CO.NMU.VEC.aTFON:

For the North Carolina Standard
Remuneration of Texas to the United
States.
{"character_count": 4698, "word_count": 827, "ccnet_language_score": [0.972000002861023], "ccnet_perplexity": [860.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
SAS1lGSa


No question of material interest has arisen for
unanv years which-more imperiously demands the
attention of the people of the United States, and
more loudly calls for the consideration Of our rep
rescnlatives in Congress- than that of the anHexa
ton of Texas. 1t rises superior even to that ol
Oregon Let ii not be supposed that we magnify
its importance, and cndeavor to raise d noun
tain from a mole-hl. We firmly believe, and
hope, as far as our limits will permit, to show
that this question involves, not only the gain or
loss of large extent of excellent country, but the
safety of our citizens, the peace and happiness OF
the Union; nay, in measure, the very existence
of our freedom, and of our republican form OF
government. Is it not subject, then, which
should obtain our most anxious consideration


Texas should be Immediately annexed to The
Union, not only on the ground of expediency, but
of necessity. But it is said, by those narrow
minded politicians who oppose its admission, that
It would involve violation of the Constitution
that j! you'd be detrimental to the interests Of one
portion of the Union. They deelaim loudly
against the extension OF territory; and advance
arguments to show that the annexation would be
both unconstitutional and inexpediens. Each OF
which arguments will consider in It's proper
place. We shall not pretend to attempt refuta-
ton Of all these arguments the limits OF a news
paper would not permit it, even if we possessed
the ability. But ~ e will simply state them, de-
clare our views concerning them, and leave it to
the good sense of our readers to Judge of the mer
its of each.


We are met on the threshold by constitutional
objection. We are told that, to annex Texas to
the Union, would be violating the Constitution.
But, is this valid objectionP The constitution
positively states (Article FOUR section three) that
"new States may be admitted into the Union; but
no new State shall be formed or erected within
the jurisdiction of any other Stale, nor any State
be formed by the junction of two more States
parts of States without the consent OF the legis
Iaturrs Of the States concerned as well as Of Con-
gress." This is the language of the Constitution,
0Crbatins, and we conceive that there is nothing
in IL which eau be so construed, as TO be made to
apply only to territory already belonging to the
United States and if not, il clearly gives right
to admit foreign States, as we'll as such as are
formed from territory already in the possession of
the government. But admitting that it is uncon-
sttulnnal, the right of admitting foreign territory
has been established by precedent Florida was
ceded to the United States. When Jefferson pro-
posed the purchase of Louisiana, although it was
supposed at that time, to be contrary 10 the intent
OF the Constitution and although it was even pro-
posed 10 amend the constitution, an objection was
made to the purchase by any State or by any in
dIrldual, because every one saw that it was expe-
dient TO possess this territory. This was not only
new territory, but it was inhabited by people al
together different from own in institutions and
laws, and SPEAKING an entirely different language
But the inhabitants Of Texas not only speak the
same language that we do, and have the same
form Of government, but consist for the most part
Of our own citizens. Moreover, they have not
only given their consent to admission into the
Union, but have even requested it whereas Lou
fsiana was ceded without the consent or even
knowledge of its inhabitants.


But Texas cannot be called foreign country :
can its annexation be called the acquisition of
new territory, for it once belonged 10 us, and
should be in our possession now 1t is merely
recovering what was once our own, and to which
we have now an actual right. Here it is neces-
sary 90 back little, to the history of our form
er relations with Texas and Mexico. We must
endeavor to be brief as possible in our extracts
and in our remarks, for fear of stretching our ar.
tcle TO too great length and will, consequently,
be obliged to omit many valuable and interesting
facts, and many good arguments Texas is al.
ready ours; for when Louisiana was purchased
BY Jefferson, Texas was embraced in the Dur.
chase, can be easily shown; Jefferson express.
~ says that it was included and that it is as much
the property of the United States as Louisiana
The purchase was made in 1903; and the French
commissioner who delivered it TO the u States
stnted that it extended westward to the river Del
Norte, which includes Texas. Jefferson Madi.
son, Monroe, AMI John @. Adams all concurred
In the opinion that Texas undeniably belongs to