The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-06-14

lJtlcdf OF hncficas- he opJe>' "
true and rational humanity, then should be to place
no artificial impeachment IN the way OF This natural
flow Of The African population IN America 10 the
south and Southwest, but TO leave Texas, whethef
as foreign and independent State, or as member
OF the American Union, perfectly fee TO act IN tins
matter according TO her rights and her own enligh-
ened and responsible conscience.
The review into which have been drawn, MIR.
President, of the policy and proceedings OF England
in regard 10 American questions, must satisfy Us
that we have TO encounter the constant competition
and ~atchiul Jealousy of colossal Power al every
step IN the march OF our national greatness, even Ia
our own hemisphere She claims "aseeadency," IN
the language of her own statesmen, every here-in
the $ well the old world. She asplIes al
the same time TO moral censorship and surveillance
over all Christendom, while she pursues her own m
eress In every quarter OF the globe without regard
10 the opinions the interests Of other nations.
would incucate unworthy jealousy FAR less any H.
liberal hostility towards England but would pursue
The race Of competition into which we are thrown
with heron our own continent and IN our own seas
at least-wiih spirit and an energy worthy of such
rival Let us not shrink nglorlously from the des-
times which God and nature have assigned us. IN
that same letter on a 'Regcide Peace from which
my honorable friend from Massachusetts, Mr..
Choate) read us a sentence or two on another sub
ec the immortal author delivered some noble a1ims
OF p,lIot.n and Of high national policy, which are
strongly recalled by the circumstances OF our prese nj
position He tells Us hat there Is in State affairs "a
courageous WISDOM and, the other hand IA false
reptile prudence, the result not OF caution, but OF
fear and he proceeds To add what the history OF ma
tons well individuals fully confirm, that
lhere is hing rash fear for It rarely puts
of, while II is 10 aggravate in the end the very
evils from which it would fly. The highest pru-
Jence IN my opinion, Is in courageous wisdom )
aud while would never be tempted by interest To
pursue unjust object, so, the other hand,
would be turned aside from the prosecution OF
object both just and necessary by the suggestions
of lilnid and over-cautious policy, which, IN The
end, Is always the rastea
IT, them the acquisition Of Texas be the object
of high national expediency and impona nce, which
| thiuk have shown IL to be, the next question is,
have right to acquire it under the circumstances
and in the manner proposed' Has Texas, first,
night to dispose OF herself? This question has been
argued it, though Texas be actually independent,
something Is yet wanting 20 make her righyu'iy indie
pendent. But, sir, this distinction has itlo war
rant IN the established doctrines Of public law in
the principles Of our own immortal act of indepen-
dence The great oracle OF the modern law OF ma
lions (VateD says expressly that every nation that
governs ITSELF under what form soever, without de-
tendance on any foreign power, Sovereign State.
It's rights are naturally the hose of any other
State. To give nation right 10 make immediate
figure IN this grand society, IS sufficient that l. be really
s0rereitn an indpendent-Lhai u.s. thai gopeyJiS sey
by its een authority and lars" Is not Texas really
sovereign and Independent" Has she not been for
maly Recognised such 10y the leading Powers OF
Europe and Amer,ca-by England, France, and Eiol-
land, AS well as th. Uniled Slstesf Does she not
govern herself, and has she not constantly governed
herself by her ow authority and laws from the final
achievement of her Independence on the field of San
Jaclnto (Which was promptly followed by the adop-
ZION of written constitution, and complete orga'
zauon of evil government under ~ down to the
present day BY every criterion, then, and according
to the highest authorities of public law, she has all
the rights whatever they be, of sovereign and indie
pendent State, and first and chiefeS among theu
that OF regulating add disposing OF her own des-
TIMES
But il has been oon,ended tha the acquisition of
Texas would involve breach Of frih towards MeIi-
co; and We referred to the language OF DOR treaty
Of amty aod ,nmerce with Mexico 10 1882, wherein
both nations agree TO maintain peace and amty vi n
each other in all The erieni Of their possessions and terri
tories The first observation which occurs upon tins al
gument is, that II there were foundation for II, II
certainly comes mu IN too late in the day now. The
breach vi faith here alleged If there were any, has
been long since committed. 1t committed in
the very acknowledgment of Texan independence
for the acknow edgment Of the political sovereignty
OF Texas necessarily involved recognition OF her
right j domain over territory once ga possession" OF
Mexico but which ceased to be so, according TO the
acknowledged principles of the law of nations, by
the very fact OF the separation and independence Of
Texas II there were breach Of faith ia this to-
wards Mexico, or # there be breach OF faith now IN
treating with Texas, as having a sovereign right TO
dispose Of the territory claimed by her, twas equally
committed by England, by France, aud by all the
powers who have recognised the independence OF
Texas for II Is impossible TO draw q line between
the political and he territorial sovereignty Of an in
dependent State. England has especially and direct
y recognised tins right If d5nGin in Texas, by Ear
nestly patronizlng aud prosecuting stated by the
honorable Senator from Mississippi, (hlr Walker
almost baronial claim of Of her subjects, un-
der grant Of several millions derived from
the Government OF Texas. The United States act
ing upon the same principle which induced them, by
treaty with Mexico in 1892 10 acknowl ledge as her
limits the boundaries previously established between
Spain and them by the treaty Of 1919 ba, SINCE by
treaty Of limits with Texas In 1885, soemly recog
nised the same boundaries hning the territory OF
Texas, and entered into stpulatio,s for the actual
demarcation Of Them as SUCH by Joint commissioners
OF The two countries. repeat, therefore, II there
were any foundation for the mputation Of a breach /
Of faith towards Mexico, in regard TO the Territorial
sovereignty over Texas still asserted by her, (as
think ! have shown there is not the slighest) the /
imputation attaches as much to England, TO France
aud the other powers who have recognised the nde- /
pendsnoe Of Texas as to the United States, and IS |
wholly obsolete in its application the present state
Of things.
1t Is also argued that to receive Texas into the
Union could be TO enter unjushably and against
the principles OF the law Of nations into a war ex.
isting between Mexico and Texas. But where istIe
evidence Of any such uar between these two Powers
the law Of ratons declares necessary IN order 10
give rise the legal oonsequences-to the rights and
resp nsbiliues-of a state Of war; confess, SIR.
none in any Of the information before US It is
true that Mexico has never recognized the indepen-
dence OF Texas-that formal articles of peac.
have been as yet concluded between them but
look in vain for any proof Of a regular organizeJ
sustained war between them IL appears from the
documents before us, that for more Than six years
ter the achievement OF her independence by the bat
Vie of San Jacnto, mot a hostile footn 10 use the
language OF MIR Webster, ." had found rest with n
the territory Of Texas" that during all that period
Mexico had reiraned from any attempt to re-e,ab-
lish her authority" in Tesss; that at last in the
summer Of 1912, some two or three maraudingr
expeditions were made into the territory of Texas
which retresed more rapidly than they advanced
and ~ retaliation OF them one two sudden and
transient lrruptons had been made into the Mexican
borders from Texas; but that since these irregular
and expiring efforts Of border cnmty there had been