Edgefield advertiser. (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, July 25, 1849, Image 3
to show that it was owing to its introduc
tion, and the disclosures it made, that I
was deterred from introducing them as lie
statrs. The fact is not so. The session
cunmenced the first Monday of- Decem
ber, 1847, and Mr. Dix did not introduce
the paper until the 26th of July, 1848,
nearly eight months subsequent. and one
month after I had fully discussed the prin
ciples of my resolutions. Did he see,that
all. this would have been manifest at once
without a word from me, if be had given
the dates ? and was not that his reason fur
not giving them ?
Col. Benion seems to lie conscious, that
it was necessary for him to explain why
lie had not assailed my resolutions. and
tie base and corrupt motives he attributes
to me for introducing them,- long before,
and in his place in the Senate; ami ac
cordingly. he has attempted to make one.
He asserts that " Mr. Calhoun's resolu
tions are -those of the Missouri Legislature.
They are identical. One is copied from
the other. When the original is invali
dated, the copy is of no avail. I am an
sweriag his resolutions, and choose to do
it. It is just and proper that I should do
so. He is the prime mover and head con-.
triver. I have had no chance to answer
him in the Senate, and it will not do to at:
low him to take a snap-judgment upon
me in Missouri, in carrying disunion reso
lutions in my own State, which he has
been forced to abandon in the Senate.
Duty to the country requires me to answer
hin,, and personal reasons re-inforce that
public duty.''
His explanation then is. that notwith
. standing his burning zeal to defend the
Union and of his own character against
these wicked resolutions. " he could get no
chance before to answer them." What!
could get no chance from February, 1847,
until June. 1849, (ite date of his speech)
a period of upwards of iwo years ! Could
get no chance when they were first intro
luced and discussed ? None during the
loug session which followed and which
lasted more than eight months? None
during the long and ful-discussion on the
Oregon Territorial bill, when the princi
pies of the resolutions formed the basis of
the argument on the side of the south ?
None to reply to ine. who fully discussed,
and I may say established them bry.and
controversy? None during the discussion
of the report of the select committee, of
which Mr. Clayton was chairman ? None
on the discussion of the bill from the
Dlouse of Representatives, which applied
the Wilmot Proviso to the Oregon terri
tory, and which was passed by his vote
and his friend Gen. Houston's? None
during the whole of the last session, and
still more wonderful, none in making his
lest spceh ? I say none, for he confined
himself to drnunciation and abuse of the
resolutions, without even attempting to
answer them. No, he never could get,
and never can get a chance to answer
them. For every other purpose he can
get a chance, whenever he pleases. No
one is better at getting a chance when he
is disposed. He had no difficulty in get,
ting a chance to pour out a torrent of
abuse, to empty seats, against the late Ge.
neral Kearney, day after day, for the
greater part of a week, and that too just
at the close of a session, to the'utter dis
g'tst of the Senate, and at the hazard of
defeating many bills then ready for final
action. I might go on and repeat similat
questions until they would fill pages. but
enough has been said to prove that his ex
planation is puerile and hollow.
swer the resolutions, and cotld have made
one, if Iho desired it at any time, but there
wvere two reasons which prevented him.
The first is, that althtough he had made up
his mind to desert you an'd your cause be
fore the introductionz of the resolutions, he
saw the hazard, and was unwilling to take
that step hastily. The Missouri resolu
tions forced him to disclose his intentions,
and to proclaim his desertion before-lie
was fully prepared to execute his design,
and hence the depth to which they have
excited his ire. The other is, that he had
too much discretion to address sucn a far
rago ton a body too well informed to be im
posed upon by old, stale and oft-repeated
charges. lIe knew besides that they would
have been promptly met and repelled, and
thtat the antidote woul go with_ the poison.
He knew this from experience. He had
tried it before. It failed most signally.
It was in the session of 1847, a few
datys after I had intr-oduced the resolutions.
In thtat attack he paraded. nearly in the
same words, all that he has cenarged in
this, about the Florida treaty, Texas, and
almost every othter subject. lie had taken
time atnd prepared deliberately. It was
given out that ho would demolish me.
Trhe Senate was crowvdedl by those who
wishted to witness the sacrifice. I rose antd
repelted off hand his charges. I leave
those who were present to decide vith
wh'iat effect. It w-as certainly not to his
gratification or satisfactionz. lHe, did not
even attempt a rejoinder. But what be
comes of his apology, that he had no
chance to reply to my resoluition ? They
had been initroduced but shortly before,
and theni ho had at full chance to answer
them, Hie then assailed every act of my
life, which lie thought hte could distort, so
as to make a plausible charge against me.
