PAPERS OF MrnAHE,\U BuoNAPARTE LAM.AR 107 arating from the despotism of Santa Anna, and (having no other re- source) of declaring their own Independence. · And in the name of common justice and common sense, why not? South Carolina is a State belonging to the federal Union called the United States. Suppose the other States choose to adopt a central consolidated Despotism with Gen. Jackson at the head of it-- may not South Carolina say, this was not our bargain. We came into the Union on no such conditions. Non hac in federa veni. We choose to separate, rather than form part of a consolidated Despotism. Is there a Carolinian who would deny this right of separation? The contract under which the Texans entered the federal Union of South America, has been broken. They have remonstrated without redress. An attempt has been made to force them to accede to the Despotism of Santa Anna's consolidated Government. They have re- sisted and revolted. Success to them, say I. On what grounds do we· justify our own opposition to the infamous FoncE BILL, of the Despot who caused it to be passed, except that it was an attempt to force upon us by hostile armaments, acquiescence iri. the breach of a constitutional compact? Rave the Texions done any ·thing else? They have been driven into independence to escape from despotism, and they will probably succeed. Oh! say the tories and conservatives, the eastern politicians and the abolitionists of our own country, the conquerors of Santa Anna are not Texans; they are land speculators from the U. States. What then? Were they not invited and encouraged by the national authorities to settle in Texas? Was not a land remuneration proposed to them? Are not all the Empresarios land contractors on condition of settle- ment? When Great Britain attempted the despotic subjugation of the American Colonies, they hired Hessian soldiers & paid them in coin, for they had money in plenty. We also invited military assistance, and we paid in land, because we had no money; in soldier's certificates. Why may not the Texans do likewise? Bless us! how some men are apt to strain at a Gnat, who can swallow a Camel! Doe~ not Switzerland permit her citizens to fight in foreign wars for pay? And if they are satisfied with a land remuneration, who has a right to object? Who objects to Baron Steuben, DeKalb, or Kos- kiusco? Was not LaFayette remunerated by a grant in Florida? Mr. Editor, I lay it down as a principle of international Law, fully supported by our own revolution, that a breach of contract by which the constitution of a country and its fundamental laws are forcibly changed and set at nought, will justify revolution and secession, if there be no other remedy for the evil: and that an oppressed people may seek for aid when ancl where they can obtain it, and pny for that aid in any mode of recompence within their power, which tho:-e who come to their assistance are willing to accept. Look at the trans- actions of Spain at the present moment. Does not Don Carlos accept of any body? Does not the Queen's party accept of the serYicC's of General Evans and the British troops? Why are the 'l'exians to be cleharrecl of any of the u:-ual modes of resisting tyranny mHl oppression? The cruelties of the l\Iexicans might well be mncle unothcr ground of argument; they act as ltostes human,i generis: despisers of all the rules of ch-ilized war: but this is a subsequent and secondary question:
Powered by FlippingBook