Selections: Mr. Clay On The Texas Question

To the Editor of the Nntional Intelligencer: Raleigh, April 17, 1844. Gentlemen: - Subsequent to my departure f rom Ashland, in December last, I rcceived various Communications from popular assemblages and private individuals, requesting an expression of my opinión upon the question of Annexation of Texas to the United States. 1 have forborne to reply to them, becauseit was not very convenient, during the progess of my journey, to do so, and for othersons. I díd not thinlc it proper, unnecessarily, to introduce at present a new element among the other exciting subjects which agítate and engross the public mind. The rejection of the overture of Texas, some years ago, to become annexed to the United States, had met with general acquiescence. Nothing had si nee occurred materially to alter the question. I had seen no evidence of a desire being entertained, on the part of any considerable portion of the American people, that Texas should become an integral part of United States. During my sojourn in New Orleans, I had indeed, beengreatly surprised, by information which I received from Texas, that, in the course of last fall. a voluntary overture had proceeded from the Executive of the United States to the authorities of Texas to conclude a treaty of Annexation, and that, in order to overeóme the repugnance feit by any of them to a negotiation tipon the subject, strong and, as I believed, erroneous representations had been made lo them of a state of opinión in the Senate of the United States favorable to the ratification of such a treaty. According to these representations, it had been ascertained that a number of Senators, varying from thirty-five to forty-two, were ready to sanction such a treaty. I was aware, too, that holders of Texas lands and Texas scrip, and speculators in them, were actively engaged in promoting the object of annexation. Stil], I did not believe that any Executive of the United States would venture upon so grave and momentous a proceeding, not only without any general manifestation of publicion in favor of it, but in direct opposition to strong and decided expressions of public disapprobation.But it appears that I was mis taken. To the astonïshment of the whole nation, we are now informedthat a treaty of annexation has been actually concluded, and is to be submitted to the Senate for its consideration. The motives for my silcnce, therefore, no longer remain, and I feel t to be my duty to present an exposition of my views and opinions upon the question, for what they may be worth. to the public consideration. I adopt this method as being more convenient than several repuesto the respective communications which I have received.I regret that I have not the advantage of a view of the treaty itself, so as enable me to adapt an expression of my opinión to the actual conditions and stipulations which it contains. Not possessing that opportunity, I am constrained to treatthe questionaccordingto what I presume to be the terms of the treaty. If, without the loss ofnational character, without the hazard of foreign war, with the general concurrence ofthe nation, without any danger to ihe integrity of the Union, and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas, the question of annexation. were presonted, it would appear in quite a different light from that in which, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded. The United States acquired a title t Texas, extending, as I believe, to the Rio del Norte, by the treaty of Louisiana. They ceded and relinquished that title to Spain by which the Sabine wastuted tor the Rio del Norte as our wesi ern boundary. Tliis treaty was negotia ted under the Administraron of Mr. Mon roe, and with the concurrence of his Cab inet, of which Messra Crawford,Calhóun and Wirt, being a majority, all Southerr gentlemen, composed a part. When the treaty was laid before the House of Represen tati ves, being a memberof that body, 1 expressed the opinión which I then entertained, and still hold, that Texas was sacrificed to the acquisition of Florida. We wanted Florida; but I thought it must, from its position, inevitably fall into our possession; that the point of a few yenrs, sooner or later, was of no sort of consequence, and thnt in giving five millions of dollars and Texas for it, we gave more than a just equivalent. Bui, if we made a great sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we ought to take care not to make too great a sacrifice in the attempt to re-acquire it.My opinionsof the expediency of the treaty' of 1819, did not prevail. The country and Congress were satisfied whh it, nppropriations u-ere made to carr.y it into effect, the line of Sabine -was recognised by us as our boundary, in negotiaions both with Spain and Mexico, after Mexico becaine independen', andures have been in actual progress to mark he line, from the Sabine to Red river, ind thencc to the Pacific