Why then omit to ans wer resolutions which
he now holds up as the worst and most
objectionable of all? Can any answer he
given, except that he is either not sincere,
in what he asserts, or that the time had
not thten arrived, at which he could safely
venture to betray you ?
But, according to his own statement, he
is impelled in making his attacks by pri
vate grief, as well as public considerations.
He says I 'instigated attacks on him for
twenty years. I instigate atiackson him!
Ho must htave a very exalted opinion of'
himself- I never thought of such a thing.
We move in different spheres. MtuI course
is, and has been, to have nothing to do
with him. I never wanted his support,
nor dreadcd his opposition. He took the
same ground in htis speech just referred to,
and endeavored to establish the charge
by what'putrported to bie an extract from a
letter, wvhich he states wvas delivered to
him by the same person unnamted, and
was wvritten by an unknowvn person to an
unkntown person, lie introduced it ito
the Senate, in a manner to make the im
pression that I ntas its author. I arose and
asked him if he intended to assert that I
forced to admit I was not. I then re
polled his charge with a scorn which the t
base insinuation, that I had any kuov
ledge or conuection with it i hatever, de
served. He was covered with confusion ;
and yet he has the effrontery to introduce
it again to the puhlic, accomp. nied with
the same insinuation which covered him
with disgrace at its first introduction.
But the deepest inound, it seems, was
inflicted by a statement in my address to
the people of Charles:on, on my return
home after the session of '47 and '48, th:it
ie voted for the bill establishing the terri
tory of Oregon, containing the principle of
the Wilmot Proviso, and that he and Gen
Houston were the only two southern mem
bers who voted for it ; that without their
votes it would not have been drfeaied, foi
lowed by the expression of an opinion, that
for so domng, they deserved the reprobation
of the whole south. Neither of them
have ever denied the truth of my state
ment, nor ever can. Every word is true,
as the journals of the Senate show. The
statement itself is in plain language and
free from extortion or exaggeration. The
fact stated, related to official acts which it
was important my constituents sh'uld
know. In expressing my opinion I ab
stained from impeaching tnives. All
vas done within the rules of decorum, and
-those that govern parliat.tentary proceed
ings. Wherein then consists the offence ?
I am at a loss to perceive, except the prin
ciple be adopted, that the greater the truth.
the greater the libel. It may be, tthatit was
regarded as an offence because it was ell
culated to embarrass him, and thwart-what
he then meditated, and has since carried
into execution-an open desertion to the
abolitionists.
I pass now to his next charges. Ie as
serts that I gave away Texas, and to make
it out lie asserts that Texas belonged to
the United States. when the treaty with
Spain was made, by which she ceded Flo
rida to ns. lie claims that Texas was a
part of Louisiana, and that its boundary
extended to the Rio Grande; that it was
all slave territory, and lorked to as the na
tural outlet for their great increasing slave
population; and finally, that it was sur
rendered by the treaty of Florida made in
1819, during the administration of Mr.
Monroe, of which I was one of the mem
bers. On this statement he rests his
charge that I gave away Texas.
it is diflicult for one who lecks sincerity
and is actuated by violent passions, to es
cape the greatest inconsistency and contra
diction, in defendiug himself or assailing
others, in making a long speech. lenton
furnishes a strong illustration of the truth
of this position, and never more so than in
making the above statement. In order to
aggravate the act of giving away Te.as,
which he charges ma with, he has made
assertions entirely inconsistent with the
grounds he took, and the course he pur
sued while the question of the annexation
of Texas was before the Senate. le now
asserts that the boundary of Texas as part
of Louisiana extended to the Rio Grande,
when the treaty of Florida was made, in
the very teeth of the assertions he made,
when the question of annexation was be
fore the Senate. In the speech he made
in May. 1844, on the treaty raw anneving
Texas. he assorted, that " The Texas
which we acquired by the treaty of 1803,
(that of Louisiana ) never approached the
Rio Grande, excepting near its mouth."|
To show that " by near its month !" he did
not mean that it touched the river, he said,
speaking of Tamaulipas, one of the States
of Mexico, that ' it coveretd both sides of
the river, from its monwth for some hundred
miles up." He assertedl in the same.
