Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1849-07-25

forced TO admit ! was not. l then re-
pcled his charge with scorn which the
base insinualion, that / had any know
ledge or connection with 1t whatever de-
served. He was covered with confusion; ;
aud yet he has the elTrontery 10 introduce
il again 10 The public, accomp' MED win
the same insinuation which covered him
with disgrace al its first introduction.
But the deepes, wound, II seems, was
inflicted bv statement in my address to
the people OF Charleston, on my return
home after the session Of AZ aud '4S, that
he voted for the bill establishing The tern.
tory Of Oregon, containing the principle or
The WiImol Proviso, and that lie and Gen.
Houston were The only TWO southern mem
bers who voted for it; that without Their
votes it would moi have been dcleaIcd' i"l.
lowed by the expression of an opinion, that
for so dong, they deserved the reprobn'Ion
of the whole south. Neither Of them
have ever denied the truth of my stale
ment, nor ever can. Every word Is true,
as the journals of the Senate show. Ihe
Statement, itself is in plain language and
free from exlorlion or exagseraion' Tho
fact stated. related 10 official acts which It
was important my constituents sh 'uld
know. ln expressing my opinion an,
stained from impeaching moives. All
was done within The rules of decorum, and
those that govern parliamentary proceed
ings. Wherein then consists the offence !
am at loss TO perceive, except the prln-
ciple be adople,l, that The greater the truth,
the greater the libel. 1t may he. thatil was
regarded as an offence because it was cal
culated to embarrass him, and thwartwhat
he then medilaied, and has since carried
into execuliou-an open deseE'ion 10 the
abolitionists.
pass now to his next charges. He as.
serls that gave away Texas, and 10 make
it ont he asserts that Texas belonged to
the United States. when the treaty with
Spain was made, by which she ceded Flo
rida 10 rs. He claims that Texas was
part of Louisiana, and that its boundary
extended 10 The Rio Graude; that il was
all slave territory, and looked to as the na-
Iural outlet for their great increasing slave
population; and finally, that i, was sur
rendered by the treaty Of Florida made in
1919, during the administration Of Mr..
Monroe, of which was one of the mem
bers. On this statement he rests his
charge that | gave away Texas.
1t is difficult for one who lecks sincerity
and is ac,uated by violen, passions. 10 es-
cape The greatest Inconsistency and contra
diction, in defending himself or assailing
others. in making long speech. Benton
furnishes strong illustration Of the truth
of Ibis position, aud mover more SO than IN
making the above statement. IN order to
aggrava,e the act Of giving away Tens,
which he charges mo with, he has made
assertions entirely inconsistent with the
grounds he took, and the course he pur-
sued while the question Of the annexation
of Texas was before the Senate. lie now
asserts that the boundary Of Texas as part
Of Louisiana extended to the Rio Grande,
when the treaty of Florida was made, in
the very teeth of the assertions he made,
when the question Of annexation was be.
fore The Senate. In the speech he made
in May. IS44. on the trealy for anneying
Texas, he assorted, that 1.-THE Texas
which we acquired by The treaty Of 1903.
(that of Louisiana never approached the
Rio Grande, excepting near its mouth"
To show that "by near its mouth" he did
not mean tha, il touched the river. he said,
speaking of TamauIipas, one Of the States
of Mexico, that "il covered both sides Of
the river, from its mouth for some hundred
miles up" He asserted in the same
speech that all New Mexico, chihuahua,
Coahula. and Tamaulipas made no part
Of the Texas which we acquired by the
treaty of Louisiana. He estimates the
part belonging 10 Mexico lying on Ihe east
side of the Rio Grande to be 1000 miles
long, (the whole length Of The rivcr.j and
some hundred broad, and concluded by
saving "he washed his hands of all attempts
10 dismember the republic Of Mexico by
seiziug her dominions in New Mexico,
chihuahua, Coahuila and Tamaulipas."
These were his assertions, solemuly
made, and as he states after the fullest exa-
minalion, when his object vas TO defeat
the treaty which | negotiated with the
Commissioners Of Texas for its annexa-
tion. For that purpose he attempted 10
show that the treaty covered large part of
Mexico, which never belonged 10 Texas,
although the treaty specified no boundary,
and left The boundary open on the aide of
Mexico, intentionally, in order TO settle it
by treaty with her. But now, when his
objec, is 10 show I that gave away Texas
by the treaty Of Florida, he holds a very
different language. lie does not. indeed,
say in so many words, that Texas covered
the whole region from the Sabine to the
Rio Grande. for that would have been TOO
openly and plainly direct contradiction
to what he contended for when his object
was 10 defeat annexation but he does the
same thing in more covered and ohjec.
,ionabe way, by using language that could
not fail to make that impression on all who
heard him, or may read his speech.
lie goes farther. In order 10 aggravale
the charge against me, he becomes appa-
rentlv warm advocate of slavery exlen.
sion, as he calls it. and uses strong Ian
guage TO show the value OF Texas to the
south in that respect. lie says, it was all
slave territory that it was looked 10 as the
uatural oule, of The Southern States with
their increasing slave population, and that
il was large enough 10 make six large