ocean. We have thus fair' y alienated our thlc to Texas, by solemn national compacfs, to the fulfillment of whieh we stand bound by good faith and national honor. It is, therefore, perfectly idle and ridiculous, if not dishonorable, to talk of resumino our title to Texas, as i f we had never parted with it. We can no more do tbat than Spain can resume Florida, France, Louisiana, or Great Britain, the thirteen■ ' II I, colonies now composing a part of the U. States. During the administraron of Mr. Adams, Mr. Poinsett, Minister of the United States at Mexico, was instructed by me, with the President's authority, to propose a re-purchase of Texas; but he forbore even lo make an overture for that purpose, üpon his return to the United States, he informedme, at New Orleans, that his reason for not making it was, that he knew the purchnse was wholly impracticable, and that he was persuaded that, if he made the overture, it would have no other effect than to aggravate irritationsalready existing, upon matters of difference between the two countries. The events which haveaince transpired in Texas are well known. She revolted against the government of Mexico, flew to arms, and finally fought and won the memorable battle of San Jacinto, annihilating a Mexican army and making a captiveofthe Mexican President. The signal success of that revoluiion wasgreatly aided, if not wholly achieved, by citizens of the United States, who had emigrated to Texas. These succors, if they could not always be prevented by the government of the United Siates, were furnished in a manner and to an extent which brought upon us some national reproach in the eyes of an impartial world. And in my opinión, they impose on us the obligation of scrupulously avoiding the imputaiion of having instigated and aided the revolution with the ultímate view of territorial aggrandizement. Afthe battle of San Jacinto, the U. Statesrecognisea the independerse of Texas, in conformity with ihe principie and practice which have ahvays prevailed in their councils, of recognizing the government "defacto," without regardingthe question de jure. That recognition did not affect or impairtherights of Mexico, or change the relations which existed befween her and Texas. She, on the contrary, has preserved all her right to reduce Texas to obedience, as apart of the republic of Mexico. According to late intelligence, it is probable that she has agreed upon a temporary suspension of hostil ities; but. if that has been done, I presume it is with the purpose, upon the termination of the armistice, of renewing the war and enforcing her righis, as she considers them.I nis narrative showa ihe present actual condition of Texas, so far as I have infórmation about ti. I f it becorrect, Mexico has noí abandoned, but perseveres ii the assertion of her rightsby actual forcé of anns, which, if suspended are intended to be renewed. Under these circumstances, if the Government of ihe U. States were to acquire Texas, it would acquire with it all the incumbrances which Texas is under, and among them the actual or suspended war between Mexico and Texas. Of that consequence, there cannot be a doubt. Annexaiion and war with Mexico are identical. Now, for one, I certainly am not willing to involve this country in a foreign war, for the object of acquiring Texas. ï Jtnow there are those who regard such a war withindifFerence as a triflingaffair, on accouní of the weakness of Mexico, and her inability to inflict serious injury upon this country. But I do not look upon t thus lightly. I regard all wars as great calamities, to be avoided, if possible, and honorable peace as the wisest and truest policy of this country. What the United States most need are Union, peace and patience. Nor do I think that the weakness of a power should form a motive i any case, for inducing us to engage i orto deprecíate the evilsof war. Honor good failh and juslice are equallv du from this country towards the weak as towards the strong. An if an act of in justice were to be perpet rated towards ny power, it would be more compatible with the dignity of the nation. and, in my judgment, less dishonorable, to inflict it upon a powerful instead of a weak foreign nation. But are we perfectly surethat we should bo frce from injury in n state of var with Mexico? Have we any security that countlessnumbers offoreign vessels, under the atithon'ty and flag of Mcx ico. would not prey upon our defenceless commerce in the Mexican crulf, on the Pacific ocean, and evéry other sea and ocean? Wliat commerce, on the other hand does Mexico offer, asan indemnity for Jo&ses, to the gallantry und enter)rise of our country men? This view of he subject supposes that the war would be confined tothe United States and Mexico, as the only belligerents. But have we any certain guarnnty thnt Mexico would obtnin no allies among the great Europcan Powcrs? Suppose any sucl) powers, jealous of our increosing greatness, and