Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1844-09-04
NO. 3d.

In negotiating The treaty fortne .annexa
lion Of Texas, which was rejected by 'lhs
Senate, motives have been ascnbed 10 In,
Administration which had no place iiI ia ii!
mind or heart, One gentleman, occupy.
lug prominent place in The Democratic
party. whether for good or for evil ii does
nol become ne to say, has assignedlin an
address, recently delivered In Missouri,
Two prominent motives; for Its negotiation
/ lsts personal ambition, 2dly. purpose 10
dissolve. ihe Union. Mr.. Clay, also, ia a
| recent letter, written 10 the editorofa news
Paper.55in Alabama, has calsd the treaty
| IN famous, and ahscribed 10 il irl its origin.
s'n.sters Objects repel. both their as
saults upen the treaty and It's nego,iators.
What object of mere personal ambition iii
any way connected with office could have
Influenced the Administration iirn uegotia-
ling the treaty? The public archives fur
nished the strongest reasons 10 believe
that the treaty would have met the un-
qualified approval Of both Mr., Clay and
Mr.. Van Buren. While the one was
Secretary of Staieto MIR. Adams, and the
other to Geuecal Jackson, EACH ia his, turn
attempted to obtain the annexation of
Texas! p 1. -
Mr.. :Clay's negotiations was carried on
with Mexico in the third year Of her rev.
olutlonary struggle, while Spain regarded
her as revolled province, and her armies
were in, possession Of many of The strong.
holds of the country. What reason, then
could ! have had for supposing for an il in. !.
stanl that a treaty with Texas, afier eight
years. Of actual independence, with no 10
Mexican soldier within her territory, and
subject only to occasional border inlerrup-
tons, could orwould have met with op-
position from him or his friends? and
meeting with no such opposition on the.
part Of either MIR. Van Buren, OF Mr.. CLAW,
and their friends, il would puzzle sounder
3casuist Than profess TO be. TO conceive in
swhaI possible way it could have interrupt
ed the relations Of those two gentlemen,
who stood at the head ofiheir respective
parties, and were looked upon by all as
competitors for the Presidency. Ii is well
known that, when the negotiation for the
acquisition of Texas was commenced, and ],
up TO aperiod succeeding tbe signing Of
the treaty, il was my confident conviction
expressed 10 many, that itwould, from
the circumstances i have stated, receive
The support both of Mr.. Clay and Mr..
Van Buren,, so that neilher.ofs them would
be effected by its negotiation. !:
Ii il had been charged shat this admin
istraIion was prompted by the ambition Of
securing the greatest boon to the country,
and the, whole country. in acguisition,ofa
territory so important 10 itself and so! in
separately connected with The interest Of
every State in the Union, and every inter-
est ollhe Union, would have plead gull
iy, without moment of hesitation. 7.
confess I felt ambitious to add another
bright star to the American constellation.
II would have been source of pride 10.
me; if that measure had been carried, TO-
have witnessed from the retirement that
awaits me. the annual expansion OF our
coastwise and foreisn trade, and the in
creased prosperity of our agriculture and
manufactures, through the rapid growth of.
Texas, which would have followed the
ratification Of the treaty. Yes, / freely
confes; that this would have furnished me,
an unlailins source of qualification 10 The
end Of my life. should have seen also
the Union pfthe States becoming stronger
and stronger through their reciprocal af-
lectinn Local jealousies suppressed, and,
fanatical. schemes and schemers alike
prostrate. should have witnessed the.
blessed results of our Federale system as
il embraced The finest country 10 the world
aud brought under its influence a people
devoted like ourselves to The maiItainance
and preservation of free government. &
This was the kind, Of ambition which
prompted the negotiatialion Of, The Treaty.
Its ratification was the sole honor whictl
coveted, aud all that 1 now desire. What;
sinister motives could have have originated
the negotion al this lime, that did not did
exist in 1927? What, was there now to
have rendered Treaty infamous which
did nool exist then! Hi be said thai we
had a Treaty. Of Limits with NJ Mexico, L.
ask if, in 1927, we. had moi also treaty
of Limits. with Spain? We had recognised
he independence. of Mexico; and, lhere-
fore, virtually claimed thai we, had per-y
feet right TO- treat. her for the annexation Of
Texas. ond in fact. il we had so pleased,
for Mexico entire. ;. Eight years ago we,
recognised. Texas as Independent, and;
surely our fight 10 negotiate. with her,.
implied no. worse faith than in 1927 to
negotiate with Mexico for her, :ssj.,y :.
|: The Idea that because of the existance
of Treaty Of Limits with, any nation.
we must forever thereafter deny to all parts
Of the territory Of such nation The right of,
revolution or change, can only excite, with
an American citizen. a smile. Was it,
deemed necessary, in 1927, 10 consult the:
States, 10 consult the Senate, OF TO consult
The House of Representatives. or the peo-.
pl=? Was it. considered necessary ! TO,
Obtain the assent of every State as would
seem now TO be proposed; before forming
"a Treaty Of annexation? 1.-THE assent Of.
every State is necessary, then NAV wa