For the Arkansas Bonner. ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
{"character_count": 5133, "word_count": 870, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9584000110626221], "ccnet_perplexity": [712.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
WASHINGTON ClTY, l6th March, 1S44.

 To THE EDITOR The views of the Edi- tors of the .' National Intelligencer,o con- tained in long editorial in their paper of this morning, meet, in my opinion, less sympathy here, than is generally accorded to this organ of the Federal cause. As know the deep interest naturally felt on this subject in Ar kansas, you will, trust, give place to short review of this extraordinary article. l could wish that the task had devolved on one hav- ing more leisure and ability. But lest the discussion should be too much neglected i'll our State, l will even intrude my views notwithstanding that newspaper writing Is out of my < vocation''

 The Editor of the National Intelligencer sets out with assuming, that notwithstanding they had only few weeks since supposed that the subject of annexation of Texas" had not been seriously thought of; yet that recent information from more authoritative sources, has caused it almost exclusively to occupy the minds of men of :. common intel ligenee.o He assumes, too, that the subject ssdisdains association with the party topics of the day.'

 This assumption certainly ought to be true. But 1t Is grievous to have to record that It IS not true. A vote in the House of Represen- tatives yesterday shows, conclusively, that the Democratic party are almost all ill favor of annexation, while all the northern Wings and few southern allies, are against 1t. Out of Congress, many independent southern Wings are doubtless in favor of the annexa- tion-but many of these perhaps fear to act with the Democrats i'll such measure,

 presume that the Editor speaks authori- tatvely as to the views of the present Execu- tive upon this subject His views are gene rally admitted to be favorable to the annexa- tion-and of the views of the able Secretary of State, no one pretends to doubt. And the only wonder Is that the Editors of the Ma tional Intelligencer should so long remain ignorant on subject which has for some time commanded the attention .sof the whole country"

 The Editors forebodings as to the :: dark cloud which overhangs the public peace, and national welfare, if not the existence of this union," would really indicate that these watchful Whig sentnels have been taking one of Rip Van Wrinkles maps. The National Intelligencer says:

 

 not long after the retirement of MR. WEBSTER from the Department of State,-that an over ture was made 6y His Government, through the Secretary of State, inuiting from the Ex- ecutive of Texas General Houston,) pro- position for the annexation of Texas to the United States.n This paragraph concludes by saying that, ''so far as the President of the United States and the President of Texas are concerned, the treaty is all but made''

 We'll, suppose it is, Has not the inde- pendence of Texas been acknowledged by the principal powers of Europe; and have not, therefore, the Presidents of these two sovereigntes the right and the power to com mence negotiations, which can only be rati- fled by the Senates of the two Republics? | confess that do not see the ground for the by the National Intelligencer. do not be- lieve in the first place that our Government went, as it is stated, "a wooing" after the young Republic. The Intelligencer seems to have forgotten that the citizens of that young Republic, long since, gave an unani- nous vote in favor of annexaton-that that vote has never been reversed-an that atthrough her constituted tribunals, Texas has again and again expressed the same wish.

 The Editorsin burst of eloquence scarcely their own, after expressing their apprehension that the treaty might never be ratified by the American Senate, say "The sudden ocui- renee of this question, we have already inti- mated, is one of those occasions of expressing interest, which is like foreign invasion or rebellion at home-a pestence or an earth quake-ought to suspend for time all mere party differences of opinion and contentious It is question of peace or war, of self-pres- ervatlon, of national existence, in comparison with which the ordinary topics of party con troversy dwinde into absolute insignifeance.' 5

 l avow this Is the same cry which we have heard in the Senate whenever the oues- ton of the exclusive occupancy of Oregon has sprung up As though the exercise of clear right by the United States, .eisher for her interest or convenience, Is to become an alarm of war. Such remarks are too heated too unstadled to need serious consideration The lntellgencer makes this subject of war his firstand paramount objection. Itassumes, explicitly, that the annexation could not be accomplished without involving us in warr' But from whence this war is to come; by whom it is to be waged- ed-when-where or how-the saplent Editors do not deign to tell us. Whether the formidable forces of Santa Anna, which could not conquer the sparse population ofTexas nine years ago, or whether John Bull IS to lake offence is not even hinted. Much less are we told upon what principles of justice such war could be waged

 Probably this is hinted at, in the second objection. which relates to our treaties of