disposed to check our growih and cripple ös, wcre to take part in beïalf of Mexico in the war, how would the liflerent belligeretósi.preiieïit themseïveslto Christendom and theenlightened worldl We have been seriously charged with an inordinate spirit of territorial aggrandizement; and without admitting the justice of the charge, it must be owned tnat we have made vast acquisiiions of territory VVithin the last forty years. Supposo Great Britain and France, ov one of them,wero to take part with Mexico, and by manifestó, were to proclaim fhat their objects were to assist a weak and helpless ally, to check the spirit of encroachrnent andambilion of an already overgrown Rupublic, seeking still further acquisitions of territory, to maintain the independence of Texas, disconnected with the United States, and to prevent the further propagation of slavery from the United States, what would be the effect of euch allegations upon the judgnient of an impacial and enlightened world? Assuming thatthe annexation of Texas is war with Mexico, is it competent to the treaty-making power to pi unge this country into war, not only wil hout the concurrence of, but without deigningto consult Congress, to which, by the Constitution, belongs exclusively the power of daclaring war? I have hitherto considered the qaestión' upon the supposition that the annexation is attempted without theassent of Mexico. If she yields her consent, that would materially affect the foreign aspect of the question, if it did not remove all foreign difficulties. On the assumption of that assent, the question would be confined to the domestic considerations which belong lo it, embracing the terms and conditions upon which annexation is proposed. Ido not thmk that Texas ought to be received into the Union, os an integral part of it, in decided opposition to (lio wishes of a considerable and respectable portion of the Confederacy. I think it far more wise and important to compose nnd harmonize the present Con federncy, as it nor exists, than to introduce a new element of discord and distraction into it. ín my humble opinión, it should bo íhe constant and endeavor of American statesmen to eradicate prejudices, to cultívate and fos ter concord, and to produce general contentment among all partsof our Confederacy. And true wisdom, it seems to me, points to the duty oí rendering its present members happy, prosperous, and satisfied with each other, rather than to attempt to introduce alien members against the common consent and with thety of deep dissatisfaction. Mr. Jeflerson expressedthe opinion,& others believed, that it was never in the contemplaron of the framers of the Constitution to add foreign territory to theConfederacy, outofwhich new States vere to be formed. The ac quisitions oí Louisiana and Florida may be defended upon the peculiar ground of the relation in Which they ' stood to thö States of the Union. After they wera admitted, we might welí pause awhile,people our vast wastes, develop our resources, prepare the means of defending what we possess,and augment our strength,power and greatnesa. If herèafter further territory should be wanted for an increased population, we need entertain na apprehensions but that it will be acquired y means, it is to be hoped, fair, honorable, and constitutional.It is useless to disguise tbat there are those who esponse and thosé who opposo the annexation of Texas upon the ground of the influence which it would exert, in the balance of politica! power, between two great sections cf the Union. I conconceive that no motive for the acquisition of foreign territory would be more nn fortúnate, or pregnant with more fatale consequences, than that öf obtaining it for the purpose of strcngtheningone part agninst another part of the Confederacy.Such a principie, put info practical ogl- ration, would menace the existence, if it did not certainly sow theseeds of a disso-lution of the Union. It would be to prOclaim to the world an insatiable and ■ quenchable thirst for foreign conquest orr acquisition of territory. For if to-day Texas be acquired to strengthen ono partof the Confederacy, to-morrow Canada may be required to add strength to another. And after that might have been obained, süll other and ftirther vould become necessary to equalize and idjust the balance of political - inally, in the progress of this spirit of niversal dominion, the part of the-Cönederacy wliich now weakest, would nd itself stil! wcaker fron the impossiilitj ofsecuring new theatres fór thoe peculiar institutior.s wliich it diarged witft )eing desirous to extend. But would Texas, ultimately, realTy add strength to that wfiïch is now considsred the weakest part of the Confederaey? [f my information be correct, it woold not. According to that, the Territory of Texas is susceptible of a división intofive States of convenient size and form. Of :hese, two only would be adapted tothose peculiar institutions to which I have