition Of
securing the greatest boon 10 the country 4
and the whole country, IN The acquisition
Of territory so imporian, in itself ind so
inseparably connected with the interests Of
every State in the Union, and every into
rest Of the Union, would have plead gull. ,
/ iy, without a moment Of hesitation.
confess | felt ambitious to add another
bright star 10 the American constellation.
II would have been source Of pride TO me,
if that measure had been carried, to have I.
witnessed from the retirement that awaits
me, the annual expansion OF our coasiwisc I
ana foreign trade, and the increased pros. /
perlty OF our agriculture and manufactures,
through the rapid growth Of Texas, which I
would have followed the ratification Of The /
treaty. Yes, freely confess that this .
would have furnished me an unlailing .
source Of qualification 10 the end of my
life. | should have scen also the Union
Of the States becoming stronger and strong.
er through their reciprocal af1ection-lo 10. /
cal jealousies suppressed, and fauatical
schemes and schemers alike PROSTATE. | /.
should have Witnessed the blessed results
Of our FederaiIye system as i, embraced (
The fines, country ia tho world, and brought
under It's Influence people devoted like I
ourselves TO the maintenance and preserya.
tion Of free government.
This was the kind Of ambition which (
prompted The negotiation of the Treaty -
It's ratification was the sole honor which | I
coveted, and all that | now desire. What
sinister moiires could have originated the .
negotiation at this time, that did not exist
IN le27 What was there non to have
rendered Treaty Infamous which did not .
exist then' If il be said that we had
Treaty Of Limits with Mexico, ask If, in /
1927, we had not also treaty Of limits |
with SPAIN We had recognised the in.
dependence Of Mexico, and, therefore, yir.
tually claimed that We had perfect right
10 treat with her for the annexation of
Texas, and in fact, il we had so pleased,
for Mexico entire. Eight years ago We
recognised Texas as independent, and sure.
ly our right 10 negotiate with her, implied
no worse faith than in 1927 to negotiate
with Mexico for her.
Tho idea that because of The existence oCI
a Treaty Of Limits wtth any nation, we
must forever thereafter deny 10 all parts Of
the territory Of such nation the rich, of
revolution or change, can only excite. with !
1 an American citizen, smile. Was il |
deemed necessary, in 1927, to consul, the |
Siaies, 10 consult the Senate, or TO cousnl, /
the House Of Representatives, or the pco.
pie ! Was II considered necessary to ob.
tain the assent Of every State, as would
seem now TO be proposed, beGrs forming