The Ohio Democrat. [volume] (Canal Dover, Ohio) 1840-1900, 1844-05-09
VAN BUREN ON ANNEXATION.

Texas" appeared in The Globe of Saturday. ana occu'
les eight columns of that paper 1t is decldedIy oPPo
ed to the Annexation, not on Constitutional grounds
or he states that he considers that question as settled IN
he ACQUISITION of Louisiana and Florida, but on the
ground that it could not be effected without dong
wrong to Mexico unless the consent OF that power were
st obtained to the proposed Annexation oI Texas he
'ays
"Then the application was for the immediate admis-
sion of Te,as into the Union an independent state;
your question looks only TO its annexation as part o
he territory of the United States There no express
power given to any department of the government TO |
purchase territory except for the objects specified in the
c,stu,ion viz for arsenalS &c. but the power has on
several very important been regarded as in the
eay-makrg power; and territories have been so an
nexed with view and under engagements for their u-
innate admission into the Union as States. hthere be
nothing in the situation or condition of the Territory OF
Texas which would render ifs admission hereafter into
the Union as new State improper cannot perceive
my objection on constitutional grounds to its annexa-
ton as territory In speaking of the right to admit
new States must, Of course, be understood as referring
u the power of Congress. The Executive and Senate
may as have already observed by the exercise OF the
treaty making power, acquire territory but new States
can only be admittedly Congress- & the sole authority
over the subject which is given to Thy the cOnsu tion
is contained in the following provision, viz new States
may be admitted by the Congress into this Union
The only restrictions imposed upon this general power
are ls That no new Stale shall be formed or erected
within the jurisdiction of any other State nor 2ndly
| q toto mad hv iuriedictinn NJ
States or parts of States without the consent of the leg
islatures concerned, as well as of Congress"
tons which have no bearing upon the present question:
The matter therefore, stands it would do ifthe COLI
s!ituton said new States may be admitedb by the Con-
gress into this Union" without addition or restriction
That these words, taken by themselves, are broad e.
nough 10 authorize the admission of the Territory of
Texas, cannot, think, be well doubted nor do per-
ceve upon what principle we can set up limitations to
power SO unquafedy recognized by the constitution
in the plain simple words have quoted, and with
which no other provision Of that instrument conflicts in
the sHghtestdegree"
l III by no means contend that a formal re-
cognition Of the independence of Texas by Mexico is
necessary to justify us in asserting to her annexation to
the United States Time and circumstances may work
such change in the relations between those two coun-
tries as to render an act of that character the part Of
Mexico, unnecessary and unmporant. What mean
to say is that from all the information have been able
to acquire upon the subject no change has yet taken
place in those relations that would make the objections
which haxe here detailed, inapplicable."
"lfthe time ever comes when the
question resolves itself into whether Texas shall be-
come British dependency colony constitutional
portion Of this Union the great principle of sefdefence
applicable as well to nations as 10 individuals, would
without doubt produce as great unanimiy among us
in favor of the latter alternative as can ever be expect
ed on any gea, question Of foreign or domestic pol
ICY"
ut is also applehended by many,
that the British authorities will attempt to make Texas
British colony or dependency find it difficult 10
credit the existence of such ntatuaon the part Of
any European power. cannot bring myself to believe
that any European government which has not already
made up its mind to provoke war with this country,
will ever attempt to coonize Texas either in form or in
substance. If there be any such power the considera-
tons to which have advered would soon lose most Of
their importance; for opportunities would not then be
slow in presenting themselves for the conquest of what
territory might be deemed necessary to our secur
ty in legitimate seltdefence."
The question then recurs if, as sen
sble men, cannot avoid the conclusion that the i'm
mediate annexation of Texas would, in all human prob
ability, draw after it a war with Mexico can it be ex
pedient 10 attempt itl Of the consequences Of such
war; the character it might be made to assume, the en-
tangemens with other nations which the position OF
beligerent almost unavoidably draws after it. and tn
undoubed injuries which might be inflicted upon each
notwithstanding the great disparity of their respectiv
forces l will not say word. God forbid that an A
merican citizen should count the cost of any appeal ha
is appropriately denominaed the last resort of nation:
whenever that resort becomes necessary either for h
safety or to vndicate the honor Of his country Their
is, trust not one so base not to regard himself an
all he has, to be forever and at all times subject to sue
g requisition. But would war with Mexico brougl
under such circumstances be contest of that cha
acter2 Could we hope to stand perfectly justified in tn
j. eyes mankind for entering into more especially
al its commencement is to be preceded by the appropria
ton of our own uses of the territory the sovereignty
whc4 is in dispute between two nations one of whic
we are TO join in the struggle?
L. III shall add few words on anotht
aspect Of the question: and then dismiss the subject
i Mexico may carry her persistence iL refusing 10 al
knowledge the independence Of Texas, and in desru
tive but iruitess efforts to conquer that State so far
n 10 produce, in connexion with other circumstances
decided conviction the part Of majarity of the pei
j 4. (.l.