seech that all New Mexico, Chihuahua,
Goahuila, and Tamaulipas madec no part
of the Texas whtich we0 acquired by the
treaty of Louisiana. Hec estimnates the
part belonging to Mexico lying on the east
side of the Rio Grande to be 2000 miles
long, (the whole length of the river.) and
some hundred broad, and concluded by
saying "he washed hishandsof all attempts
to dismember the republic of Mexico by I
seizing her domninions in Newv Mexico,
Chihuahua, Coahtuila and Tamaulipas.":
These were his assertiotns, solemnly
madec, and as he st ates after the fullest exa-'
mination, when his ob'ject was to defeatI
the treaty which I negotiated with the
Commissioners of Texas for its annexa
tion. For that purpose he attempted to 1
show that the treaty covered a large p~art of
Mexico, which never belonged to Texas,
although the treaty specified no boundary.
and left the boundary open on the side of
Mexico, intentionally. ini order to settle it
by treaty with her. But now, whren his
object is to show I that gave away Texas
by the treaty of Florida, lie holds a very
difereut language. lie does not. indeed.
say in so many words, that Te~xas covered
the wvhole region from the Sabine to the
Rio Grande, for that woculd bave been too
pely and plainly a direct contradiction
to what he contended for when his object
vas to defeat annexation ; but he does the!
same thing ini a more covered anti objee- I
tionable way. by using language that could
not fail to mnake that impression o't all who
eard him, or may read his speech. i
lie goes farther. In ordier to aggravate
the charge against me, he becomes appa,.
rently a warm advocate of slavery exten
sion,'as lie calls it, anid uses strong Ian
uge to show the valute of Texas to the
outh in that respect. Hie says, it was all '
slave territory ; that it was looked to as the
atural outlet of the Southern States with
their increasing slave population, and that
t was large enongh to make six large
States, or ten common ones. Such is his
anguage, wvhen his object is to prove tha'.
gave away Texas. You would supposo
from this language that he was a slavery
xtensinist, as he calls all those who de
fend your rights, anti that he placed a higha
ale on Texas, as an otilet lfor your slaves
population, and to preserve your just in
fluence and wveight in the UJnion. One,
aoudi conciuude, t~hat with these feelings
and views, he wvould have been a strong I
advocate of the treaty that was rejected by
the Senate, which proposed to annex Texas
without any restriction whatever in rela
tion to slavery, so as to leave it, to use hise
an language, as the outlet to your in-t
reasing slave population. Instead of that 1
he made the most strenuous effurts to de-t
feat it, and contributed not a little towardis rl
it. Hie went further. After its defeat, he
mnovedl a string of resolutions, containing
provisions for its admission, and amnong
nto two parts, as nearly equal as possible
y a line running north and south, and to
lMot the east,.ru to you, and the western
a the abolitionists, 1o the entire exclusion
fyour " inereasing slave poptilaitfn." It
an hardly be, that he forgot all this in de
ivering his speech; but, if not, what
natchless effi tntery and inconsistency to
nake the charge he does against me?
'here would indeed seem to be no limits
o his audacity and inconsistency. Pnd lie
ippears to have selected Texas as a proper
ield to make the greatest display nr :hem.
,s if to cap the climax after having so de
itierately asserted, and so strenuously
naintained, that the western boundary or
Texas. did not extend to the Rio Grande,
Ie placed, a short time afterward, his vote
)n record, that it did-by voting for the
Aill declaring war against Mexico. The
bill assumed it did in asserting that the
Alond shed on the eastern bank was blood
hed tin the A merican soil, which could not
be unless Texas extended to the Rio
Grande. If it did not the war stands with,
ut justification. If it did not the march
,f our army to the Rio Grande was en in
-asion of a neighboring country unautho
rized ly the Constitution or law ; and yet
Col. Benton, who had but a short time be
rore declared solemnly, after full investiga
tion, that all the east bank of the river
rr some hundred miles wiide belonged to
ho Mexican Republic; and emphatically
:eclred, ie " washed his hands of all at
remits to dismember the lexican Repub
lic, by seizing her dominions, New Mexi
:o. Chihiahnua, Coahuila, and Taumauli
pas," voted for the bill i H went further.
He reported it as the Chairman of the Com
mittee on military affairs, in total disre.
