The Arkansas banner., 1845-02-12


 established by military tyrant, f. tbe ,oa' ,oa'
 pie of Massachusetts wonld feaI ban,J /.
 submit to such despotism. Wonl5 sba moi a
 raise her voice ln behalf of the constitution
 anu oi freedom And what more had Tex-
 as done? In 1825-one year kefore he,
 declaration of lndependence- Texas boisted
 tle banner ol the Constitution, and called upon the older Mexican States to rally ronnd It III defence of their rights and their freedom but she was not regarded, and the Mexican eohiederacy fell under the power of Santa Texas. '9 VI ''''o oi
 ehe alone was true 10 her kindred. true to that spirit which she had inherited from her ancestors on the plains of St. .racinto, where they had placed her independence so that the tyrant of Mexico or any other conn try could not reach it.
 eXas, then, was free and independent nation; she was not only in fact free and independent, but she was able to maintain ana secure her freedom. She had achieved Il by the nobest patriotism, the most un- daunted valor. We should be the last neo- pie on earth to deny the right of revolution to advocate the divine right of kings. If we were entitled to our freedom, Texas was en- titled to her freedom; and when gentlemen talked about robbing Mexico by the admis- slon oi Texas into this Union, he could draw no distinction between this robbery. as # was called, and declaring that we had robbed England ol the colonies which she had owned preylously to the declaration of independence Tn l776. If gentlemen who talked about rob6ng Mexico had lived in the glorious days ot our revolution, the universal iov Wh1ch'pervaded the country at the result of the battle of Yorktown, might perhaps have been marred by the hoarse croaking of < rob bery of England of her fair possessions.
 Thus, while Texas was free and independ- ent; and proposed to come into this Union. It's admission would secure a territory of un paralleled fertility; 1t would secure to the sonthwest-our weakest and most defence less fronter-a protection which neither ar mes, fleets, or military posts could give.- When 1t was seen by reference. to the map that the great valley of the West-that the great commerce of the valley of the Missis- slppl, constituting in itself an empire-that the great mart of all our western produce was secured by the admission, he paused to hear what objections there could be to the measure.
 The gentleman from Pennsylvanian. rMr J. k. lngersoll, who addressed the eommit- tee early in this discussion, had brought for ward one of the most important objections to this bill, viz: that there was danger in extending our territory; that the States would fly of by means of the centrifugal force: and he added, in the course of his remarks, that the central government here was the heart through which the life-blood of the system must flow to all the States Here was an important objection to the admission of Texas into the Union-the enlargement of our territory This extension of territory was the very reason why he was an advocate for Texas, irrespective of it's postion; and when gentlemen taunted him here as q strict constructionist, State-rights man, if they pleased, and still advocated the annexation of Texas, he threw it back to them, and told them that was the very ground why he wan ted Texas-because 1t was calculated to se- cure the doctrines which he adyoeated-the doctrines of 1798, which all democrats at least ought to advocate. Was there any dan ger of this government flying to pieces by extending its territory. He read from Mir. AIadison's comments, in the FederaIist, on the constitution, in which he said Mr. Madi- f son look the doctrine that the natural limit of republic was, that extent coming from which the representatives of the country might meet as often as the emergencies of the country demanded. He held this doc lrine, and he said, in this day of steamboats and railroads, that our government might ex- tend over this continent without danger of falling to pieces.
 But he might be asked how was this ex- tension of territory to guard the doctrine of State rights. Every State they added to this Union, every enlargement of our domain, would be an additional obstacle in the way of the consolidation of this government.- The more diversified the soil, the climate, the [ more different the pursuits and occupations, the habits, and education of the different portions of our Union-the more difficult 1t would be to get the Congress of the United States ever 10 consolidate and | centralize this government. Each State would [ demand for itself the rights of legislating for itself, of consulting its own peculiar inter- ests and notions. Every State they added to tIliS UHloIt Was uut tGl0tlltt StiitttiSi OH the watchtower of freedom; every State they [ added was but another eye to guard the jew el of liberty: that jewel was State soyer- eighty.
 Ierelcrred to the objections of the annex ation of Texas, which had been taken by the gentleman from Vermont Mr. Marsh yes terday, and he complmented the candor with which it had been brought forward by that ! gentleman. This objection, together with that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the whole matter in issue. The objection of the gentleman from Vermont was, thatit was scramble for political pow CT. An they had it at last. Conceal it as they would, the gentleman said, tmust come to this. Let it come (said MT. C.; in Gods name let it go to Kentucky let 1t go 10 Ash land-to every whig in the slaye-holding the whole opposition to this { measure was scramble on the part of the N orth for political power.