Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1845-02-03
To the Editors Of the IYhIg:

Messrs Editors-l read IN your daily paper OF the 9th
smo letter addressed to me, ny signing him.
self "B efcising my late letter, published your daily
psper Of the 22nd ult Iis made my duty this
letter. very much regret the necessity thus forced
me, again appear in the columns OF newspaper-for in
Ill seriousness have decided ds,aste for such noiooiy
sB."s entitled 10 my thanks, for bis kind and ha,,cr.
nj acknowledgment Of tho purity ard integrity OF ihe mo
sipss by which actuated in the expression OF the
views contained in the letter which he eoureous CON-
men,s on. While accord TO "B." other Than pa
tiotic and sudable desire to convince by hs letter
Of the sEieida effect Of my position and arguments.
pressed in my letter OF the 18th January he will sure
pardon me for the expression that his arguments and
illusions present perfect non sequitur.
'B 81 well assured, neither designed to invoi.c me
In need controversy, or 10 rest his conclusions
phism and such the tendency and conclusion
VI his own argumcn that beth o these undesirable ends
hsys resulted .. consequence, from his leuO-.
"B quoies OF some length. from that portion Of my
letter In which argue establish the position IhsI-if
s constitutional annex Texas BY joint resolution, II
would be equally constitutional To code away State
by the ssme mode oil legislaton-there being higher
exercise Of sovereignty required IN eession than there
would be In annexation.
But IL should have escaped the intc.ec; If -
that he (uninenonslly sm sure) looked tue pre-.
ssns position which this argument based. The
constitutional proposition, which the 81
my eoaelrson rested. In the quotation whicHs "B -
gives from my letter. lie merely confines himself o. the
previous position distinctly laid down. and carried out that
long TeSss was separate, independent sovereign
power. fully invested with oil the prerRniSes u sovereign
w. internal legislation the pert Of tic Uued STATES
could resch control either her soil citizens Tnat
TEXAS fret part with her sovereignty before her ter
ritory citizens could be rendered unse the urs.
dIeiion Of the United States: That accomplish this
Trssfg HpHiafi0a between the two high contracting
parties necessary ana Ind spcnsibe. that ans
internal Legislation the part ~ the United States
ls.ve Of snneKaon dead letter w our State books
until it poJsefsd by Texas.
Here then essential aud radical misc piiDn and
mis-tsismept Of both my position and argument now
call the candid attention B" to this uninenDnal Bt,ael
Of sssmsHf manifest, In his letter II he viii impartial,
IL, he will Of perceive the mi &c which
his conclusions have done ny position.
That portion Of my letter quoted by him is foows
"For ~ American citizen. viii not consent "a
violate every rule Of Constitutional pfopfey, that Ttta,
may be snncsed an now, ~ have ever been. devo
led snd sincere snd 90 the when be fairly
konorsby aud Consttut0naily accomplished In otisi
manner will ever yield my assent 10 annexation.
"There yet another OF this aud dirnf
ipfrsction Of the Constitution IL it CONSTITUTIONAL {,
State by joint resolution, - u equally Con
stitutions, by the ans, eede away Sias1 4
sssrs any higher u Sovereign power required in
ees.on, than would be ia snnexsuoni IL would not
then, by Joint resolution, Congress snnex fOregf
sue tome United stites. my II by the mean
e<ds s~sy stssf Apply this principle -carry out and
~ isnt resolution TeSss aud At ia session
ssds swsy Tesss and Lou slsns.
"WA ihess views be paid ,ned Tor declaring "a
sn ssroasacss. fhst under circumstance, con eve
e.rss. fs ny concerned. tosee Texas
- 70 The Ussssd e'ssss By POINT resolution. am fsvo
q ssss sssonby treaty With Tsassusder the provisions
~ % csa be Jssy, hsssrsbiv snt