"Annexation," Telegraph and Texas Register, January 7, 1844

Summary: The editor mused on recent events relating to the question of annexation. He happily reported the news that abolitionists feared the success of the measure because of the recent elections of politicians to Congress favorable to annexation. However, he was alarmed by an article in the Louisville Journal(a southern paper) that opposed annexation because of the threat to the economic prosperity of the southern states. The editor responded by outlining the strength of the Texas government, the destiny since 1613 of all English colonies to unite, and the benefits both southern and northern states would get if Texas joined the Union.

ANNEXATION--Several of the Journals of the Northern States opposed to the annexation of Texas to the Union have recently taken the alarm, and the vehemence and anxiety they manifest indicate but too plainly that they already entertain serious fear that the measure may be successful notwithstanding their efforts. The Boston Courier, the Hartford Journal, the Cincinnati Gazette, and even the little rabid Liberator an ultra abolition paper, are cooperating to defeat a measure which they pretend to regard as one of the greatest misfortunes that could befall the United States. From an extract from the latter journal, which we find in the Cincinnati Gazette, we gather some facts that are really quite cheering to the friends of annexation. The editor says: "giving the vote of every slave representative in Congress in favor of this measure (annexation) it will still require the aid of [illegible word] or 50 members from the free States to carry the vote." He then proceeds to show that the ultra abolitionists by throwing away their votes upon men of their own party, who had no chance of an election, have elected ninety six members in Ohio in favor of the admission of Texas to the Union, and have also allowed many other politicians of the same stamp to be elected in Pennsylvania. The editor infers from these facts, that enough members of Congress have been elected in the free States, to carry the vote in favor of the annexation of Texas. If the success of this measure however depends upon the blunders of the Abolitionists, we should indeed despair of success. The mere admission however that they make, that the scale in the Congress of the United States is so nearly ballanced[sic], that their insignificant influence can turn it for or against the annexation, indicates quite plainly that the friends of the measure have strong grounds to hope that the question may be decided in favor of Texas. We regret to find the Louisville Journal among the opponents of this measure. He occupies a singular position indeed, fighting side by side with the ultra-abolitionists, against the true American policy. We could scarcely have thought that the great erudition, the brilliant wit and the zeal for the extension of American institutions which characterise the talented editor of that journal, could all have been thrown into the scale against Texas. He has never we think appeared to greater disadvantage than in opposing this measure. He says the true interests of the South would be "injured instead of being promoted by the annexation of Texas, and we are not without hope that the

South will become convinced of this. Every man, not a land-holder in Texas, who owns an acre of cotton land in the United States, is, as the owner of such land, interested in keeping Texas where she is. There, land is at this time worth little or nothing, owing to the state of its Government, or rather the want of a government--There at this time, land is not brought in competition with the cotton land of this country. Annex Texas to the Union, and in that instant is brought into competition with the cotton region of this country, a body of cotton land as large, as fertile, and as convenient to market, as that new cotton region extending from the western border of Alabama westward to the sources of the rivers of Arkansas and Louisiana. In that instant, the value of every acre of cotton land within the present limits of the Union will be reduced more than fifty per cent, and much of it will become valueless in the production of cotton."

If these arguments had been uttered by any man less noted for sound reasoning than the editor of the Louisville Journal, they would excite a smile of ridicule for their utter absurdity. Is the editor ignorant of the fact that the cotton lands of Texas are already coming into competition with the cotton lands of the Southern States? The government of Texas is as stable as that of Kentucky or that of "the land of steady habits," from which the editor of the Louisville Journal emigrated. Its population consists almost entirely of Anglo Americans, and this fact alone is positive evidence, that Texas has a government. We defy the editor of the Louisville Journal to point to a settlement or community of Anglo-Americans, that exists or has existed without a government. The pilgrims when they first landed on the rock of Plymoth[sic] had a government. Every settlement that was formed by their descendents and followers had governments which sprung up as it were spontaneously around them, and what is still more to their credit, soon after two or three separate, governments were formed in the different colonies, a confederacy, or general government was also established. Such was the confederacy formed in 1613, comprising the colonies of Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. This was the prototype of the confederacy of the States, during the American Revolution, and was in fact the germ of the present glorious American Union, a Union which its illustrious founders intended should ultimately embrace the whole Anglo-American colonies. The four British provinces of North America were invited to join the confederacy of the thirteen United States by the American Congress of 1774. In the articles of confederation, adopted in 1778, a special provision was made in the eleventh article for the admission of Canada. Franklin in his first interview with Mr. Oswald, who was sent by the British Ministry to Paris in 1782, to ascertain upon what terms a treaty of peace could be concluded with the colonies, recommended in addition to the "essential articles" proposed for the treaty, that Great Britain should relinquish her claim to every part of Canada, that it might be united in the general confederacy. The framers of the Constitution also signified their desire that the whole Anglo-American settlements and colonies should at some future day become a part of the general confederacy. Why then should Texas, which is the offspring of Anglo American States, be excluded? Is it for the interest of the United States to permit a rival State, possessing immense natural resources, producing the same great staples, and inhabited by a people similar in habits and language; and distinguished by the same enterprise and energy that characterise the people of the United States, to grow up side by side with them? Have not the Southern States already suffered from the competition of the rival State of Brazil in the culture of their great staple, cotton? Have not the Northern States suffered from the competition of foreign manufacturers, who can under-sell their fabrics in their own markets? Texas, with a population increasing in the ratio of increase of the last ten years, may furnish more cotton for exportation than Mississippi or Alabama, and more sugar than Louisiana. It will also consume as large a proportion of manufactured goods. These goods would be chiefly purchased of the Northern manufacturers if Texas were annexed to the United States. And the cotton and sugar, instead of competing with that of the Southern States in foreign markets. would either be consumed at home, or become a part of the exports of the United States and consequently would be subjected in foreign ports to the same duties and restrictions that are imposed upon American products. The American people have surely derived great advantages by uniting all the States from Maine to Louisiana under one confederacy, and if that confederacy should be extended so as to include Texas, future advantages would be secured in proportion to the extent, population and natural resources of Texas.

Source Copy Consulted: "Annexation," Telegraph and Texas Register, January 7, 1844, pp. 2-3