ferred to the case of France, in 1778. When the United States were waging an unequal war with Great Britain, she came to our aid recognized our independence, and formed with us a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive. Had any historian mentioned this as a breach of national faith on the part of France? Had our government contracted such an alliance with Texas when Santa Anna was marching to meet a disgraceful defeat at San Jacinto, it would have violated no national faith, nor any dictate of international law. He contended that she had maintained her independence; we had recognized it: so had Great Britain, France, Holland, and Belgium. She possessed all the attributes of national sovereignty, and the elements of self-government, more so than Mexico herself. Texas, he said, had a right to enter into a treaty of annexation if she chose; and who would deny her that right? Could she not dispose of herself as she pleased? And did it not follow that the United States had a corresponding and an equal right to receive her? The right of property implied the right of the proprietor to sell, and the correlative right of every other person to purchase.
But it was said the ratification would involve us in a war with Mexico. So lie himself thought in 1836, when Texas was a "rebellious province;" but since the battle of San Jacinto, Mexico had not made a single military movement toward recovering her lost dominions. She had done nothing that deserved the name of war. Appealing to the gasconading proclamation of Mexico, the senator from Missouri had asked, "Is this peace?" The orders to the home squadron, and the army of observation sent to the Sabine, to watch the movements of Mexico, should any be made, and promptly report them to headquarters, that they might as promptly be reported to congress, the senator had pronounced an act of war. If to employ a corps of observation was to make war, then we were at war with the powers in the West Indies, on the Mediterranean, and on the coast of Africa; for we had squadrons in every sea to protect our commerce, and to make war on pirates. The proclamation of Mexico, and the counter proclamations and defiances of Texas, he did not consider war, as did the senators on the other side.
Mr. M'Duffie referred to the proposition to Mexico made by Mr. Clay, when secretary of state under Mr. Adams, in 1825, to purchase Texas, when the war between Spain and Mexico was still in existence. So in 1829, when Mexico was invaded by a large army, and her ports were blockaded, Mr. Van Buren, by order of Gen. Jackson, made to Mexico a proposition to purchase Texas.
Having advocated the right to receive Texas, he proceeded to show the duty of making the treaty. Great Britain should not be allowed to obtain the control of Texas by a treaty of guaranty stipulating for extensive commercial privileges. He had never till now realized the justice of Mr. Monroe's declaration, that no European power must ever be permitted to establish a colony on this continent. And he urged the danger to the slave property of the south, if Great Britain should get control of Texas. They had a right to demand from the government protection to their property. Annexation, too, would operate as a safety-valve to let off their superabundant slave population, which
