{"character_count": 5728, "word_count": 978, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9713000059127808], "ccnet_perplexity": [583.7000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 lied our national honorn towards a weaker power, is more plausible than sound; while the assertion that < ''Mexco would have the same right to possess herself of any State in the union as the Government of the United States has to possess itself of Texas" seems to me to be entirely untenable.

 In the first place, the Unised States and the principal powers of Europe have already &C., knowledged the independence of Texas They have done no more for Mexico her self. Texas is, therefore, as much of sove- reign among the family of nations as Mexico herself The right of the United States to annex Mexico, surely would not be ques- toned on the ground that Spain might com plain And yet there would be precisely the same force in the argument.

 Again, 1t will be recollected that by the treaty of 1903, with France, Texas was ac- quired to the United States along with the Louisiana purchase In that treaty, the pro- lection and laws of the United States were guarantied tothe inhabitants of the ceded ter ritory. And afterwards, while Mexico was waging war of rebellion against Spain, the l United States, in the exercise of c doubtful poUer, to say the least of 1t, ceded part of this purchase-Texas, not to Mexico, but to Spain. Mexico then has obtained no other title to Texas, but such as Texas has wrested from Mexico-that of conquest. If 1t was, therefore, right for the United States to ac- knowledge the conquest of Mexico, as against Spain, where is the wrong in acknowledging the conquest of Texas against Mexieo'

 This brings me to the consideration of the third objection, by the Intelligencer-th of inexpediency of adding to our territory. All summed up, 1t is that we " "already have too much erritory.n But independent of the con- sideration that this is a subject about which there may be great difference of opinion, the Editors seemed to have lost sight of one ma terial fact which l have already stated-and that is that the annexation of Texas would not be the acquisition of country which we never owned, but the re-establlshment of the boundaries acquired by the purchase of Lou isiana, Sc. from France. All the objections, therefore, to this expansion of territory were met and overcome at the time-and are now every where acknowledged to have been the dictates of miserable, short-sighted policy. If it was right to purchase this country in 1903, is it not right to re-establsh the boun- diaries now when the -re-establishment costs nothing' It IS, in fact, the acquisition of no new territory, but the remuneration of country which never ought to have been re- linquished It is the extension of the boun- dares of the United States to natural marks, and to points necessary to be occupied in military point of view. The idea that the boundaries of the United States should remain in their present |" hideous shapeo will, am sure. appear to every citizen of the west pre- posterous.

 The same objection to the extension of territory appeared as forcibly before as since the peopling of the thirteen new States, be- sides the several Territories. And yet who believes that if the inhabitants of the new thirteen were poured back into the old, that our liberties would be safe for single yeari

 But one of the most important consdera- tions to the people of Arkansas is, that by the annexation, the United States would cut of, all communication of the sixty thousand red warriors, on our western frontier, with foreign power; would give us an immediate communication from the river Del Norte to the Pacific ocean; would form a cordon of white settlements aceStaDard of the Indian pop ulation, and would thus render 1t certain that before half century, State upon State would spring up all over that Territory, where are now crowded together a semi-barbarous and savage population.

 Under this enlarged view of the subject, we must iealously guard against any move-' ment which contemplates the yielding any portion of the sovereignty over our western territory. The Indians must either prepare to become part of this great Republic, or give place to the new and rising States which are yet to leave Missouri, Arkansas, and Lou isiana in an almost central position.

 narrow and circumscribed policy may do for those States, east of the Alleghanies- but the people of the west will demand their natural boundaries-the Pacific. If told that chain of rocky mountains lies in the way, we reply, that the Alleghanies interrupted the population from the great valley of the Mississippi. That valley is wholly imperfect without Texas-and few years hence he will be called very short-sighted man, who now ressts the annexation, on the ground that itis impolitic to re-extend our dominion.

 The 4th objection relates to the constitu- tionality of the measure. This doubt has been so universally exploded, that l wonder that the intelligent Editors of the Intelligencer should even quote the objection as the opin- ions of .feac.

 That it might be annexed by treaty, by act of Congress, or by Louisiana or Arkansas, as parts of their territory, "with the consent of Congress-" is not now doubted by many who doubt the expectancy of the measure. If itl were once constitutional to purchase the corntrv from France-tben constitutional to sell it to Spain, which never occupied it, surely it will not now be unconstitutional to receire it back into our union, since it is an independent power. Every administration since that of MT. Monroe has concurred in the attempt to re-obtain Texas from Mexico. If it were lawful to purchase from Mexico, where is the objection to that with power eqbally as independent as Mexico'

 The opinion of MT. Forsyth, given in 1897, is quoted against the measure. But it should