The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-12-21

then governed the Mexican Republic, and that his
system having been dissolved by armed forces they
had the right 10 separate themselves from Mexico,
especially the Constitution OF 1924 had gwen them
the right TO be independent Stale whenever they
sh, uld possess the requisite qualifications.
la answer TO this II should be borne IN mind that
the citizens of the United States who proclaimed the
indepe ndence of Texas, with the exception per
haps of the first coonists, went there not TO re-
main in submission TO the Mexican Republic, but
with the object of annexing Texas 10 their own
country, thereby Strengthening the peculiar inslu-
tons OF the Southern States, and opening new the
atre for the eIecrabe system OF negro slavery that
they never subjected themselves TO the laws oil Mex
ico hut lived as they pleased and that, when they
considered that they could erect themselves into
State of the CoDfoderscy, to regulate their Affairs IN
their way, they formed their Constitution, which
the General Administration OF The Republic DID not
approve, because that act wanted The requisites hxed
by the fundamental law. This, together with the
decree for the suppression OF slavery, and the means
adopted TO subject them To compliance WIN The laws
which they condemned, irrilateJ them and disposed
them TO Tase the standard OF rebellion against the
national authorities. They did in efec: rise in
bellon and then finding pretext in the variation
Of the Federal Constitution, the dispositions OF which
they have never observed, except so lar as suited
their convenience, they relied upon II to advance
their movement, maciousIy denying the night OF the
nation to vary institutions whensoeyer II might be
proper for its interests-then Proclamng their lndc
pendence, and afterwards their annexation TO the
United States, which had been the real object Of
their coming to Texas, and the end to which all par
ties and all administrations in that Republic have d
rected their efforts for the last twenty years the
Hon. Mr. Shannon declares IN his note. And does
not all this maniiestly prove that system of iale
hood has been constantly pursued towards Mexico
Does it not destroy even those sembances Of right
by which it is attempted TO justify the rebellion of
the colonists Of Texasi Moreover, was the indie
pendence promised 10 that province in the Federal
Consultation such that it might separate itself from
the Republic whenever II should possess the quallh
cations required, and annex itself to foreign ma
toDi Examine that Constitution with care, and II
will be seen to promise no than that the State
should be independent in its internal administration
but not that it should be emancipated from the
tonal sovereignty, which all the States were under
obligation TO acknowledge and respect Besides,
what has nation TO do with the institutions OF
another in its vicinity Or by what right can II take
to itself the territories of another, in which lis clti
have established Themselves, because the coDst-
tutona forms Of the people who received them have
been varied
Will it be also said that they have effected their
independence, and that, possessing means sufficient
to maintain il, they should be recognised as an indie
pendent nation having the right to conclude treaties,
and thereby TO annex themselves to another Power,
which may be more agreeable TO them and VIII ad'
NIT them into this Unoni 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 ac
tual situation of Mexico in order to form an argu-
ment apparently solid on which they might support
the acquisition of that territory, which has been for
the last twenty years deemed indispensable by all
parties and successive administrations Of that Republic"
But those called Texans not the persons who
have effected the independence of that province, or
who have the means to carry it through; the people
of he Southern States of he Union have done every
thing, not to make Texas an independent nation but
TO annex IL 10 their own territory, wih some chow
of The "a hirh the
plying IS proof Of the nsuficency of those socaled
texans because, had their resources been adequate
to sustain them against the power OF the Mexican
Republic, there would have been necessity for the
Hon. MIR. Shannons Government to place itself thus
openly on their side, and to tear away at once the
veil with which il has long sought to cover lis in
trgues 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 Louisia
ma made by France To that Republic in 1903, the
undersigned will ask it be sufficient TO invaiidate
subsequent treaties concluded with the proper soem
nlities' BY the treaty conc uded at Washington, on
the 22d of February, 1919, between the plenpoten-
tiaries OF the United States and of Spain the Amer
cans acknowledged the province in question to
part of the Spanish possessions and If be now aid
that this remuneration was improperly made and II be
pretended TO found upon that belief right superior
TO that given by the said treaty, what guaranty
there be to pub c conventions future, when against
all may be alleged some pre-existing right, improper
ly renounced or stipulated Could not Spain have
adduced the same reason with much better titles for
dsputng the possession of 1 ouisana by the United
States Did she not on retroceding Louisiana TO
France, which sold that territory to the American
Government for eighty Millions reserve to herself
by the treaty Of October, $500, the right of prefer
ence in France should be about TO part with IL
And did the United States depend upon her previous
consent TO making this important acquisition Far
IRON so doing, this business was entered upon without
giving her any notice whatsoever; and when she be-
came informed of 1t, she bitterly complained OF this
conduct, and refused for year 10 approve the
treaty of cesson Of Louisiana. What then, would
the United States have said, if the Court Of Madrid
notwithstanding this solemn approval, should now
come forward with a declaration that il had been
gwen n an improper manner, and that this territory
candesnely transferred 10 another should be return
ed to herr Would they fail TO adduce in this case the
conventional right, flowing from the treaty OF sppro.
val, as pere'nptory reason in opposition TO the pre-
tensions OF Spanl Well, this is precisely what Mex
lco now doesl she relies not only the treaty Of
Washington Of February 3d. 1879 but on the treaty
entered upon and concluded on the 18th Of January
1898 between the plenipoentiaries of this Republic
and the United States, and afterw ards solemn, rat
fed by the two contracting parties
la both treaties II Is agreed that the dividing lines
should be marked out; that Texas snodld not belong
TO the United States bu, first Spain and aerw ards
TO Mexico, as succeeding TO the rights Of Spain In
neither treaty will be found the reservations which
could give TO the American Government the titles
which 1t appears to found upon belief contrary to
solemn conventions whilst both treaties contain
press and positive renunciatons Of that t,rrtory in
favor OF Spain and this Republic, as may be seen
by reference TO the third article Of the treaty Of
Washington, and the second article of the treaty OF
Mexico
AS II IS thus asserted that this belief that the terri
tory OF Texas belongs to the United States, hs. er-
'stcd IN every part of the Union for the last twenty
years 1t Is indeed surprising hat in the year 1925
thsy should have agreed hN the ar a..
treaties OF hints with Spain, TO aeknowI, dye that
province as an integral part OF the Mexican nepub-
Inc. II these reasons then good, why did they
not amend the defect In the first treaty. and at least