The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-12-07

voting for President who desired to see Tex
as annexed, and voting for the Annexation
at the late election because the candidate who
did NOT sdesire to see Texas annexed" had been
dropped in consequence OF his want of that 'de-
sire.n and another substituted because he pos
sessed il. If Colonel Polk had been defeated
there would have been strong grounds for sup
posing that the measure was condemned.
| IL is true enough, "lhe President is not an
Emperor" and that he cannot annex coun-
try by the breath of his mouth" but he could
veto an act annexing Texas by the ink Of his
pen. The People did not want President to
annex Texas himself-they merely wanted one
who was heartily in favor of the measure, and
who would sanction il in his official capacity
There could be no possibility of President
forcing upon the unwilling country scheme
of his own"-we repeat, that the only appre-
hension, or danger, was his ability and inclina-
ton to veto the great "scheme" of the party
and the People. 1t may be that Mr.. Van Blu
rem, if he had been elected President, would
have submitted to the "will of the Legislature, d
and sanctioned Annexation-but We could not
knop il.
| The writer repeats his reservations in diff
ferent phraseology in the following paragraph,
and presents other untenabe posIulaes
| Nor was there any thing 10 the circumstances of
the election which made vote for the Democratic
candidate evidence Of favor to a union with Texas.
Voting for Mr. Polk did not imply that the Electors
would have voted also for the annexation. An cleo
ton signifies nothing as an expression OF opinion,
unless the opinion alone determines the vote Does
any body imagine that the voters opinion upon the
annexation alone determined his vote for against
MIR. Polk! If it we're SO, what became Of the ques-
tons of the Bank, Distribution, Tariff Had they
no influence in determining the choice of the eector'
If they had who shall the degree of inhu-
ence Of each' Is it not possible, that the vote
given to Mr. Polk not for, but in spite Of his Texas
inclination And ifso in one CASE why not in many
or in most Of them' What reason is there then to
think that the vote is index ofopnion this ques
toni Thereiis none. The error arises from
fusion of IDEAS Unless an election turns upon
single question, in which personal preferences and
party attachments have part, it cannot be test of
opinion in respect to it,"
There is one circumstance" in the teeth
of the writer's assertion, which must be very
distinctly remembered by most of the Demo-
CIdtiC foteIs-We dhuue ~ Tue MOsl COnsplCu-
Gus inscription on the banners and Transparent
ces borne in the van of the professions, from
Maine to Louisiana.
To the query, whether "the voters opinions
upon the Annexation alone determined his vote
for or against Mr.. Polk we answer, YES If
Mr.. Polk had not been in favor of Annexation,
however worthy in other respects, he would not
have been voted for. Will any Democrat de-,
my this?
The next query, "What became of
the questions of the Bank, Distribution,
Tariff" is easily disposed Of. They remained
in stata quo-the party and the candidate main
tanned the negative as they had always DONE
And here the writer furnishes an unanswerabe
argument against his own position; for there is
not, and never was, shade of difference in
opinion between Col. Polk and Mr.. Van Buren,
on the questions he enumerates, which is con-
elusive evidence that the question of Annexation
was the controlling one and the selection and
election Of the former decides that the majority
have declared in favor of the measure. Agree
ing on all the rest of the questions with Mr..
Van Buren,, will the writer pretend 10 say that
Col. Polk would have been nominated and elect
ed, if he had not been in favor of Immediate
annexation2"
But the writer asks if Democrats, agreeing
with the nominee on all other questions, might
not vote for him " in spite of his Texas inclna-
lions 2" A few might. He then asks +" why
not in many, or most of" the cases? Such
cases could neither be "many" nor most" be.
cause, as we have said, there were only three
Democratic papers in the Union opposed to
Annexation, and no opposing Democratic voice
was heard at any Of the gatherings of the
People" If "most" or even "manyn of the
party had been hostile 10 the measure, we all
know that they would have made themselves
heard. In the great Stale of New York, the
number did not exceed the number of subscri-
bers to the Post-say 5000.
Certainly there were no "personal preferences
and party attachments" that caused the seec-
ton Of Mr.. Polk over Mr. Van Buren-and
hence the Texas question was the true "test OF
opinion"
We must postpone the consideration of the
remainder of the Posts article.
We take the subjoined important intelligence
r. NJ ~