The Democratic Party And Annexation

As it is now evident that the scheme for the annexation of Texas to tbis Union wil enter largely into the sum total of the cou siderations by which the fresidentiol contest will be decidid, we propose to examine the standing of the severtfl partips in referênce to this project. A fair and irrtparüal delineation of the position of each will be highly serviceable to the intelligent toter. We shall commence with the Demócrata, as they ore ite uvowed advocates. During ihe present eession of Congress, three attompts for obtajning annexation have been made- by Treaty, by Resolutioo, and by Bill. Each method haa been starled in the Senute, nnd has failed in that body. The Texas Treaty was rejected by a vote of S5 to 16 - all ihe veas except one being Dcnocrats. The Joint Resolufion, proposed by McDufiïe, was laid on the table by a vote of L7 to 19. lTbe Bill introduced by Mr. Beatón, who oppoeed Mr. Tyler's treaty, contained the following provisions: Be it enacted, tbat the President of tlie United State id authonzed and advised, to I open negoliationswith Texas and Mexico upon the foUowing terms: lst. The boundary of the annexed territory to be in the desert prairie west of the Nueces, and along the highlands and mountain heights wJiich divide tbe waters of the Missississippi from the waters of the Rio DeJ Norte, nnd to latitude 42d degree nor tb. 2. The people of Texas, ly a legislative J act or by any anthentic act which shows the f will of tbe mnjority, to express their aesent to said negotiation.3. A Stote to be cnlled the Sfate of Texas, with boundaries fixed by herself, and an extent not exceeding thot oftbe íargest State of Lhe Union, be admitted into the Union by virtne of this act, on an equal focting with the original States. 4. The remainder of the annexed territory to be held and disposed of by the United States as one oftheir terriiories, and to be! called the Southein Territory. 5th. The existence of slavery to be forever I prohibited in the nortnern and north-western I part of eaid Territory, so as to divide jos equaliy as may be, the whole ofthe annexed territory bet ween s'ave-hoJding and noo slaveholding States. 6th . The assent of Mexico to be obtaincd I by treaty to snch annexation and boundary, or I to be dipensed with when the Congress oí' the United States may deem such assent to be unnecessary.7th. Other details of the annexation to be adjusted as far as the same may be within the scope of the treaty making power. A mojority of the Democratie Senators have sustained each of these different propositions, nor have we beard of ihe slightest condemnation of their votes from tire press of the party. Wbilo Ihe Southern portion of the prees has been nearly uuanimous for Annexation, it has received but Httledecided opposition fronj the Northern papers of the party. All of them are urgent in ihe support of the nominees, while most of thern are silent respect ing the fact thal the nominees are avowed advocates of ihe measure.The letters of Messrs. Polk and Dallas we have already published. Mr. Polk is for 'the immediate reannexation of Texas," and "entertains no doubts as to the power or expedioncy of re-annexation.1' Thia language is explicit enough. Bot in a eubsequent letter, Apiil 25, he makes this the paramount qnestion of the whole party. He says: "I regard the question of the Reannexation of Texas to the United States, as teevnd m imporlance io no other subject or qvestitm which now engages the public attention." The sentimeftts of Mr. Dallas may be presumed to be similar, as he owes his nomination to Senator Walker, one of the principal advocates of the écheme.Finally, the whole party were thoroughly commilted to t!ie project by the adoptiori of the following resolution by the Baltiraore National Convention: "Resolved, That our title to the whole tertitory of Oregon is clear and unqoestionable. that no pottion of the s&me ought to be 'ceded to England, or any other power; and that the re-occupation of Oregon, and the Rkannexation of Texcu at the earliest possible period are great American measures, which this Convention recoramends to the cordial support of'tbeDemocracy of the Union." All the prominent Demócrata, with rare exceptions, are in favor of Annexation in some shape, excopt Van Buren; and he would hove no objection under certoin circumstances. The écheme of Mr. Tyler of sliciny off one third of Mexico by treaty, assuming the national debt of Texas, wlule we o we a debt of more than twobundrcd rnillions which we cannoi pay, and of introducing the whole of Texas as a Slave territory, is acknowledged to be impracticable, and may be considered as abandoned. That was a Tyler project. The provisions of Mr. Benton's bil! shadow forth the Democratie scheme. It prescribes modérale boundaries to Texas; requires the pre vious assent of Mexico, Bnd propoeesto divide the territory of Texas ioto an equal number of slaveholding and nonslaveholding States, taking care, however, to give Slavery the lion'a shnre, by lrmiting the íree States much the poorest portion of the country. In some such modified form, the annexation project will be pursued as a party object and coosummated, f possible. Thus tbe unanimity of the party in favor of this nefarious project, is detuonstrable from the voice of its prees, from the opintons of its candidales, from the acts of its legislators, and from the declaratious of its legitímate conventions. That mony are opposed to Annexation in the abstract, is undeniable. But we have yet to know orhear of the fi.stman in that party who will refuse to vote for Polk and Dallas becauee they are in favor of Annexation. Here is the true test of oppoaition. It appears by the latest papers, that the nutnerous Democratie legislators of the New England States, who have paesed the most solemn resolutions against the Annexation of Texas, are joining in the general sbout for the national nominees, who, if elected, will consummate tbat very deed which they so gravely depreca ted. The N. Y. Evening Post, one of the best and ablest papers of the party, condemns annexation, but supports the nominees. In short, from present appearances, while a portion of the partr are opposed to Annexation, its unanimity in favor of the nomxnees who iMcntf to perpetúaletion, wil? scarcely be ruffled by the slightest breeze of discontent. Such is the conclusión (o which we must arrive. A emall minority of slavenoldere have cotnmitted the whole party to the eupport of unacceptable candidates, and of a dangerous and wicked attempt to perpetual slavery; and the whole party have submittec to the nominatione, and will submit to whut evereíse may be required. Surely we neet not virarfl our readers against he support o that Democraty which wields its mülion of votes for the extensión, aggrandizeinent and perpelGity of nbstflute SlnVery Nor can any ju8t hopos of the reforin'átíon of such a party be entertained. The sincptfe lover of tbt g reatest good to the whole nuínroef can find nothingf to encourage his aspiratíoiis fter a etter state of society in the principies of súch a confederacy. He who remains with thetn and votes for their cnndidates, votes for Texas and Slaverv. Thereis no escaping fromthis conclusión; and we respectfiilly submitit to the candor of the genuine friends of Freedom andEqual Rights in that party, whether the Liberty principies do not embrace all that they have been accustomed to reveré as noble in the objects of their party; and in support ing the Liberty principies, and the organization which upholds tlicm, whether they would not be stil! supporting tbose principies of Trük Democract to which they have always been attached, and on which the best interets our race so largely depend.