The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1849-07-25

'"u"'y VI 1Sh"S dS pdil VI LouISI"hd
extended TO the Rio Grande. when the trca-
ty Of Florida was made, in the very teeth of
the assertions he made, 'when the question
olannexalion was before the Senate. In
the speech he made in May 1914, on the
treaty for anncxing Texas, he asserted, that
"The Texas which VIC acquredpby the trea'
ly of 1903, Chat of Louisiana,) never ap-
preached the Rio Grande. excepting near
its mouth" TO show that shy near its
mouth" he did not mean that it touched
the river. he said, speaking of Tamaulipas,
one Of the States Of Mexico, that sit COW
cred both sides Of the river, from its mouth
for some hundred miles up" lie asserted
in the same speech that all New Mexico,
Chihuahua, CoahuiIa, and Tamaulpas made
no part of the Texas which VIC acquired
|by the 'roalv OF Louisiana. He estimates
the pai: belonging to 'Icxico lying on the
beast side Of The Rio Grande To be 1000 miles
Hong, Qhc whole length of the river and
some hundred broad, and concluded by say
ing ''hc washed his hands of all attempts to
dismcmbcr the republic of Mexico by seiz
ing her domnions in New Mexico, Chhua.
llud, Nnallillid anu dlNaUlIpaS.
These were his assertions, solemnly made,
and as he states after the fullest cxamna-
ton, when his object was to defeat the lrca-
ty which negotiated with the Commission
crs of Texas for It's annexation. For that
purpose he attempted to show that the
treaty covered a large part of Mexico,
which never belonged to Texas, although
the treaty specified no boundary, and left
the boundary open on the side of Mexico,
Intentionally. in order tn settle it by treaty
with her. But NOW. when his object is to
show that gave away Texas by The treaty
Of Florida, he holds very different Ian
guage. He 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 plainly a direct
contradiction TO what he contendcd for
when his object was defeat to annexation
but he does the samc;thing in more cover.
cd and objectionable way, by using language
that could no, fail to make that impression
on all who heard him, or may read his
speech.
He goes farther In order TO aggravate
the charge against me, he becomes appar'
emily warm advocate of slavery extensions
as he calls il, aud uses strong language To
shew the value of Texas to the South, in
lha, respect. lie says, it was all slave ter
ritorv; that it was looked to as the natural
outlet Of the Southern States with their in
creasing slave population, and it was large
enough to make six large States, or len
conmon ones Such is his language. whCl
his object is TO prove that gave away Tex.
as. Iou would suppose from this language
that hc was slave cxtcnlionst as he calls
all those, who defend your rights, and that
lie placed high value on Texas. as an out.
let for your slave population, and to preserve
your JUS, influence and weight in the Union
One would conclude, that with these feelings
and views, he would have been a strong al.
vocatc Of the treaty, that was rejected by
the Senate, which proposcd to annex Texas
without anv restriction whatever in relation
10 slavery 50 as 10 leave it, TO use his own
language, as to the outlet to your increasing
slave population. Instead of that. he made
the most strenuous effort to defeat il, and
!
further Alter its defeat, he moved 4 strin.
of reso u,ions, containing provisions for It's
admisSinn,i land among others, ono which pro-
posed to divide Texas into two parts. as
nearly equal as possible by Inc running
| North and South. and to aIlot the eastern to
you, and the western to the abnlIiIonis,s; tu
the entire exclusion TO your "incre0Sing
| I, I,, fl,,t a.
forgot nil this in delivering his spCCch; but. II
not, what ma,cIess cf1rontcry an inconsIs-
lency to make the charge he does against
me! There would indeed seem to be no
limits to his audaciIy and Inconsistency, and
he appears to have selected Texas as Il pro-
per field to make the greatest display ol
hem. As fto cap the climax after having
SO deliberately asserted, and so strenuouslv
maintained, that the western boundary Of
! Texas. did not extend to the Rio Grandc. he
placed, short time atcrward, his vote on
record. that it did-bv voling for the bill de-
cIaring war against Mexico. The bill as
sumcL it did in asserting that the blood shed
on tho eastern bank, was blood shed on the
American SOL, which could not be unless
cXHS CSicUNCu w iIlC llib NIWlIc. IL u
did nnt, the war stands without Justification.
Ifit did not. tho march of our army 10 the
Rio Gramdc was an INVASION of Il neighbour.
ING country unauthorized by the Constitution
or law: and yet Col. Benton who had but a
short time before declared ;solcmnIy after
full investigation, that all the east bank "[thc
river for some hundred miles wide belong
cd to the Mexican republic; and cmphalcal.
" declared. he "waShrd his hands of all at
rempts to dIsmcmber The Mexican Republic,
BY sczing her dominions, New Mexico, Chi
huahua. CnahuIa, and Tamaulipas,' voted
for the bill! He went further. lie report
cd it as tho Chairman of the Committee oh
military affairs, in total disregard of his own