The Whig Party And Annexation

Last week we exhibited the positionof the Democratie party on the question of annexing Texas to the Union. We showed from the votes of their legislators, frotn the opinions of their candidates, from the voice of their presses, and from the resolulion of the National Convention, that the whole party was fölly tfommitted to this project, and committed, too, for the purposc of annexing the whole or a largo portion of that ampie domain, as a slaveholding country, asa means ofsfrengthening Southern Slavery.We now propose to consïdor the position of the Whig party on this great subject; and as Henry Clay has been regarded as the embodiment of Whig principies - as hehas written-a letter expressly for the ptfrpose of' making ïenown hïs opinions respecting it- and as this letter is appealed to by the whole party as the true stand of orthodoxy, we shall firstconsidef ifs positions and arguments. One thing that strikes the attention, is, that the constitiuionality of nnexation, cöncerning which the greatest statesmen differ, is not referred to by Mr. Clay at all, except ín a simple reference to the opinión of Mr. JefFerson andoihcrs, that the framers of the Constitution never intended that territory should be added, and new States formed from it- But the whole scope of his remarks proceeds on the supposition that no valid eonstitutional objectíou can be raised.His first argument against aunexation at the present time, js that it sould inevitably lead to a war with Mexico, and perhaps with other nations. All sensible men acknowledge" this to be a good reason, Itwas justly and forcibly urged in the letter of Van Bïrren on this subject; and the sentiments advanced hy both of them in condemnation of a readmess to go to war with Mexico, becaase she is a weak power, and cannof injure us much, are "highly honorable to them, But Mr, Clay further ndds thai the assent of Mexico to annexatioñ "would nTaterially affect the foreign aspect of the question, if it did nol remove all foreign dijiculfies' So far. then, Mr. Clay has no objection fo annexation, provided Mexico will peaceably assent to iLHis secand objection is ïhat AnncxatJon should not be consummated t:in opposition to the wishes of a considerable and respectable portion of the Confederaey." "If not called fur by any general expression of public opinión," he rightly argües that it would produce discord, discontent. and confusión. It folio vvs as a matter of coucse, that ivhenever "the wishes of a considerable and respecíable porticn of the Confederacy" shall not be arrayed against itj but it shall be called for by a "general expression af public opfnion," ths force of this objection will be done avay. Supposing, 'thën, that the people wish for nnnexafion, and Aiexico assents to it, - Mr. Clay thus far has no objection.But he alindes to n thírd reason, which has weight wilh otliers, that annexation vvould desfroy the balance now existing between fhe slafre and freo States. He contends, hoivever1, tíiat fheí-e would probably be íwaslai'e and three free States madc from Texas, and the objection wilh him has no material bearingon the question. The fonrth objection is the magnitude of the debt of Texas which we night be obliged to pay. This, howcver, is an argument against paying the dcbl of TcxctS) but none wfiateveragainst annexation, provided, it can be eÜected without incnrring that debt.Th us Mr. Clay's reasons ngainst nnnexation fit ffiís íifne are properly only three, to wit: war with Mexico, the unpopularit}' of the mensure, and the payment of ihe debt of Texnsv Were these jobsfacles removed, the whole aspect of the question would be changed, as stated by himself, thus: "If, without the loss of nationnl charncter, without the hazard of foreign wnr, with the genera] concurrence of the nation, wilhout any danger to the integrity of the Union, and without giving an unreasonablc price for Texas, the question of annexation were presented. it would appear in quite a different üght from that in wbich, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded." The plain implication is, that under favorable Annexation might properly tafce place. He wrote this letter with special reference to Tyler's trèaty; and saya in conclusión, very truly;"I consider the annexation of Texas, al this without the assent of Mexico, as a measure compromising the nntional charaeter, involv.ng us eertainly in a war with Mexico, probabJy with other foreign Powers, dnngerous to'the integrity oi the Union, inexpedient in the present ünancinl condition of the country, and not