,ard of his own motion made the day be
Fore to refer so much of the Message of the
President, as relates to declaring 1%ar to its
appropriate Committe-that on Foreign
relations. Comment is unnecessary.
But I am not yet done with Texas, nor
with the effrontery and absurdity of the
charges lie made against me, in refereace
Lo it. lie says I gave it- away-gave it
away by the Florida treaty. -flow could
[ pive it away by that, or any other treaty ?
T'he power to make treaties belongs to the
President, and never was invested in me.
[t was-at the time invested in Mr. Monrne.
as President of the United States. Nor
lid I negotiate it. I was only:one member
if the cabinet, and the youngest of the
whole. How could I, then, give away
Texas? To provo the charge he resorts
to his old patent reasoning; that I was all
powerful-so much so, as to make the
President and all the members of his cabi
net mere cyphers. He would have it, that
they wore but tools in my hands; and I
alone was responsible for all that was done.
Well-if he will have it so, I meet the
charge directly. It is not true, that the
Florida treaty gave aw; I Texas. I did
not believe, when the treaty was made,.
that Louisiana extended, or ever did ex
end in the Rio Grande, or- even to the
iueces, and that it was uneertain whet her
t extended beyond the Sabine. I knew
t was claimed to extend far beyond. even
0 the Rio Grande; just as we claimed
he whole of Oregon, and with just about
s little title. I have seen nothing tochange
his opinion: On the contrar. if my in
ormitt"s~-~
State Department, obtained within
he last few years, which conclusively
rove, that Louisiana never extended ant
nch beyond the Sabine.
lIn reply to Col. Benton's assaults as to
ho treaty, I annex an abstract from a
peech itt answer to him, when he made
he same charge, in 1847. It was an off
iatd reply to a premeditated attack.
"'['he K,'orida Treaty, forming another'
tubject of attack, fagured also on that ne-,
:asion, is connected wit h annexation; and
hat lie saiJ now is but a repetition of
hat he said then. Hoe then, as now, made
ne responihle for that treaty,-although I
sas but one of six members of.Jr. Alon
-e's cabinet, and the youngest of its tmem
>ers-responsible, without advancinig a
article of proof thtat I even gave tt my
upport or approbation. He rests the charge
n some disclaimer, as it seems, that the
leu Secretary of State (Mr. Adams) htas,
it somae time made, that he was not res
>onsible for thte treaty. The Senator may
ec right as to that; but how can that, by
ny possibility, show that I une respon si-i
~e I But I am prepared to tike mty full
are of responsibility, as a member of
~Ir. Mlonroe's cabinet, withouthaving any
articular agency in forming tie treaty, or
nfluence in inducing the cabimet to adopt
t. I then thought, and still ibnk it a good
reaty; and so thought the Strate of the
Jited States; for if my memery does not<
leceive me, it received everyvote of the<
Senate. -[A Senator: " yes ivery vote.",
.t then received the unanimnousvote of the .
enate, promptly given. O0 course. ifi
hat treaty was the cause of tle war with
dexico, as the Senator seemsto sitppose,
his body is as much the authtr and cause
if the war, as the individual a whtom hec
s now so anxious to fix it. r
1 have said it is a gooid trea r, not with-.
ut due reflection. We acqui d much by
t. It gave us Florida-an acuuisition not ri
mity important in itself, but iso in- refe- h
ence to the whbole southwvestrn fronttier. ti
rhere wvas, at that time, fort powverful c
ribes of Indians, two of wvhomr the CGreeks fi
nd the Choctaws, were cotii ns to Fin- a
ida, and the two others-the hickasaws nm
ndl Chemokees were adjoinitng They were o
he must numerouis and powet I tri'bes in ii
he Uuited States, and from tir positioni o
ere exposed to be acted on od excited it
gainst us from Florida. It as itnport- E
nt that this state of things asld termi- a
ate, which could only be don by obtain- iri
ug the possession of Florida. ci
But there wecre other and p verful con. te
ideratiotns for the acquisition. We had. ab
hort tinme before, extinguished he indian U!
tie to large tracts of country Alabama. ei
ississippi, and Georgiat, ing upon e
treams and rivers which pasd through tC
lorida to the Gulf-lands ini rreat me;'- tm
ure valueless, without the rig of navi..
ati them to their moths. 'he acqui- ht
iion of Florida gave us th tight, and is
nabled us to bring inito succe I cultiva.- th
ion a great extent of fertile ide, which it
ave added much to the inecre ed produc- a
ion of our great staple, e on. An
ther important pint was eli ed by. the tht
equiition. It terminated a yytrouble- trm
oie dispute with Spaini, gra ng out of sti
te captutre of St. Marks and lsacola by gi
;neal Jackson. in the So ole ivnr. ihi
mnd, finally, it perfecied our title to Ore
gon, by ceding to us, whatever right Spain
bad to that territory.
Nor is his next charge, in reference to
the tract of land lying west of Arkansas,
and sauth of 36 30, less baseless. le as
serts that this strip of land, as he calls it,
was enough to form two States, and that
I "required this strip of land to be given
up to the Indians, as a permanent abode;
aid that it was lost to the slave States."
This. like his other assertions, is without
foundation. lie makes no attempt to esia
blish it, but leaves it to be inferred from the
mere statement, that "I was at the time
Secretary of War, and member of Mr.
Monroe's administration." lie knew it
would not do to go into details, ns-they
would refute his charge, and hence the
vagueness of the language in which it is
couched. What he omitued I shall supply.
Tihe history of the affair may be told in a
few words.
The Choctaw tribe of Indians, at the
time, inhabited the State of Mississippi.
and occupied almost i's entire territory.
General Jackson and General Hines. of
Miississippi, were appointed by Mr. Mon
roe to treat with them, for the purpose of
obtaining a cession of a porlion of their
lands. They succeeded in obtaining n
large tract, lying in the very centre of the
State. and extending from Pearl river to
the Mississippi, in exchange for all the ter
ritory lying between the Red River and
the Arkansas, west of a line drawn from
the point of the Arkansas, opposile to
where the lower line of the Cherokee In
dians struck it, to a point on Red River,
three miles below the mouth of Little
River. and westwardly to the source of the
Canadian fork of the Arkansas, and a line
drawn. due south to Red River. But the
treaty, in making the exchange. made no
provision to change the character of the InI
dian title to ihe land given in Arkansa4, in
exchange for inat which we received itt
Mississippi. Nor did it make it the per
matent abode of the Indians, as he asserts.
They hold it just as they held the land
they ceded in ilississippi. Nothing was
lost by the slaveholding States, lut a great
deal gained, by the treaty. A large and
valuable tract in the very heart of the cot
ton region. and lying convenient to mar
ket, was acquired by Mississippi. without
the loss of a single acre to her sisters of
the slaveholding States. So that the great
sympathy which lie professes for the slave
States, in this case, is misapplied. If he
chooses to consider me responsible for the
treaty, instead ofrMr. Monroe, and the
Commissioners who made it. and the Se
nate that approved of it, he is welcome to
do so, however contrary to the truth of the
case.
Another, and only another treaty, wns
made with that tribe, while I remained in
the War Department. I was the Comis
sioner on the part of :he United States,
and, of course, acknowledge my responsi
bility for its provisions. Instead of re
quirina a strip to be aiven to the Indians
for their permanent abode, the Indians re
ceded to the United States, by treaty, a
part. and a most valuatule part, viihout our
cedtng an inch to them. The entire line
was moved westward, as for as Fort
Smith, on the Arkansas, and thence by a
- ,....... .. :Jtivpr. Nor dild it
make the slightest chance in the title to
what remained to the Indians, or pro,
videsd a permanent home for them, as he
would have you believe. So much fur
this charge and its author.
The r~cxt is of a kindred character. He
states it still insure vagttely ; so much so,
that I am at a loss to know to wvhicht one
of the many treaties made with the In
dians about the region in question. hte re
fers. He speaks of a slice forty miles
wide and three hundred long, " cut oflT
from Arkansas anti given to the !sndians ;"
"~ that it was done by Indian treaty-treaty
made by a protege of Mr. Calhou's;"
andi adds that I was Vice President at the
time. but gives no boundary, and avoids
naming what treaty it was, with what
tribe of Indians made, or tho name of the
person be calls my " protege." It is an in
dictmlenit without specification of time,
place, or circumst ances, t0 which it is im
possible to make a specific answer. But,
ortunately, such an one is tnt necessary
to repel it effectually, without descendtng
nto details, which, it is fair trufprestume, were
unittedi because they could not be given
vishout exposing the absurdity of the
:barge. hlis admission, that the treaty
vas made while I was Vice President, fur
ishes me with ample means for that pur
ose.
It is suflicient to repel it, to st ate, that
luring the whole period, that I filled the
flie of Vice President. thtat of President
was filled, either by Mr. Adams sir Gen.
actason, and that- it was my fortinno to be
i opposition so both, and the obuject of
heir strong dislike, as must he well known
o all. I not only had no itnflucnce with
ither, but wvas the object of their perse
utio. My support of atiy measure our
ecommendation of any individual, wvas
tfficient to defeat the one, and reject the
ther; and yet Col. Benton, who is la
tilliar with all this, assumes, in making
is charge, that I am responsible, for a
-eaty made by either the one or the otherI
f themD, it matters not which. It wvas goittg.
ir to make me solely responsible for the
eta of adminissratioin, of a hieh I was no
tember ; but it makes me responsible. not
ily for them, but for the acts of those,
at were deadly hostile to mie, is a piece
Sextravagatnce beyond the reach of any
dividual, but the author of the charge.
ven he, in this instance, seetms to have
misgiving, that he has gone too for, and
order to give some color to so wtld ac
large, adds, that the treaty was negotia
d by a protege of mine. Ho mutst have
en a fortunate mati bearinig that relati.mtx
me, to have got an appoitntment fromts
ther of the two administratiotis. I have
amined all the Indian trenties; relating e
the region in qttestion, made during I
eir administrations, in order to ascertattn, a
ho this lucky individual could he. but ,
ye been unable to discover him. There d
not a single treaty negouiated, during c
e period, that was negotiated by any
iividual, who had any claim to be called il
protege of mine.
But why charge me with being the an- u
[)r of at measure, by which these large I
sets, suflicietnt, as lie says, to make two ro
tes, wvere lost to the slave states, andI o
renx away to the Indians, whetn the au- s<
mr ofth mesures by which t hey wemre
given away, are known to all, and to none
betier than Col. Ienion. They were tie
measures of Mr. Adams and Gen. Jackson
and their adiniistraiens. One or the
oiher made all the treeties by w hich the
old merely possessory iiles of the Indians
to their lands, were converied over the
whole leriitory, into a pernanent right of
possession, and proprrty, and made the
permanent home of the Indians, to use hi.)
own expression.-There wns no treaty
madewhile I filled the War Departmenit,
in Mr. Monroe's administration, which
made any such alterations in the title of
Indians, to lands west of the Mississippi, or
any where else to my knowledge. The
making of Indian treaties, containing slip.
nilations for permanent titles, and their
removal west of the Mississippi. constitu
led a large portion of the doings of those
adminisirations, nnd much of that on
which they rested their reputation. Much
the greater part was the work of Gen.
Jackson's administration, with which Col.
Beaton wad intimately associateJ, and
over which lie had sulticient itinfluence to
make himsehf responsible for no small share
of its doings, especially as to what related
to the west. in attempting now to shuffl
oil his portinn of the responsibility, and
that of ihe adminisi ration, and to place it
ott me, who was hostile to it, speaks badly
for his manliness, or regard for the char
acter of the administratiOn of Gen. Jack
son, for whirh he professes so much at.
tachment and admiration. He would
hardly have ventured in the lifetime of "the
old Hero," to make the heavy charge lie
has. against measures, of which he was
the author, and on which he so much pri.
ied hirself.
In his eagerness to assnil me, he has
lost: riot only his discretion but his memo
ry. In order to make ott that the anti
slavery party of the North, duly apprecia
ted the great service that I had done their
ctuse, lie says "that they gave proof of
their gratitude, that I was then a candi
date for the Vice Presidenzy, and became
the f(avorite of the North, heating even Mr
Allams himself on the free soil tack," for
getting what ie had said just before, that
I was Vice President at the time, when
he well kriew, that I was elected for the
first time Vice President with Mr. Adams.
and of course, the vote of the North could
cot have been given me for the reasons he
assigns.
His next charge is that I supported the
abolition of slavery in a State. Among
his other traits, Col. Benton is distinguish
ed for charging on others, what he knows
he is guilty of hinself. lust men from
prudence and a sense of propriety, cau
tiously abstain from assailing others for
what they know they may in turn thetnse
selves lie justly assailed, Not so with him.
I-he is one of the few who are ever more
fierce in their assauis when they know
they can be assailed for the saie thir.g.
