The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-09-14
YOU mshl q. well ealru.i pea,l Of gsea'


could puck AZ up again whenerer he wdnfed a.,
although he knew he was watched by two
sharpers, one of whom affected TO have some
claim TO it, aud the other was anxious TO add II
10 the number Of his jewels. Would any man
think such trustee safe or prHienf, or Mdt
ne ir0uld be mise ia committing IL 10 his cdreY
Or would any man believe that a sudden love of
truth, aud justice, would possess he hearts OF
the men, who watched eagerly for such OPP
portunity, and that they would pass, day after
day, bv such treasure, and leave il undis-
turbed2 The Wing leaders certainly deceive
The people II they promise them that they UiH
get Ieras at some other time, iohen Merico
is milling, and It will not ruille The temper Of
the Lion of England, loho has been so remark
able for gentteness! They forget that their
great leaders, Clay, Webster, and Adams, are
against Texas, noW and toreper.
Mr. Clay, in his first letter, argues the ground
against il, and states that ii might be charg
ed against us that we are already an over
grown Republic, and his choice to be a Sc
parate Republic OF Texas on our west, and
| Canada on our North. He also says, " do
not think that Texas ought to be received into
the Union, an integral part of il, IN de-
| cided opposition 10 the wishes OF considerable
and respectable portion of the Confederacy"
Mr.. Claws recent letter of explanation makes
the case, in my judgment, sllIl stronger against
| him. The examples OF objection to the an
| neAauOn Oh leNds III eTtiOut dnu Mdssdcuu-
sets, which he has quoted, with fragment
from Ohio, come under the censure of factions,
and factions merely, when applied and com
| pared TO a great nation, peopled by millions.
Whether such factions be political, religious,
| or social, no statesman can be justified In re-
| gardiGg them in his decision of one OF the most
| vital Questions TO our safety and prosperity. SO
| Massachusetts Federalism leading the New
| England States, under the sheer power OF the
numerical majority rule, previous TO, and dur
| ing the late war, became faction, raved like
a faction, and expired like faction But, did we
| therefore shrink to declare that war, and TO pro
secute it? No! We treated the Federallsts
and their associates as factionlsts, and so they
persisted politically, as they would perish again.
# they were TO attempt disunlon, because OF
the re annexation of Texas What also OBJ
ject to, in this last letter Of Mr.Clay, is, that
he has not added TO his fault Of disunion against
a mere segment of district, in South Carroll
ma, a similar notice and rebuke for Dsunion
proclamation which was early published by Mr.
Adams, whom he made President. From him
the rebuke would have been peculiarly just
Or is it true that the dsunionism of the great
leaders of New England, has "A responsibility
which the same thing in humber men, in The
South, never can possess Even Mr.. Clay,
however is not in advance OF other distinguish
ed citizens OF the South. They had already,
| al the first blush Of the impulse, which few,
and but few, had manifested, in retired dis
uc rebuked i, decidedly, so decidedly, and so
! efIectualy, that | am compelled 10 say that
cam al present, perceive no political party OF
| he cast, such seen by Mr.. Clay, who are
seeking pretence for disunion. states
man must distinguish between the ebulltlons
of momentary passion, and the settled pur-
poses and action of party. II II be seeking
disunion TO be for disunon, b cause re-anneK-
alton might fail is it not, too equally seeking
disunion TO be for dlsunIon, because re-annexa-
ton might be carried? Can candid and
| Just Judge make out any difference And
! ought not Mr.. Adams and his co-signers 10 have
been rebuked instead of being permitted to pass
off the observers of rebukes which are admin
| istered to others All disunionists ought TO be
rebuk,d, and so have the Democratic party al
WAYS acted We do not spare some and con-
denim others, but we condemn them all.
| Besides, the States of Massachusetts and
Vermont placed their opposition 10 the re-an-
nexatlon of Texas, in the resolutions adopted
by their Legislatures, specially on The ground OF
abolition, accompanied by threats to dissolve
the Union and yet Mr.. Clay makes in his last
letter, these very resolutions OF abolition and
dsunion, by these States, conclusive reason
against the remuneration of Texas Has II
come to this, that whenever Massachusetts and
| Vermont choose TO denounce the South, and
! the institutions Of the South, and TO threaten
tiona importance, because ii is desired by The
South must be abandoned? The Legislatures
! Of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and South
Carolina, had passed resolutions, unanimously,
! in favor of the annexation of Texas. Yet these
have not been deemed worthy even OF weight,
nor the greatness of the question iIseli, against
the abolition and dlsunon resolves OF Vermont
and Massachusetts. The latter are assigned
he dignity of conclusive arguments against
annexation. In addition to this, MIR. Clay,
when he was Secretary of State did not con-
| suit those States for their opinions upon this
subj ct. He was then for The anne xaton, and
took measures to obtain It. If it was desirable
then, it is so nov. If our Republic was not
overgrown then, II is no larger IN territory now
He thought 1t then necessary TO our safety. II
that was true then, II is equally true now
He said then our border at the Sabine approached
too near our great southwestern mart. 1t is no
furthnr off now, and the development of British
designs against us, and the extension of her
power over The whole world make the exten-
sion of our border there the more necessary for
our safety. II II be objected that Mexico sets
up some pretence of claim TO Texas, and ought,
therefore to be consulted uolo, so Spain set up
a much stronger claim to all Mexico then, and
to Texas too. The argument which sustained
Mr.. Clay then, is equally as strong nor TO sus
tain the advocates of annexation, and his pre-
sent course is iuesistlbly answered by that par
of the history Of his own administration Of our
foreign relations.
Take il all in all, Notwithstanding his expla-
nations, consider the last letter Of Mr. Clay as
reaking, still stronger, his ground against
Texas. BY this mean, that, while his avowal
of no personal dislike of Texas is made, which
never questioned, he fortihcs and multpes
his objections to annexation. As TO the mere
question Of the treaty, as far as Mr. Clay's OPT
Mons are concerned, had always looked upon
them not being influenced by It's provisions,
and this Interpretation must certainly be Just F;
for his first letter was written five days before
The treaty was communicated TO the Senate.
So thai he is against Texas, treaty, or noir,aty
now. and ever.