caüed for by any general expressipu of public opinión." Many Whig papers affect to regard this letter as taking ground agaiost the Acnoxation of Texas at all, under any circumstances. Nothing of the kind is intimated in the letter; and we re Mr. Clay to sign a bilí the first week after' his eleciion for admitting Texas, underthe favorable cifcüms! anees fie has enumcraíed, we could not aecuse him of the least inconsisteney or duplicity. He merely enumerates his objeclions "ai tids time;'" and deemres tlmt a suppcsed chango of circumstanees vould present the question 'Hn quite a different UghV This reasoning leaves the matter open for any future act ion; avtd it does not literally or constructively preclude Mr. Clay or hs friends from effecting the Annexation of Texas whenever the objectious he has enumerated shall be obviated. That this ís the light ín which his letter is interpreted among the VVhig slaveholders, is evident from the tenor of their papers. The National Intelligencer, the highest Whig authority, says of this subject, as quoted in the Western Citizen; " WE don't so mvcíí object TO THE THING 1TSELF, -as to aaf andth party hj which it is lo be accomplishcvL" This does not look like being over zealous cigainst Annexation, But the Intelligencer, which has been strenuousagainst Annexation while Tylers treaty was pending., seeros now disposed to take the back track. For instance, the following paragraph is significant-, ! "With reference (o the general question. what course it would become the duty of the V. Slate's to pursue in the event of a ■possibilüy of Texas fa lU.ngunder the dominion of any foreign Power, it would be easy for us to evade direct reply, by sayinglhat ''-sufFicient for the day is the evil thereof.' So it is. We" prefer,liowever, to avoid misconstruction; to declare at once our opinión that the United, States can never mfelxj yerviil any European Power to oUain a foothold in Texas."Bot we Tiave posrííve testimony that a poríion of the Whig party are dccidcd1 advocates of Annexaiion, and are very far from considering Mr. Clay's letter as-' closing the door to the whole project. The Kichmond Whig is the teadingClay paper south of the'Potomac, and in &n elabórate articíe on Annexation thus glves the cue toaH the Southern Whigsi "Let ns not be misunderstood. The peopïe of Virginia, as far aswe have been ible to iearn, and we presume nrnie oth?rs in the State possess better sources of nformation.) ar e in favor of Annexation it the proper time and under the proper :irctnnsiavce$. Eüt thcy are deciiiedly urd irrevocnbly opposed to the present chemeof nnparalloled iniquitv. They egafd it as in the last degree dishonoro )le and dishonoring."OCT" " 7%c cïrcumsi 'anees wkich wovïd rexder it acceptable, are these: lsf Leí1heboindary embrace fio mofe than"old Texas; that is, Texas as it once belonged f o asi 2d. Z? Mexico acknoicledge the. Iñdependence of Texas, or Iet Texas shoiti sha haft the -power io mainlain her Independence 3d. Let it be understood, that we fake no foreign War on our shoülders, by adopting Texas inio tbe Union. Whcn aTL these, 'poinls are seLtledi hen ice bclieve a majority of Virginia rrtay be found in favor of annexivg old Texas; ro ihink the day yrüj ncver arrive when she wijl countenance the appropriation of what we shall desígnate as New Texas."As the Southern elections draw near, we sball have íurtherevidenco thatat the South the whole question ís still consicfered an oppn one; and fhe eleclion of Mr. Clay will be no bar whatever to Annexation, should it be deemed e.-rpedienf. Thé National tVI-iig Convenlion, whieh put fuith n creed on "ríie othor grcat interests," u-cro pürnt on :his -uhjrct, and Iience ve conclude tiiry c)id ubont U mi meníit (o do nothrnor about it, but to lave it as an open qnnsíior Wliile, thereforp, 1 he Northern Whirr papera preach up oppogition to prospective Annxntion as a Whig principie, they preach that vrhich ha never bpcn reoognizcil by the whole Wliijy party as genwne Wliig doctrine. ït has not bren paíictipned nalionallr. Clay's letter ts we have seen, was a mere PÍfttpinet of his rensons "at th'is time" against Tyler's treaty, uhich wns tlicn pending So far from pledffin !iim?elf nfairst it n future, he expressly {j'inrfls nTf)jnLt suc"h n constrncíion by stating thnt if his present olijpclions were rpmoved, Annexation ''ivovld elppepr in quite a different UghC' The (li'ífrrrnco between the Whig and Democrniic pnrties rnny b-? thus sfated: The Democrats go for it as wlio?e parfy, ns part oF the'sr creed, with. candidate pledgpá !o effect iu