They seem to deliaht in dragging down
otherst o their own level, nod to have con
cealed joy in ihinking that others partake
of their own deforinity.-It is a trait so de
testable that those who are distinguished
for it areusually likened to a notorious
personage reproving sin. Col. Benton has
strikingly displayed this trait of character
in the pre.sent charge. lie well knows
how utterly false he was to youi rough
otit ont ,the Texas question. He took, as
has beetn stated, an active part to defeat
the treaty of annexntio". neptotiated-by me
ott the part of the United States, He
knows that it contained uoi provisions that
coutntenancedthe abtolition of slavery in
aniy pottin of Texas. I was strongly
nrged during the nt'gotiationi to insert a
provtstion to extenid the Miissotnri compro
tnise line aicross Texas to its western boun
dary, and was informed that it would aid
. i secutring a constiturioinal majority itt the
Senate, in its favor-i peremptorily re
fttsed. lie knows that he oll'ered a propo
sition to abolish it in one half of the whojle
of Texas, atnd that by a line, not drawn
east anti west, b~ut north and south, so as
to hem in the south on till sides ; by sur
rountding her with abolition States. He
also knows, that his friend and supporter,
on the occasion, Mr. Hayward, of North
Carolina, wvent still further, and offered
resolutions to extend the ordinance of 1778.
not onlty over Texas, but evett all the Ter
ritories lying west of Arkansas, and Mis
souri, atnd sotuth of 36. 30., with however a
proviso excepting ihe portion of Texas
lying sotuth of a line drawvn east and west
in the 34th degree of parallel of latitude.
The presumption is strong that in offering
his resolutions, he acted wvith his friend
Colonel Benton, to whose course he ad
hered on the Texian question. But, hie
that as it tmay. certain) it is he sat mttte.
He raised tno voice of indignation, against
a measure which proposed to exclude sla
very forever from that very region, which
hte chatrges me with having given away to
the Indianis, and losintg it to the South. As
bad as the policy of Mr. Adlams and Gen.
Jackson mtay be in reference to that region.
they dlid not excludle slavery. The .Indi
anis. who occupy it, are slaveholders, andI
having an itnterest in common with you,
may lie regarded ats faithful allies on that I
vital qtuestinn. TIhe resolutints of hisi
riend Mr. Ihayward wvere desigtted to de- I
privo you of this advantage ; and yet Col.
B~etntn nowv ratses his voice in loud de
monciauion agaimnst me upon the falsei
~harge of giving away the territory to the<
nditatis whbile he approved, at least by his<
ilence of excluding yott entirely from the
erritory, and oiie htalf Texas to boot, andI I
extenid the principle of the ordinance of c
67 over the whole, including Texas and r
he territories. So much for his ownt p0-.
itton, in reference to the subject of the Ii
barge.
It now remains to shtow that it is, like r
11 his other charges, dlestitme of fotnnda.- E
inti. lie rests his chargo that I abolished "
lavery in Texas, on the fact that I was -
ben Secretary of State, and that I select
di tho resolutitn, as it pjassedl the H-ouse of
tepresentittives, ittsteadl of the amendment ~
riginatlly proposed by hitn, as the basis ott r
'hich to annex Texas. Thus far, lie has "
eparted from his usual and statted facts ~
arrectly. I shuit no responsibility. Ilam g
rilling to take all on this occasiotn ; but it I
is dtte to thu Preside-t and the members St
f his adminitstration to say-they were
natinimns ini favor of tho selectiotnmde.
not ontly selected it, hut assignted my p
'asons for making it, in a desoatch to si
.tr thetn Minister toi Texas, Mr. Donaldl- st
mn. I assignedl thetm because atii- It
atel tha~t thorn would beann attet~n1) to I
undo what was done, alter the expiration
of Tyler's administrniotn. This 1 was
resolved In prevent, by stating reasons
for the seleeion that couli not be over.
ruled. The attempi, as I suspec:ed, was
made, anJ the late President has since
been airraigned before the pululic by two
friends and associates of Ci. Benton&
(Blair and Tarpan,) because he could not
be forced to overrule. what hia predecessor
had done. The following is an extract
from the despatch:
"It is not deemed necessary to state at
large the ground-i on which his decision
rests. (Tne President.) It will hesuf
ficient it state, briefly, that the provisions
of the resolution, as it came from the
House, are more simple in their character4
may be more readily. and with less di'
ficulty and expense. carried into effect,
and that the great object contemplated
by them is tmuch less exposed to the haz
ard of tltimate defect.
