Texas and the Massachusetts Resolutions Page: 12 of 54
This book is part of the collection entitled: From Republic to State: Debates and Documents Relating to the Annexation of Texas, 1836-1856 and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
cerned, and Southern territory too, an abundantly advantageous
one to the United States. Yet Mr. J. Q. Adams,
who was then in the Department of State, and conducted
the negotiation on the part of the Union, has been most singularly
treated in connexion with it, by those who now undertake
the management of the Texas cause. In the first
place, they quote him as a strong authority, when he claimed
on the part of this country, the farthest western boundary,
which would have included Texas in our territory, and then
forgetting the compromise in the treaty, by which that claim
was surrendered, in consideration of the corresponding surrender
by Spain of the Floridas, as well as of its claim to a
part of Arkansas and Missouri and the Western territory,they
insist that he betrayed the interests of the Union, by
giving up this claim on the territory of Texas. They seem
to forget or to neglect all notice of this contract by which territory
was acquired in the place of what was quit-claimed,
(for the right of the United States to Texas was never conceded
by the Spanish Government, and therefore it never
became more than a claim on our part,) and with a singular
exhibition of justice and impartiality, they not only insist
upon holding all that we got by the bargain, but also upon
taking back a part of the consideration that we gave to get it.
And the great argument by which Mr. Walker, who speaks
for the Texan party, endeavors to support this extraordinary
pretension is that Texas having become by virtue of the
Louisiana treaty an integral part of the United States, no
part of it could be ceded at all by the general government
without the consent of its inhabitants. Mr. Walker appears
to overlook the fact that in 1819 when this treaty was made
there were very few inhabitants in the territory to consultthat
none of them were emigrants from the United States,
and that those who were there, as they had never been
consulted when the Louisiana treaty was made, so they were
as little consulted when the claim was advanced which was
to bring them within the limits of the Union. Probably
if they had been, they would have adhered to the Spanish
side of the question. The question was in substance a question
of boundaries in a wilderness. 'l'he United States
have no right to insist at all times that their claim is not
simply a just one as against neighboring nations, but that it is
utterly impossible for them to divest themselves of it. Hence
that every negotiation and treaty which surrenders such a
claim is unauthorised and therefore wholly void. If this argument
is always to prevail, where are we to stop ? The
boundaries of the territory of the Union are not yet per
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Adams, Charles Francis. Texas and the Massachusetts Resolutions, book, January 1, 1844; Boston, Massachusetts. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2355/m1/12/: accessed May 29, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .