Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-12-31

/ Texas 10 thelr country, dHoiuo Ciedi PioO -
assertion Of the undersigned, that an aueihp' nas
been made TO give 10 the occupation oil isass ~
the United States course which should divesl y
| in some manner of the odium OF barelacec
usurpalion making it appear as If II mad oeen
obtained by the express consent oil people VINO
had succeeded in emancipating themselves from
their mother country conQuering their lnuePeho-
ence BY their own sword and valor.
Thus. as the Texans who proclaimed Inc m
dependence Of Texas were emisrants from ,he
United States; as it could not be doubted lhal
they were openly protected IN the U. States ~
order 10 support their rebellion aganstthe author
;,ies ofa country which received them with SO
much generosity; as it was public and notorious
that the Government of the U. States which al
fected so much respect for the opinion OF inc
world fearing lest its acknowledgment OF the IN
dependence OF Texas might be regarded as an ACT
of serious injustice to Mexico, was the nIs1 10
hasten TO make such acknowledgment while
aware that the independence had been proclaim
ed with the object of annexing that mexican pro-
vince to The Northern Republic; it being aiIeI-
wards seen that this same Government OF Tue v.
States and large portion OF its people were
OPENLY and without attempt at concealment, la
boring with enthusiasm for the annexation OF
Texas to their territory, far as to have solicited
a renewal of the proposition for incorporation,
when there was no necessity for such demand,
because. the Texans and the people ofthe United
States being one and the same, they all had and
still have the same interests and tendencies; ana
finally, as the history OF this question between inc
two countries presen.s every ing That coun De
desired 10 prove that the independence OF Texas IS
The work Of the Government and the Southern peo-
ple ofthe u s., and that they effected it only for The
purpose Of obtaining possession OF those rich and
extensive territories how can this independence be
renresented as matter in which they had no part?
And how can the foreigners who proclaimed 1t
be considered as having the same title which the
Mexicans 1.-THE owners by every right of the soil
in which they were born) and TO their indepen-
dence? But il will be said that these foreigners,
having been invited TO establish themselves IN
that province, settled there under the Federal sys-
tenn. which then governed the Mexican Republic,
and that this system having been dissolved by
armed forces, they had The right to separate them
selves from Mexico, especially as the Constitu-
ton of 1924 had given them the right TO be an
independent State whenever they should possess
the requisite qualifications.
In answer 10 this it should be borne in mind
that the citizens Of The U. States who proclaimed
the independence Of Texas, with The exception
perhaps Of the first coloniss, went there not TO re-
main in submission 10 the Mexican Republic,
but with the object of anncxins Texas to their
own country, thereby strengthening the peculiar
new theatre for the execrable system OF negro sla-
very; that they never subjected themselves 10 the
laws OF Mexico, but lived as they pleased and
that, when they considered that they could erect
themselves into a State of the Coniedcracy, 10 re-
gulaie their affairs in their own way, they formed
their Constitution which the general adminisra-
ton of the Republic did not approve because that
act wanted the requisites fixed by the lundamen-
tai law. This, together with the decree Tor the
suppression OF slavery, and the means adopted TO
subject them to compliance with The laws which
they condemned, rraed them and disposed them
10 raise the standard OF rebellion against the ma
tional authorities. They did in effect rise in re-
bellion and then, finding preext in The variation
of the Federal Constitution, the dispositions OF
which they had never observed, except so far as
suited their convenience; they relied upon il TO ad.
vance their movement, maliciousy denying the
right OF The nation TO vary its institutions whenso-
ever il might be proper for its inlerests-ihen pro-
claiming their independence, and afterwards their
annexation 10 the United States, which had
been The real object OF their comingto Texas and
the end to which all parties and all Administra-
lions in that Republic have directed their efforts
for the last twenty years, as The Hon. Mr.. Shan
non declares in his note, And does not all This
manifcstly prove that system OF fasehood has
been constantly pursued towards Mexico? Does
il not DESTROY even those scmbances OF right by
which il is attempted to justify the rebellion ofthe
colonists of Texas? Moreover, was the ndepcn-
dence promised TO that province in the Federal
Constitution such that it might separate itsefffom
The Republic whenever should possess the quail
ifcations required and annex itself 10 foreign
nation Examine that Constitution with care,
and il will be seen TO promise no more Than that
the State should be independent in lis internal adj
manifestations hut not that il should be cmancipa-
- fro,, tbo not;onni S0vPrpiuntv which all The
States were under obligation 10 acknowledge and
respect Besides what has one nation TO do with
The institutions Of another in its vicinity! Or by
what right can il take 10 itself the territories OF
another, in which its citizens have established
themselves. because the constitutional forms OF
the people who received them have been variedl
Will il be also said, that they have effected
their independence, and that possessing means
sufficient TO maintain il, they should be recognised
as an independent nation, having the RICH! 10
conclude treaties and thereby to annex themselves
10 another Power, which may be more agreeable
ia them and will admit Them into its Union =
But here The undersigned will repeat what he
has already said respecting the articles by which
the Government and the Southern people Of the
United States have brought on the actual situa-
ton of Mexico, in order 10 form an argument
apparently solid on which they might support
the acquisition Of that territory, which has been
for the last twenty years deemed indispensable
BIZ all parties and successive Administrations OF
that Republic" But those called Texans are
not the persons who have effected the indepen.
dence OF that province or who have The means
10 carry it through; the people of the Southern
States of The Union have done every thing, not
to make Texas an independent nation, but TO
annex il to their own territory, with some show
of Justice The note 10 which the undersigned
is replying is proof of the insufficency OF those
so-called Texans; because, had their resources
been adequate 10 sustain them against the power
of the Mexican Republic there would have been
no necessity for the Hon. Mr. Shannon's Govern
men 10 place itself thus openly on their side, and
to tear away al once the veil with which II has
long sought 10 cover its inlrigues and designs.
But, proceeding now TO the belief, that which
is said to be generally entertained in the United
States, that Texas was comprised in the ceSsion
OF Louisiana, made by France 10 that Republic
in 1903 the undersigned will ask, can il be sufi-
cent TO nvalidate subsequent treaties concluded
with the proper solemniliesl BY the treaty con-
cluded at Washington, on the Old ofEebruary,
1919, between the plenipolentiaries of The United
States and OF Spain, the Americans acknow-
lodged the province in question to form part OF
the Spanish possessions; and if it be now said
that this remuneration was improperly made and
il be pretended TO found upon that belief right
superior TO that given by the said treaty, what
guaranty can there be 10 public conventions in
future, when against all may be alleged some
pre-cxisting right, improperly renowned or stipu
iated2 Could not Spain have adduced the same
reason, with much better titles, for disputing the
possession ofLouisiana by the United S,ales?-
Did she not, on retroceding Louisiana 10 France,
which sold that territory 10 the American Go
vernment for eighty millions, reserve to herself
by the treaty Of Oct 1900 the right ofpreference in
case France should be about TO part with il? And
did the United States depend upon her previous
consent to making this important acquisition p
Far from so doing, this business was entered up
on without giving her any notice whatsoever;
and when she became informed of il, she bitterly
complained OF this conduct and refused for one
year, to approve the treaty Of the cesson OF LOU
isiana What, then, would the United States
have said, if the Court Of Madrid, nolwithstand-
ing this solemn approval should now come for
ward with declaration that it had been given in
al ~ IL