The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-01
POLITICAL.
From the Boston Post.
From the Boston Post
MR.. WoODBURY'S SPEECH ON THE TEX
AS QUESTION.

| AS QUESIlON.
| The cause of annexation has had no frmer friend
than Hon. Levi Woodbury.. He has met the qaes-
ton boldly from the first and throughout the last
political campaign discussed its merits thoroughly
before the people. His course at the Senate board
has been equally decided. To justify 1t, he has adj
duced the strong statesman-llke arguments that APP
ply to all parts Of our country. The vast benefits
to accrue from it politically and commercially wall
be found nowhere more fully stated thah IN Mr.
Woodbury's speeches.
| His speech in the Senate of February IL, l545
is one Of these able efforts He maintains the cause
of annexation with strength Of position ana close
ness of argument that are absolutely unanswerable
He repes the outset, the coarse, abusive, vulgar
| manner in which its friends are daily assaed. Take
for instance. the charge SO common, that annexa-
ton, on our part would be a plratlcal seizure OF
the soil of Mexico:
"What! seizing upon the lands of an unoAending
neighbor because he is weak, when this resolution
merely expresses our assent TO that neighbor COM
ing into the Union, and cooperating with us IN the
great business Of selfgovernment; and when, under
this constitution, which had been IN existence nifty
years without stain or reproach, we had never seized
upon foot of land belonging TO any neighbor, OF
any remote government had never, by felonious vo-
lence, taken particle of property OF that descrp-
ton upon any of the many occasions which had
occurred to tempt such cupidi,y If EXISTED! When
they had in their power to obtain by seizure dis
tant islands and distant provinces, they forbore
they disdained to make use of that power. They
wished for no acquisition of that sort. So we de-
sired no determination, unless with those powers
which wished TO fraternize with us and partake OF
our institutions, unless they could be connected by
| the free principles OF government-not taken by
| force or fraud. When gentlemen talked about Pat
agonia and the Celestial Empire coming into this
Union, as he had heard suggested more than once,
let them look back into our constitutional history,
and see if it is possible for this government to en-
| ka
come in and adopt our republican institutions, and
are conquered, not by our swords, but by our hber-
al example and systems of equal rights, ennobling
liberties, and well regulated laws We must thus
affiliate together-they with us and we with them
before single step for amagamation is likely to be
| taken on either slde however much gentlemen may
appear to apprehend SO many kinds of heteroge-
neous mxtures.n
| Mr.. Woodbury. goes thoroughly into the ques-
ton both of the constutionality and expedency Of
annexation. As specimen of his way Of replying
to the wing arguments, take his answer to Senator
| Morehead:
"The honorable senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Morehead] had dwelt with great feeling on the inn
pending horrors of admitting people of different
tongue, of different religion, of different form OF
| government, Of different habits and training. Now,
if there was anything in this argument, it applied
as well TO admission by treaty as admission by Con-
gress. The tongue, the religion the government Of
| the people, would be the same either way. Were
the President and two-thirds of the Senate much
safer authority than the President and majority Of
the Senate and the House of Representatives? Two
thirds of the Senate then exceeded majority of the
Senate by only four votes. Were these four votes
a greater security than majority Of the whole
House of Representatives? Let gentlemen strip
their imagination Of these 'gogons, hydras, and CHI
| neras dire
"Let it be noticed further against the argument
that IF far or admit
ting States, is not so safe in Congress as in the
hands of the treaty-making power that Congress is
expressly authorized to dispose of territory. Why
was not that given to the President and Senate, II
| safer? But who can talk seriously of want OF
safety in this measured Does any man in his sober
senses believe that we, Christians and republicans
are likely to admit State of pagans and monarch
ists which continued to retain government and po-
litical and religious views totally contrary to ours
No. Its government must be republican. Could
we in this mode, force foreign State into our en-
| brace from ambition and ACKNOWLEDGMENT Did the
resolution contemplate such thing No. We on
ly propose open the door for others to come in
| not, at their pleasure. And he asked gentlemen
whether it was likely that people who differed to-
tally from us 10 language in religion, in political
habits and opinions, and who lived in Europe, on
the other side Of the globe, would ask to become a
part of our Union. Or, if they did, was it likely
that majority of Congress would permit so unnat-
| ural a union? Was not majority in both Houses
sufficient guaranty to the contrary And if it was
not, would the treaty power be greater, or alter
the case much for the better
''But what has been our past history We had
admitted new States into the Union but had we ad-
mtted hordes Of savages, and cannibals, or States
ruled by tyrants' We had never yet admitted sim
gle government, as a government, because none
such had ever applied. We acquired Louisiana,
but we did not thereby admit the French govern
ment; nor did we admit the State until after the an
O. LII, H..
ted were, when admitted States, chiefly inhabited
by men Of our own blood, and men trained to the
principles of our own constitution. Could there be
great danger as was pretended In this case, in
admitting hundred thousand people residing on
our own immediate border-our own Erethren-our
own children--our fellow-soldiers, who had fought
with us side by side; our fellow patriots who, like
ourselves had commended for their liberties and indie
pendence, and, like ourselves, had established free
constitution By receiving such people we should
not alter single guaranty Of the constitution, but on
the contrary, we should increase the number of its
securities, as in local resistance we should have
twenty-six States against one instead of twelve
against one, as formerly. In the case of corpora
tion could not new corporators be admitted without
altering the charter How would it hurt the people
Of Massachusetts,, or of New Hampshire, to admit
to a share in their privileges people trained like
themseyes'-a people more than leavened by Amer
icanism-a people possessing unity of birth and
ligion--unity ofeducation-unity of social habits
unity of principles throughout, with ourselves and
our immortal fathers. They were numerous enough,
likewise to be State at once and none disputed
that their territory was large enough be State
and their training to republican forms and selfgov-
eminent long enough and strong enough"
Mr. Woodbury. has also strong passage on the
obvious intention of the trainers of the constitution,
so to word this instrument to admit of charging
our territory. This passage concludes as follows:
"Eyen the old confederation had contemplated the
admission of Canada and other colonies, British,
Spanish, or French. Could all this have been in
contemplation so early as l776, and was it not so
much as to be heard of now, or in 1880 Would
gentlemen say that no enlargement Of the Union
was contemplated by those hardy western settlers
who were ready to fight for the possession Of the
mouth of the Mississippi We had extensive north
ern regions yet unsettled, and every emigrant
thither from our own fresides or abroad had right
TO all these meditated expansions whenever such
additions Of territory or States became useful to
protect either their families from border butchery,
or their property from pillage on its way to the