The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-06-04

90, ,b,s NJ rynsbur writes to Mr.. Van Zandt re-
snac,;na annexation, and Mr.. Van zandt, three
dave afierwards saws he has communicated with
b;s Government upon the subject, and waits Tor
lis q consideration and determination" The Be-
cretary SAYS " his object is merely to enable you
fMr. Murphy to understand our views and feel
mos and TO i.make them known, in an unofficial
way 10 any extent to which you (hel may think
il prudent 10 CO." Really, Mr.. Murphy must be |
"wise ADORE What is written, if any thing in the
Secretary's dispatches, ESQ far as they have been
communicated to the Senate, !" enabled him TO
understand the views and feelings OF the Go
vernment.
We now come to Mr.. Upsher's despatch to
Mr. Everett, numbered 81, aud dated September
2Sth lS43 Passing over the Introductory mat
ter, we reach what was, apparently, the cause
of the despatch viz: the remarks made by Lord
Brougham and Lord Aberdeen in the British
House of Lords, on the 18th of August proceed
ing Lord Brougham's sentiments. and feelings,
as an individual, we have nothing TO do with
whatever notice they may be entitled to from his
station or his talents, they cannot be pressed in
to any argument respecting the policy Of the
British Government, with which he has no Off
cal connection. He asks Of Lord Aberdeen the
state of the negotiations aouh Teras, and the ma
ture of the instructions that had been given to
the British Minister in that country" Lord
Aberdeen replies, that the exertions of the British
mistice between Texas and Mexico, which he
hoped would tend to the absolute acknowledge
ment of the independence of Texas by Mexico.
The armistice was important step; and he
need hardly say that every effort on the part of
her Majesys Government would lead to that
result which was contemplated by his noble friend.
He, himself was anxious for the abolition Of slav-
cry in Texas. g He could not, however express
any opinion as to the state Of the negotiations
between the two countries in question"
How any one can torture Lord Aberdeen's OBJ
servations into anything approaching TO desire
to interfere with the institutions of this country
is truly surprising. He speaks only of negotia-
tons between Great Britain and Teras-the
Secretary could not mean to say that the United
States were IN any manner connected with these
negotiations. Mr.. Upshur says that whether
or not the language attributed to Lord Aberdeen
was meant to extend beyond the single fact Of
the Liberation of the slares of Teas, may per-
haps, admit Of doubt" but still the whole of his
dispatches under this date both official and con-
fidenual, assume the contrary as the foundation
of all their arguments and reasoning But no
thing can be more illogical than his conclusions
Lord Brougham inquiries of Lord Aberdeen the
state of negotiations pending between England
and Texas, and says that il by these negotiations
Mexico could be induced :" to acknowledge the
independence Of Texas" she would suggest a
hope that Il" (what? the independence Of Texas
dChuOWlcuyeu Dy MeXlCO) - would terminate
the abolition of slavery in Texas and ultimately in
the.whole Of the Southern States of America
for, he says, he knows ''that the Texans would
do much, as regarded the abolition of slavery, If
Mexico could be induced to acknowledge their
Independence" Lord Aberdeen replies that
probably the first step towards the recognition
OF the independence of Texas by Mexico (name-
ly, the armistice) had been obtained, and that
her Majesty's Government would make every ef-
fort 10 bring about the result contemplated by his
noble friend" What was the result contemplate
ed by Lord Brougham The ackno,vled exaent of
The independence of Texas by Merico. The abo-
lition of slavery in Texas, and the effect Of that
abolition on the United States were consequences
flowing from that recognition, and no part of the
negotidt ons to obtain it, so far as anything we
have yet seen informs US. There is nothing yet |
sad by either of the noble Lords which could
fairly lead TO the inference that the Liberation
of the slaves in Texas" had formed any part of
the negOtidtions-and it is with these negotia-
tons, as national acts, that Mr.. Upshur, as Sec
rotary OF State, had to deal The private opin-
Ions and the expressed conclusions Of Lords
Aberdeen and Brougham have as little to do with
matters OF State concerns, as the misrepresenia-
tons OF Mr.. Dickens the mistakes Of Harriet
Martineau
On what ground did the President Mr. Upssltr
says he did) assume that the declarations made
by Lords Aberdeen and Broughatn were made by
remainder of the official despatch (No 6ll IL
founded on this baseless assumption and il there
fore unworthy of comment. The greater part Of
the confidential despatch is of the same nature
1t speaks about the effects of abolition in the
United States, and then inquiries what would be
its effects Ito the United Staes) if confined to
Texas. Because Texas adjoins Louisiana and
Arkansas, if slavery were abolished in Texas, the
slave would have only to cross the Sabine or the
Red River, and he would become free man. and
the "result would be the crushing of the South
ern States" Now, let Texas be annexed to the
Union, and slavery extended through her terri
tory, then Mexico, where slavery is abolished
would adjoin the States to be hereafter carved
out of that territory, "and the slave would have
only to cross the boundary between those States
and Mexico to become free man." Would not
TINS result equally tend to the "cruishing of the
Southern States?" This mode of argument
would prove that Merico should also form part Of
tela chx,, 49,