The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-10-23
Eta liz t,s,ss..o,a, ,A,,,.

FrtH Tie 6aisesson Mics.
We should not forget that Dur enesAies who
Voted for this bill, as well as those who opposed IT,
agreed fully on one point namely, that the terri
tory does not rightfuly belong to as and that we
had no legal or just claim to the money as the
price Of the land, those voting the bill assigning
other reasons for their vote. All these will be
disposed to enforce against us the terms Of this
bill strictly, and will be glad of an opportunity to
withhold the five millions altogether; and for this
purpose, will offer every inducement in their
power to prevent the bondholders from filing
their releases. In regard to this money, Texas
viii have to contend against powerful and prob
ably combined interest, against prejudice and ia
naticism; and reason, as well as our passed erpe-
rienee forbid the hope of our ever obtaining it.
But we have extended this argument farther than
we intended. s-.aa#.-.- .l.. s.. .4,.ra.. .-l ...
We now extract the following passages from
MIR. Smyth' Is letter. " ...... ..
"Such are the estimates and such the results to
be apprehended If Texas should have the people
of Santa Fe alone to contend with; but il is now
apparent that the United States will be party to
the contest. If Texas is left to struggle alone in
the war against the power of the United States; it
requires no gift of prophecy to forete the result.
Our only hope of success then, is based upon an
expectation that the South will make common
cause with in the defence Of our territory and,
consequently, that this Santa Fe country will be-
come the nucleus Of general civil war, which
must end in dissolution of the Union But de-
plorable, indeed, must be the condition Of things
for which a dissolution Of this Union ioouH be a
remedy Ext.
SIT has been objected to the bill, that it is in
sulting to Texas, inasmuch as it does not &C.
knowledge our right to the territory which the
United States propose to purchase, that it is of
fered as +" hush money" etc. Now, the second
section of the bill clearly acknowledges the right
of Texas: "The State of Texas cedes to the United
States all her territory exterior to the territory
| 4 y L 4. L Il -
first article of this agreement" The bill does not
call it pretensioa, nor even claim, but "the
State Of Texas cedes her ter
ritory.' What could be more expicit2 What
language could more fullyacknowledge our right"
In the first extract it is distinctly stated that If
we do not accept the present offer to dispose of
this territory, we shall have to contend with the
United States in order to maintain 1.-THE Gov
eminent of the United States will be party in
the contest" In the second extract it is asserted
that right to the territory is s'cearly acknowl
edged" and that the charge of an insult being Of
fered to us by denial of our rights unfounded
How these passages can be reconciled we do not
see. The one says that the United States con-
cedes the title to Texas as completely and per-
fectly as her interest or honor can require; the
| other, that the same Government will dispute our
title by force of arms if do not choose ratify
be fully and honoraby admitted, and at the same
time disputed by actual occupancy with armed
troops, is more than understand. The in
consistency of those whose desire to have this
proposal accepted, is SO great that they do not
the insult offered to their State in this military
cupancy Of it's soil. Even after our territory is
actually wrested from US, they fancy that our
| right to it is honorably acknowledged =! Can it
be that our eagerness to get possession of the
money blinds us TO these outrages Or, is it
dread Of the difficulties anticipated in the appre
hended contest with the General Government p
NJ
justify State in submitting to dishonor. We
are now standing before the world in an attitude
of almost unprecedented humiliation. Whoever
before heard Of State being first dismembered
by superior power protesting friendship, and
| then offered a sum of money to submit tamely to
the dismemberment? Or, if such an offer was
ever before made, we think that history does not
| record an instance where it has been entertained
by nation Of freemen while dispossessed of their
own territory by hostile troops. A conquered
people must accept Of the best offer they can get,
but free people can receive no proposition from
Government which offers to purchase what it has
already taken and threatens still to keep by vio-
lence. If we are conquered, let us make the
best terms can-if we are free, let us respect
fully ask that we may be restored to the condition
Of freemen let the troops be withdrawn, the
threats disavowed and our Ri hts admitted. AS
frremen we can ask for nothing less.
The presence of an armed force upon our soil
| and the threats Of powerfu nation, now deprive
us of freedom of action. To have subjected us
to this duress is unexamped outrage, but to ask
us to make voluntary cession Of that which has
already been taken by force, is an insulting mock
cry. 1t is requiring US to assume the appearance of
being free, when there is no free agency left u.s.
If we recoect rightly in the early decline of Ro-
man liberty it was common device with the
| Caesars, in order to disguise the despotc power
| which they exercised, to have their edicts sane
toned by formal vote Of the people. But they
usually took effectual measures to make this pop
ular vote conform with their wishes. IF it did
| not so conform, it was, of course, disregarded.
The people Of Texas will soon 60 to the polls to
vote for, or against, the dismemberment of their
country, and yet they know that the government
which thus requires them to make this decision,
will not be governed by it, unless it sanctions the
dismemberment already determined upon. Can a
people who so gloriously and triumphantly re-
sisted the tyranny Of one government, yield so
readily to the despotism of another'