Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-01-10
ICHMOND, VA.
Friday Morning. January 10. 1915.
Texas. Pegt If Louisiana.

Il q
las, No. with an article under The head OF "i<-
raj DeEuitiom Of The bounds of Louisiana as by
us purchased OF France" The object is TO prove
t thai Texas was no part of Lousiana-Mat "wc
ourselves voluntarily adopted, OH The side oil
Texas the line Of TIC Sabia.--tlen and now The
line OF posscsSion--as The real extent oil our pur-
| chase from France, as the true Louisiana. All
The rest. lhcn-lhe subsequent claim 10 Texas
was bul diplomatic attcr-thought, skillully EN-
ployed to make Spain yield TO us what we really
then waned-Florda." Ii also processes TO quote
the acl OF Congress oil October lso.5, authorizing
the President 10 take possession OF The territory
and the act Of March, 1901 erecting louisiana
INTO Two territories the act of 1911 10 enable
the people OF the territory OF Orleans TO form
| State Govenment-aS evidences, on The paiI oil
/ Congress, "and the administration that made and
sanctioned The Treaty." to show that they did not
claim beyond The Sabine. "What, then, (says the
Intelligencer,) becomes now OF the proposed re-
annexation, or Of the proposition 10 adnH nc
STATE ri 7traS INTO The CRioaY
This is indeed desperate effort 10 cut US of
from Texas II Processes 10 lay down bounda-
nv to the territory acquired by MIR. Jefferson,
which neither he nor any Of his successors ever
sanctioned He, as well as the rest of them: in
tact. commended for line West OF The Sabine
and the very act OF ceSsion of The territory West
of tbs Sabine, 10 Spain, in lieu Of Florida shows
that in The opinions ui MesSrs. Monroe and
Adams at the lime Gin 1879 they were cedlns
what did belong 10 us, Wen Of The Sd
bne) And The efforts Of Mcssrs Adams
and Clay afterwards show, that they were anX-
ions 10 reclaim what had been improvdcnlly
cedcd. We have rarely SEEN indeed holder
effort made 10 deny the concurrent evidence oil
our historical documents or 10 cloak Srosser
/ effort To detca, the Interests OF our country by
| Misrepresentation OF our records.
We shall first notice The facts upon which il re-
| ies--and then introduce other facts which il has
carefully suppressed.
The Inlelligcncer conlesses, that The act oil
1903 furnishes no evidence OH the point OF issue
Ii is simple authority 10 take possession OF The
newly-acquilcd Territory.
The act Of 1901 divides The Territory into two
portons-one which was called the Territory OF
Orlcaas-and The residue into another, called 10y
The general name "Dislrict Of Louisiana" The
former is 10 run West 20 he JTtsicrn bonndaryr
he sad tcSsiOn
The act Of 1871 erecis The territory OF Orleans
into a Slate, uudcr the name Of the State OF Lou
isiana us Western boundary isheTe specified TO
be "the riru Sabine" and therefore, The Intelligent
Ger rgues, that The Sabine was regarded IN The
act of 1904 as The "Western boundary ot the said
cession." This is clearly MN scqmttnr. IL was
surely competent for Congress in marking oil
the boundaries OF the new Stale, in 1911, 10 de-
sgnaie such boundaries as they pleased whether
il was The arhoie or a Eart oil The territory oil Or
leans They limited her Western boundary to
The Sabine; but does il appear that Congress Sill
claimed nothing beyond it BY Do MEANS
They gave her all the land 10 The Sabine-but
there are no expressions IN The act 10 show that
they considered the Sabine 10 be The W esleTn
boundary Of the cesson. Congress consider II
self al liberty 10 mark out the territory as they
M Al, n
ries such States as they might please ac-
cordng 10 such boundaries as might suit
the views Of Congress. Thus, the other territory,
called in The act Of 1901 "lhc residue oi the pro-
vince OF Louisiana" was not erected into SIN
lie State afterwards; bul part of il was carved
up into Missouri-anolher part into Arkansas,
Sc.