That they are more simple in their char.
acter, a very few remarks will suffice to
show. According to the resolution as it
came from- the House. nothing more is
necessary than that the Courgress of Texas
should be called together, its consent given
to the provisions contained in it, and the
adoption of a constitution by the people
in Convention, to be submitted (a the
Congress of the United States for its ap
proval, in the same manner as when one
of our own territories is admitted as 9
state. On the contrary, according td thd
provisions or the Senate's amendment, the
Congress or Texas must, in like manner
be convened, it must then go through the
slow and troublesome process of carving a
state out of a part of its territory; after
wards it must appoint agents or commis
sioners to meet similar agents ot commis
sioners, to be appointed on our part, to
discuss ind agree ou the terms and condi
tious on which the stati shall be admitted
and the cession of the remaining territory
to the United States; and after all this, and
not before, the people of the said state
must call a convention, frame si constita
tion, and then present it to the Congress
of the United States for its approval, fiut
which cannot be acted on, until the terms
agreed upon by theNegotiators, and which
constitute the conditiouns on which the
state is tolbo admitted, shall have been
ratified,
That they may be more readily, and
with less difficulty and expense carried
into effsci, is plaits from the fact, that the
details are fewer and less complex. It is
obvious that the numerous and complicated
provisions contained in the amendment of
the .senate UaWt involve much time a
difficulty in their execution ;-while
the expense, the appropriation
000 provided for by it, is a cle
al cost, over and above tha
the execution of the r
llouse.
But the decisive obj
ment of the Senate-A
danger the ultimal it'
It proposes to fi
!he overnmen
Texas, the to"
the state shall
and-the cessi
to the Us'
namo
tion may
called comm
other title--t
them its behal
ments, would~
called or designate
[CONcLUDED 0
MooaE As A Poar.O'
perhaps of death, in a thae -
D~evonshiire. lies the greats'
new tongues uf Irelanid. After .
nearly seventy years--for fifty yei'
which he has been famous-the son ofa
Dublin grocer, the friend of Emmetf,
Grattan. Byron and Fox, lieu, crushed in
mind and heart, bis memory with all its
untold tales taken from him, the goiver of
his fancy emptied of the last arrow with
many years and sorrows like oak and
lead wrapping about his body in anicipa
tion of the grave. Poor "Tom Moore,
how grey and cold sets in the night of his
long and brilliant day !
The poet's body mtust die. Let us
leave that to thte utndertaker and sexton
it belongs lawfully to them. But the
poet's works and words, hie genius, or that
part of it developed its type, his philosophy
as revealed in his writings, hist moral its
flnence on his nation and his age-these
belong to us who are of that posterity to
which all the genius of the past has ap
pealed, and before wvhom such men as
Sloore have laid their words a. it were
in evidence.
Oribhe moral influence of Moore on his
age but hiit e can be said. In temperament
and tastes, he was neither European nor
C~hristino. -He wan "a child of the sun"
itn Asiatic. AUH his itmmagery and all his
uredilections were orient al. Born in the
very wvest of Europe, on the brink of the.
itlantic, in an atmospherejof salted mist,
ie was as totally unlike an Islander of
hat latitude, as man could be. Judging
y his writing~s, lie should have been a
alive of Rhodes, half-Greek half-Asiatic
n intellectual compounid of Epicurus and
lahomet. He sings forever of the sun.
*fnightingales, of living in the open air.
f orangfe groves and fire-dies, palankeens
nd ,pham trees. A true child of the is.,
inds would have substituted for these the
houdy stormihiess of his own climate. Thea
tighity Hlomerie sea, the oak and piaet
te struggling ship, andI the thugdee og
eaven. But his first exercise of self-wilI
ras to forsake his coutntry, and to accli.
inte his imaginations itn the eastz~an ef
>rt in which hie succeeded, as no WVestern
inn ever nid before or will da again.
-The Nation.
Theare.is some hope that the people of
lassachusetti ndil yet eome to their
ght minds on the subjeet of abolition.
ie see by the papers that Mr. Frederick
onigas, (a gentleman of color.) was re,
sled with a shower otf over-ripe eggs in
/eymouth, while hulding forth en- the
ibject of slavery.
N. P. Willis, speaking of those who
ide themselves on their own ancestry.
tys-"They are like the reflections of
ar9 in the water-they never would have
ten there but for their brigh igias