The Whig standard., 1844-06-08
COM M U MICA TI0N.
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
NO. Nv. .es8 IS
NO. Nv.

L
deayored to show the disgraceful breach Of ma
tional faith towards Mexico, and the Infringement
of existing relations with that nation, with which
the annexation of Texas to the United States, in
the manner now recommended, would render our
Government justly chargeable. The tyrant's
plea, necessity" has been urged. Under sys-
TEN of just and equitable policy, such az we
would fondly hope we have established here, this
plea can never be available. We ares. however,
examining how far this line Of argument u tei1a-
BILE, under the circumstances OF the call before
| us, and what evidence there 10 in favor Of adopt.
ing it: not an iota in It's support has yet been
| found! We proceed with the documents SUBJ
On the 10Th Of October, l643, Mr. Upshur com
municated to Mr.. Van Zandt the information that
"he subject of the annexation of Texas TO the Uni-
ted States by treaty has engaged the serious atten-
ton of the Government" He" cannot otter any
positive assurance that the measure would be
acceptable to all branches Of this Gousynmsrt"
That Sc treaty of annexation il considered the
most proper FORM" That "unlesa the views Of
the administration undergo a very great and I'M
expected change, / (Mr. UpshuI) shall be pre-
pared TO make a proposition to that efect when
ever you (Mr. Van Zandt shall be prepared with
proper powers to meet it," Be Y rememoeEeo'
that this commune alton is made to Mr. van
Zandt only t,uentv-four days after the date Of im-
portant dispatches to the United States charge
d'affaires to Texas the country TO be annexed.
| and ony eighteen days after the date Of equally
important dispatches to Mr.. Everett, the United
States minister to Great Britain, the country
whose alleged and assumed policy y given a.
the cause Of the necessity Of the measure AZ tn!s
time And yet not word is communicated tc
either Of these functonaries Of the intentions of
the Government which they represent! Again.
4 we say that such diplomacy has as little 70 qo
j with common sense as with cQnamoh honesty'
i MI. Van Zandt replies to Mr.. Upshur under
date of October 10, and says that he . haa for-
warded copy of Mr. Upshur's communicatioa g
the Government OF Texas, iof us conslasl as.y'
and determination and that ne, Will conmu-s
ncate the answer to Mr.. Upshar a. soof A. Y! ne
We have next Mr.. Everett's letter to Mr.. Up.
shur. dated November 3. 1643., Mr.. Everett
states that he had an interview with Lord Aber-
deem relative to Mr.. Upshurs !" communications
on the subject of the abolition Of slavery IN Iex-
as. and what did Lord Aberdeen state! "That
England had acknowledged the independence Of
Texas, and had treated and would continue 70
treat her as an independent power. That Eng
land had long been pledged to encourage the abe
ition of the slave trade and of slavery, as far az
her influence extended, and in every proper way,
but had no ,oish to interfere IN tte tnter1GI CON,
Germs of foreign Governments. She gGve her az
uice, uiere she thought IL Uould be accsptdAesfn
favor Of the abolition Of slavery, but ''etA.nS
| more. In reference to Texas, the snggestlon
that England had made, or inteaaded 70 make, the
addition Of slapery the condition OF any treaty
arrangement with her, was wholly sclthoat tounda-
| tion. IL had nevsr been alluded 10 IN that con-
nerion" As to the reported conversation ~ the
| House of Lords, which was the basis Of Mr. Ups
| shur's despatch of the 25th September Lord
| Aberdeen draws precisely the same conclusions
/ from IT, as have been stated in my conmp1ica-
ton No. 8, and adds "that too much Importance.
must not be attached to the statements nfthls
| kind in debate, which are not always reported
with entire accuracy" and that Mr.. Everett
might be perfectly satisfied England had nothing
in viev in reference to Texas which ought in the,
slightest degree to cause uneasiness in the, United
Stater." sa W5ott .ig i9 a. s.
Lord Aberdeen states explicitly, that /" there
had been no communication on the part q Eng
land with Texas, in reference TO the abolition Of I
slavery, and that no proposition wna'ever naa
been made to her by England on that sabject y
that proposition TO promote that object had
been suggested by deputation Of prtpdte l,ndi-
viduals, and was at once rejected BY HIM. Lord
A. adds. England I" had certainly eFeconpmepded
to Mexico to promote the abolition Of slavery BY
the acknowledgment Of the independence Of Tex
as, but that he could not say this Recommendation
had been listened to with any degree Of favor
In all this there sOas no references to the United
Slatee." Now both England and Mexico having
abolished slavery, was it not to be supposed that
the former in counselling and advising with tRe
latter, would urge the probability Of the extension
Of this favorite policy Of both nations, as anssans
Of inducing Mexico to promote an oolect aessIed
by England, namely, the acknowledgment Of A tha
independence Of Texas BY Mex.cot .,;.;a i .ae on-
tod States will be injured by the abolition OF sia-
-,, :, Texas. and the Southern States "will To p
uyybsd, sry bv having a nation without slavery for
,ha;r neohbor, then Texas should remain aslshe
a"o" Cor nnneration would lead to the = crpshing
"f The southern States," by bringing Mexico.
,ybere slavery has been abolished, upon, their bor
ders as she will be, if Texas sst9 formsa part OF
the Union. Really there is no wonder that So
cretaries of State should prefer = orGp' commu-
nicatons, when, they are go apt to commit them
selves by their written ones. s ga asa, .ha.ss9t
Mr. Everetts letter 10 Mr.. Upshur, under dats
November l6, lS43. rsiteFates the contents OF a.?
| former one and adds the testimony OF Mb Ashesi