But TO show how completely the lnlclligencer
mi.reprcsens The whole subject Of the Western
boundary We subjoin the following Interesting
extracts from Mr. Walkers able letter, To show
that Mr.. Jefferson, who acquired the Territory,
and The succeeding Presidents, never did contlne
themselves 10 the Sabine; bur that they claimed
beyond il 10 the Rio del Nurlc These historical
records are conclusive-and now we ask tue n.
lntelligencer whether we have not right Ia con-
slider il as a rc-anncxation-and whether We do
not owe it To The people Of Texas themselves 10
comply with Tic Treaty, and admit The State oil
Texas into The Union:
as il expedicnt (says Mr. Walker) 10 re-
annex Texas 10 The American Union =
This is The greatest question. since The adop-
ton Of the Constitution, ever presented for
the decision OF the American people. Texas
was once our own: and, although surrendered BY
treaty 10 Spain, the surrender was long resisted
by The American government, and was conceded
10 be great sacrifice. This being The case, is il
not clear thar, when The territory which we have
most reluctantly surrendered, can be rc-acqulrcd
that object should be accomplished Under such
circumstances, 10 refuse the remuneration is TO
DENY The wisdom Of the original purchase; and TO
reflect upon The judgment of those who maintain
ed, even at The period of surrender, that il was
great sacrifice OF national interests.
Texas, as Mr.. Jefferson declared, was as clear
w embraced in the purchase by us OF Louisiana,
as New Orleans itself and that il was part Of
that region, is demonstrated by the discovery, by
the great I.asallc oithe source and mouth OF the
Mississippi, and his occupancy for France West
Of the Colorado. Our right 10 Texas, as part
of Louisiana, was asserted and demonstrated By
Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and John
G. Adams. No che Of our Presidents has ever
doubted our tile; and Mr.. Clay has ever main
tanned il as clear and unqucstionabe. Louisiana
was acquired By treaty with France, in lSO3.
by Mr. Jefferson: and in the letter of Mr.. Madison
the Secretary OF Stale, dated March 81, 1904, he
says, expressing his own views and those OF Mr.
Jefferson, that Louisiana "cxtended weswardy
10 the Rio Bravo, otherwise called Rio del Norle
Orders were accordingly oha ned from The span
isl authorities for The delivery OF all The posts on
The West side of The Mississippi And in his
letter oithe 3lst January, 1901, Mr. Madison de-
clares that MIR. Laussat, the French commissions
er who dcltperd Mc possession of Louisiana 10 as
announced the "Del Nore as lis lrnc boundary"
Here, then in The delivery of the possession Of
Louisiana By Spain to France and France 10 US
Texas is included. In the letter Of Mr.. Madison
Of the Sh July, 1904, he declares the opposition OF
Mr. Jefferson to The "relinqRistmcnt Of am terri
tory whatever Eastward of The Rio Bravo" In
the letter Of James Monroe of the 9Th November,
1903, he incloses documents which he says "prove
iacontcsiaJiv' that The boundary of Louisiana Is
"lhe Rio Bravo 10 n. West" and Mr.. Pinckney
uniies with him in similar declaration. In
! cui.se4u-nt leucr--no 10 a foreign government
but to MIR. Madison--oi the stth April 1907
they assert our title rs unqucstionabe. In MIR
MonroeS letters, as Secretary OF State, dated Jan
l9, 1916, and June 10, 1916, he says none could
question "our title To Texas" and he expresses
his concurrence in opinion with Jefferson and
Madison; "that our tile 10 the Del Norie was as
clear as 10 the island Of New Orleans" In his
letter =. Secretary OF State. TO Don Onis, OF the
18th March, 1918 John Quincy Adams says:
"'Tbe claim of France always did extend West
ward 10 the Rio Bravo" "she always clainsd
the territory which you call Texas as being with
in the limits, and forming part, OF Louisiana
Alter demonstrating our title TO Texas in this let
Ter, Mr.. Adams says: We'll might Messrs
pinckney and Monroe write TO NJ. Cevaos, in
1905, lha! The claim of the United States 10 the
boundary Of the Rio Bravo was rs clear as their
right 10 The island Of New Orleans Again in
his lelerof The Bis, October 1918, Mr.. Adams
saws our title 10 Texas is established beyond The
power OF further controversy
"Here, then, by the discovery and occupation
OF Texas, as part OF Louisiana, BY Lasalle, Tor
France in 1885, by the delivery Of possession TO US
in 1903, by Spain aud France; by the action OF
our government from the date Of the treaty OF ac-
ouisition 10 The date Of the treaty Of surrender,
[avowedly so on its facet by the opinion ofall our
| Presidents and ministers connected in any way
| with the acnnisiiinn our tile 10 Texas was I'M