INDEPENDENCE AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. ANNEXATION NO CAUSE OF WAR. Among the results, which have been discussed as causes, we find the Texas question, the independence and subsequent annexation of Texas as a State of our Union. This has become simple history. Parties are at issue with respect to some facts, which are not very important, even if determined, in aiding us to decide the general merits of the case. The opponents of annexation have thought proper to assail the motives of the friends of that measure, and, upon the assumption that their views were correct, have manifested a singular prejudice and hostility to every proposition and event which have grown out of it. It is not our business to question their motives or their integrity, but to consider the whole subject independently of them. These were national measures, and as such we propose to consider them. The motives of those who originated and matured them make no part of the subject. A good measure may be proposed with bad motives, or motives that we cannot approve; and bad laws may be proposed and enacted springing from the best of motives. Besides, all men do not judge accurately of results. National measures for specific interests are sometimes proposed with limited views, and for the attainment of objects not to be justified, but which, on examination, are found to possess other features highly favorable to other good purposes not contemplated by the original mover. Indeed, they may prove fatal to his intentions. He may have failed to study his own combination of causes, and he lives to be disappointed in the results of his own acts. Let it be so. Causes are certain, men uncertain. We discuss measures to be determined, according to our best knowledge and convictions of duty; but when called upon to consider the events of the past, we desire to take them as we find them, approving what we can, condemning what we must. We can only judge of our own motives, conceding to others the same prerogative. As late as in 1821, Mexico was subject to the crown of Spain; but, for reasons deemed sufficient by her people, she asserted her own independence. Her revolution was successful, and her independence was acknowledged by the United States, January 23, 1823, and soon after by other leading governments of Europe. In 1824, she adopted a federal constitution. We have already reviewed her history, and have seen what has been the measure of her success. In 1834, "Santa Anna, at the head of the military power, overthrew the constitution of 1824, abolished the state governments, and established one of the most tyrannical and absolute governments that ever existed." * In 1835, the State of Texas protested against the usurpation of Santa Anna, and insisted upon their rights, as guarantied by the federal constitution of 1824. The objects of that constitution were similar to those of the Constitution of the United States," to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These objects were sacred, and the government of Mexico was bound to be faithful to the conditions imposed by the trust. If it failed in the accomplishment of any one of them, there would be just cause for complaint on the part of the people, and their submission to such failure would make no part of duty. If the government failed in all the objects of the union, as set forth, it would be regarded as a case of absolute weakness, criminal design, or neglect, and nothing but a total change of administration should satisfy a people that they were true to themselves or to their country. If it failed not only to accomplish the objects for which it was organized, but usurped authority in gross violation of those objects, then its measures were acts of treason, and revolution became an imperative duty, not to be avoided without dishonor. * See Speech of General Rusk, Senator from Texas. This was the fact with Mexico, and Texas was the only State that had sufficient character to oppose successfully the infamous usurpation of Santa Anna. The protests of Texas were treated by the usurper as acts of rebellion, and her representative was arrested, imprisoned, and was suffered to lie in a loathsome dungeon without a hearing. The constitutions of the States were destroyed; States were declared to be mere departments; they were deprived of all legislative authority; their officers were arrested, and the governors were made subject only to the central government, thereby becoming the willing instruments of tyranny. These acts of oppression were followed by a decree requiring the States as well as individuals to surrender up all the arms they had in their possession. Not satisfied with these outrages, agents were sent by the tyrant to instigate the Indians, whose numbers were large, to exterminate with the scalping-knife and tomahawk a people who were hated because they were feared. Submission to such outrages, executed in the name of freedom, can excite no sentiment but that of indignation in the breast of every friend of liberty; while, on the other hand, we should not withhold our admiration for that small band of pioneers who had the courage to defend their rights against a nation that counted its millions of subjects. Becoming persuaded that their lot would be one of hardship and oppression as connected with the general government, the Texans declared their independence on the 2d of March, 1835. The usurper marched his hireling troops to the soil of that brave people, conscious of superior strength, certain of victory, and impatient for the bloody work which should remove all subjects unwilling to be slaves. The successes of his army were crowned with INFAMY,* and the battle of his own controlling with defeat. On the 21st of April, a large portion of his army, under his * We need only mention the base betrayal of Zacatecas, and the cold-blooded and treacherous massacre of Colonel Fanning, and his force of four hundred men. own command, met the Texans, under General Houston, on the plains of San Jacinto. An engagement took place, and half of his troops were slain, and the other half were taken prisoners of war, including the tyrant himself. Apparently humbled, the dictator sued for terms of peace, and after some hesitation on the part of the Texans, a treaty was made and executed.* * Rights were defined, and boundaries stated. The independence of Texas was to be acknowledged by Mexico, and the parties to the instrument on the part of Mexico pledged themselves faithfully to use their influence in procuring a ratification of its stipulations by their own government. From this moment Texas was free and independent. She was left by Mexico in undisturbed repose, though the treaty of Santa Anna was basely disregarded by the Mexicans who executed it, and was denounced and disavowed by their governIn 1837, the independence of Texas was acknowledged by the United States, and in quick succession by the great powers of Europe. ment. Here was one of the results of the folly, weakness, neglect, and wickedness of Mexico. She lost some of her best citizens, and a large portion of her richest soil. It was a result that all good men must rejoice in, for, whether we consider most the gain to Texas, to the United States, or to the cause of freedom, we cannot but regard the independence of this State, and subsequent annexation, as events of justice to Mexico, and one of instruction to the age. Here was a sovereign power in a country that was ceded by our government to Spain in 1820, in violation of our treaty stipulations with France in 1803, and much against the views of many of our people.† Texas became her own sovereign master, and was free to choose her own destiny. * See Appendix G. We insert, with much confidence, in our Appendix some extracts from a letter of the Hon. R. J. Walker, addressed, in 1844, to the people of Kentucky, "relative to the re-annexation of Texas," &c. This letter embraces a large amount of information, and is written with great ability. See Appendix H. Actuated by no unworthy motives of ambition, her defenders became devoted to her true interests, and proved faithful as citizens and rulers. They had no objects in government but security in their rights and interests, and it soon became a serious question how these might best be preserved and advanced. Having the elements of prosperity within her limits, her population increased, the riches of her soil were made manifest, and soon the young Republic became the subject of notice and favor of foreign and rival nations. Annexation to the United States was proposed, as being preferable to national sovereignty with national weakness -a measure of adding a lesser power to receive a greater. It was a measure of duty and interest to them, and one of national concern and importance to the Union. In regard to the importance of Texas to the United States, much has been said by distinguished citizens of all parties. It is not a recent question, and not until lately has it been made a party question. Indeed, its importance has been so fully acknowledged by statesmen entitled to our confidence and respect, irrespective of party, that any enlargement here upon the subject might be deemed by some an act of supererogation.* It is now one of the States of the Union; and while we cannot speak from personal observation of the value or beauty of its territory, we may be permitted to quote the language of the Hon. W. S. Archer, of Virginia, chairman of the committee of foreign relations in the House of Representatives in 1822. At that time he delivered a speech on the subject of appointing. a minister to Mexico, from which we make the following extract. He pronounced the territory "one of the richest and most favored portions of the habitable earth. I say this deliberately, for if I were called upon to select any portion of the earth's surface which was fitted by nature to become the garden spot of the globe, I should without hesitation point to the province of Texas." This was not an expression of party sen *See Appendix H. |