Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-09-06

legislatures, against it, &c. This was the opposi-
ton to the measure, to which, in my Raleigh letter,
| alluded, when spoke of considerable and re-
spectacle portion of the confederacy' did not
refer to persons but to States or sections" Mr..
Clay in his letter thus confirms the passage in the
Raleigh letter, in which he said,-
:" do NOT think that Texas ought to be re-
ceived into the Union, as an integral part of it, in
decided opposition to the wishes of considerable
and respectable portion of the coufederacy."
But great stress is laid upon the avowal of Mr..
Clay that he would be personally glad TO see an.
nexation on certain conditions What are these
conditions, all Of tchi are essential to secure his
assent? Mark them: 4" Wahom diShonor, without
war, NTH THE COMMON CONSENT
OF THE UNION, and upon Just and fair
terms"
Here is embraced the identical doctrine avowed
by Massachusetts, Vermont, and Ohio--the dbSo-
lutc necessity Of The consent ofhe Slides
Yea more to ensure his appreciation, annexation
must come in with other condtions-honoroby,
peoccably, justly and fairy,-all combined, such
indeed, as might reconcile every portion of the
Union to the measure. How unlike the position
of Mr.. Polk, or Benton, who would force the meas
ure IMMEDIATELY and IN utter disregard Of
The rights of The SiateS by bare party majority /;
Really, in this declaration of Mr.. Clay we see no
possibility of annexation under his administration,
to say the least. Mexico must be reconciled, TO
avoid var and dishonor; every section of the
Union must be reconced to secure common con-
SENT the slave question must be satisfactorily set
tied 10 secure the North; and, II IL is so settled, we
apprehend the South would then oppose annexation
as bitterly as does the North now; and thus would
the scheme utterly fail.
To this slavery question: Mr.. Clay gives it as
his opinion that it ought not to affect annexation.
This alters not the fdcts the notorious facts, that
the slaveocracy want Texas to sustain slavery,
while we of the North, for the very same reason,
o not want it, The opinion, upon which this dec
araton of Mr.. Clay is based viz. that annexation
will neither retard hasten the final extinctio
of slavery, by the fixed laws of population, does
not alter this state of facts, nor docs it in fact meet
The objections which the opponents of annexation
urge. They object, first, to becoming responsible
for single inch of new slave territory, single
additional slave, by taking Texas and second, that
this addition would give a performance to the
slave states in the Union and thus perpetuate slave
ry-not by retarding the perod~hen tmust neces-
safily cease, but by propping up the system and
nursing it TO the longest possible period of cxs-
tcnce. These objections Mr.. Clay does not deny
his speculative opinions do not meet them. And
what if they did? We are yet to learn that even
his opinions law either to his personal polit
cal friends. We are not bound by them while he
stands forth pledged against annexation so long as
| it is against the common consent of the States
while he is for Protection and the other Wing
bmeasures which we believe essential to the pros
perity of the country and while to oppose him, Ell
Their by supporting Mr.. Birney or any other man.
is in our judgment, actually TO support the annex
alton scheme, to support slavery, and to PROSTATE
the best interests of the country-we shall deem II
our duty to support him Notwithstanding the differ
ence of opinion to the future effect of scheme
which he precludes himself from supporting, by in
sid!ng upon conditions which can never occur
| The letter follows: