ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
{"character_count": 5683, "word_count": 1013, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9724000096321106], "ccnet_perplexity": [620.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

 The Wing and Abolition papers have been making 'much ado" over the letter of Daniel Webster against the annexation of Texas. The following letter of GENERAL JACKSON, will we apprehend, prove to be something more than an offset to that of Mir Web ster. Besides favoring the present annexation of Texas to the Unon and independently of the strong reasons, and unanswerable arguments urged in its

 favor, this letter will be found to contain matters of grave import in the history of our government, and very seriously affecting the character of certain Whg leaders. Let them be considered by our readers. We may refer to them again before long:

 l HERMITAGE FEB. 12, lS43

 MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 22d ut. has been received, and with 1t the Madisonian, containing Governor Gilmer's letter on the subject of the annexation of Texas to the United States. You are not mistaken in supposing that have formed an opinion on this interesting subject. It occupied much of my attention during my Presidency, and am sure has lost none ofits importance by what has since transpired. Soon after my election in 1929, 1t was made known to me by Mir. Erwin, formerly our minister at the court of Madrid, that while at that court he laid the

 

 sion of the Flordas, and the settlement of the boundary of Louisiana, fixing the western limit of the latter at the Rio Grand,* agree ably to the understanding of France-that he had written home to our Government for powers to complete the negotiation; but that, instead of recevng such authority, the ne- gotiation was taken out of his hands and transferred to Washington, and a new treaty was there concluded, by which the Sabine, and not the Rio Grande, was recognised and established as the boundary of Louisiana. Finding that these statements were true and that our Government did really give up that important territory, when 1t was at its option to retain 1t, was filled with astonishment. The right to the territory was obtained from France: Spain stood ready to acknowledge it to the Rio Grande: and yet the authority asked by our minister to insert the true boundary was not only withheld, but in lieu of it, limit was adopted which stripped us of the whole of the vast country lying be- tween the two rivers. On such subject thought with the ancient Romans, that 1t was right never to cede any land or boun- dary of the republic, but always to add to it by honorable treaty, thus extending the area of freedom; and it was in accordance with this feeling that gave our minister to Mex ico instructions to enter upon negotiation for the retrocesson of Texas to the United States. This negotiation failed, and shall ever regret 1t as a misfortune to both Mex ico and the United States Mir. Gilmer's let ter presents many of the considerations which in my judgment, rendered the step fo nd horr ~>ff fbo two countries; but the point in it at that time which most strongly impelled me to the course pursued, was the injustice done to us by the surrender of. the territory, when it was obvious that 1t could have been retained without increasing the consideration after wards given for the Floridas. could not but feel that the surrender of so vast and inn portant territory was attributable to an er- roneous estimate of the tendency of our in- stitutions, in which there was mingled some- what of jealousy to the rising greatness of the South and West. But forbear to dwell on this part of the history of this question. It is past, and cannot now be undone. We can now only look at 1t as one of annexation, if Texas presents 1t to us; and if she does, do not hesitate to say that the welfare and hap piness of our Union require that it should be accepted. If in military point of view alone, the question be examined, it will be found to be most important to the U. S. to be in possession of that territory. Great Britain has alreay made treaties with Texas; and we know that farseeing nation never omts a cir cumstance in her extensive intercourse with the world, which can be turned to account in increasing her military resources. May she not enter into an alliance with Texas? and re- serving Gas she doubles will) the northwest ern boundary question as cause of war with us when ever to declare 1t, let us suppose that as an ally with Texas, we are to fight her! Preparatory to such a movement, she sends her 10000 or 10000 men to Texas: organ izes them on the Sabine, where her supplies can be concentrated before we have even mo- tice of her intentions; makes lodgement on the Mississippi; excites the negroes to insur- rection; the lower country falls, and with 1t New Orleans: and servile war rages through the whole South and West. In the mean time while she is also moving an army along the upper frontier from Canada, which, in cooperation with the army from Texas, spreads ruin and havoc from the Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico Who can estimate the na- tional loss we may sustain, before such could be repelled with such force as we could organize on short notice?

 Remember that Texas borders upon us on our west, to 42 of north latitude, and IS our southern boundary to the Pacific. Re- member, also, that if annexed to the United States, our western boundary would be the Rio Grande, which is fortifcation of itself, on account of it's extensiv, barren, and uninhab- itable plains. With such barrier on our west, we are invinceable. The whole Flu ropean world could not, in combination againts us, make an impression on our Union. Our population on the Pacific would rapidly increse, and soon be strong enough for the protection of our eastern Whalers, and in the | worst event could always be sustained by