Annexation of Texas. By Junius no. IX Page: 2
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:
ANNEXATIQN OF TVXAS.
1. iMr. Clay's Position on this Question.
It is defined in his Raleigh Letter, of April 17th, 1844, addressed to the Editors of the National
1. He was opposed to the cession of Texas to Spain, in the treaty of 1819.
"When the trea;ty was laid before the IHouse of Representativ, ," says Mr. Clay, " being a member of
that body, I expressed the opinion which I then entertained, and still hold, that Texas was sacrificed to the
acqleiton of Florida."' . . .
2. Mr. Clay acknowledges the validity and bona fide obligations of the treaty of 1819.
"If," he says in the Raleigh letter, " we made too great a sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we ought to
take care not to make too cgreat a sacrifice in the attempt to re-acquire it .... We have fairly alienated our
title to Texas by solemn national compacts, to the fuifilment of which we stand bound by good faith and
national honor. It is, therefore, perfectly idle and ridiculuns, if not dishonorable, to talk of resuming our
title to Texas. as if we had never parted with it. We can nO more; do it, than Spairn ean resnme Plorida,
France Louisiana, or Great Britain the American Colonies, nw composing a part of the'Unted Stites.".
The "national compacts" above alluded to, are, first, the treaty of 1819, and next, all our
official recognitions of that transaction in our intercourse and arrangements with Mexico and
Texas, based upon it, in regard to boundary, and so far as I know, yet asserts her right to reduce Texas to obedience."
This position of Mr. Clay rests on matter-of-fact ground, and is incontestible. Our Government
has proclaimed to all the world, that such is our, doctrine, all the world know it, and
such, invariably, has been our practice, till Mr. Tyler gqt up his treaty of annexation. There
is no principle of our governmept longer established, better known, or more uniformly maintained.
Every administration, till the present, has acted upon it. We have never before
sought, but always dgclined to meddle with the controversies of foreign states and nations.
It is a most delicate affair, when, for our own commercial advantage, we have acknowledged
the independence of a state that is in controversy with a parent state for national rights,
we go yet farther, while the dispute is pending, and undertake to decide it by our own arbitrary
act, for our own benefit! Mr. Tyler says, in his message to the House of Representatives,
of June 10th, "The Executive has dealt with Texas as a power independent of all
others, both defacto and dejure." So it would seem. But it is the first time in our history
that our Government has ever done a thing of the kind, and not less a violation of our principles,
than a departure from our practice. It is an outrage on the customs and laws of
4. "Under these circumstances." says Mr. Clay, "if the government of the United States were to acquire
Texas, it would acquire along with it all the incuinLrances which Texas is under, and among them the actual
or suspended war between Mexico and Texas. Of that consequence there cannot be a doubt. Annexation
and war with Mexico are identical. "
The " supended war" is the case of a supposed armistice, which was proclaimed by Prei
dent Houston. June 15th, 1843. "All the incumbrances which Texas is under," are,first, hex
debts, asserted by her Commissioner in treaty'with lMr. Tyler, to be fire milions of dollars,
but very prudently provided for in said treaty to the amount of ten milUions, since swelled to
twenty-two million by credible evidence, and very likely in the epd could not be satisfied with
fifty milios. All this liability, more or less, is of course incuired by annexation. Next, we
should incur all-her treaty obligations with Great Britain, France, Holland, and other powers,
which might be disagreeable, and very inconvenient. There would be no escape from
this, as is distinctly intimated in Mr. Everett's official letter of the 18th of May to Mr. Calhoui,
and is farther determined in the advocacy of the treaty of annexation, on the authority
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.