The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-04-15

| lie.
If from 1925 to 1885 there was but one opin-
ion as TO the necessity Of acquiring Texas,
surely all subsequent developments have tended
to deepen and broaden that conviction. AS
mart for our manufactures, for the various pro-
ducts of the West, for the workmanship OF our
ARTISANS, rich harvest for our ships, aud an out
let for slavery, Texas recommends ltseli to our
acceptance by claims hundred fold greater
than at any previous period. A sixth attempt
at annexation has proved successful and shall
we, like capricious child, refuse ;hls long
sought, this ardenty desired accession TO our
territory, because ii has been obtained for US by
one who may be politically not the most agree
able TO us2 Shall we refuse to accept prize
which Adams and Clay, Jackson, Van Buren,
Forsyth, Livingston, and Webster, sought in
vain to procure Shall we refuse it merely be-
cause John Tyler has succeeded in his efforts to
obtain il for us2 Was the independence OF
Mexico acknowledged bv Spain when Adams
and Clay sought to obtain Texas7 No. Was
Spain at war with Mexico? Yes, and pressing
her with alarming vigor Did Spain remon-
slrate with Messrs. Adams and Clay against
negotiating with Mexico for the cession OF Tex
as Yes, she did most earnestly and peremp-
toriIy. Did Messrs. Adams and Clay heed these
circumstances, and cease to negotiate? No,
they passed them by as idle wind, and pressed
their negotiations still more vigorously. Did
Mexico decline negotiating for the cession of
Texas upon the ground that, Spain not yet hav
lug acknowledged her independence, the United
States had no right to seek, or Mexico to grant,
any portion of the territory of Mexico; and did
Mexico ask the United States to heed the re-
monstrances of Spain No; Mexico con,ended
that her independence was complete without
the acknowledgment of Spain-that the United
States had perfect right to enter into treaty
with her for the cession of Texas, and for any
other purpose; and that she (Mexico) had
perfect right to make any treaty she chose, to
cede or not to cede Texas at her pleasure
Now, then, from these premises let the sagacity
of the Intelligencer deduce the result, that we
have no right to treat with Texas for a cession
of any or all its territory, she having establish
ed and maintained her independence for eight
years, while Mexico had declared hers only four
years prior to the negotiation of Adams and
Clay, and while she was yet struggling in the
throes Of its par,ur,ion.
The public needs only true information on the
merits and history of Texas, to give il nearly
unanimous approval Every day adds to the
number of its supporters, and the few who yet
question its advantage will come into the mea-
sure as they acquire knowledge on the subject
Is it strange, therefore, that Mr.. Tyler should
feel assured of the approval of the Senate, every
member Of which mast, in common courtesy,
be presumed familiar with the history Of the
country al least as far back as 1919, and that,
consequently, every member knows that he is
seeking to place at the head of this nation a
man who has untiringiy sought to accomplish
this very treaty. and who is still in favor of the
annexation of Texas2 How can he doubt that
both parties will cooperate in communicating a
measure so long, so frequently and so zealously
urged by their respective candidates. Can
any man with a straightforward mind, conceive
it possible that the Senate will reject measure,
deemed necessary TO the welfare Of this nation,
BY those statesmen whom they would respec-
UVely scleCt 10 pIesluc over tue uestlnles OIL the
naton7 |, was Wing measure under Adams
and Clay-wll the Wing Senators abandon or
oppose il, because advocated and offered by Mr..
Tyler7 II was a Democratic measure under
Gen. Jackson and Mr.. Van Buren-wili Demo
cratic Senators abandon or oppose il, because
offered by Mr.. Tyler2 Is it a sufficient reason
to oppose, postpone, or abandon measure, that
Mr.. Tyler should propose IL Hard, indeed,
might then be the fate of our country for the
more good measures which Mr.. Tyler might
propose, would only afford the Senate an oppor-
tunity of denying greater number of benefits
to the country. II its proposition by Mr.. T'y-
Ter, be not just cause for opposition, abandon
menl nor delay-then we confidently ask, what
patriotic, what defensible motive can be assign
ed for rejecting this ueaty7 The Himsy pre-
texts Of the Intelligencer aft it as cobwebs
around vigorous muscles-,bey may cover or con-
ceal it, but cannot impede its action.
Hitherto no voice has been raised to oppose
annexation why should any now be heard
against it, when immediate benefits will Aow
from the Union2 In the terms Of the treaty
itself, there will be found no feature objection
able 10 any one who is not utterly opposed to
the admission Of Texas
MR.. ERvING AND TEXAS.