Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

page of that with refutalion of those imputations; and effulgent, 100, with proof that it is the North which has gored the South deeply, ungenerously, and un justly, in reference to this whole subject of slavery: that it is the North which has sighalized herself by setting the example of playing, with a bold hand, the game of not being content with part, bat of claiming and seizing the whole, to herself. The faithful records of history verily ah I say. For, sir, the territory northwest of the Ohio river, and out of which have been formed the three Stales of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, once belonged to the Slate ol Virginia. As part and parcel of that an cient Commonwealth, it was the property and domain, not only of a slaveholding people, but of a people whose wealth consisted largely in slaves, and whose agricultural system and habits, growing out of the possession ol slaves, had, for a great while, been such as to render their aid indispensable in the clearing and cul tivation of land, and in the general econ omy of farming. W ell, sir, what did \ ir ginia do ? What did that great Southern, agricultural and slaveholding community do with her Northwestern Territory ? with that vast expanse of fertile and well watered lands which would not only have formed a rich provision for her children through many generations, but the reten tion ol which by her would have secur ed forever to herself and the South, ay, to the slaveholding section of the Con federacy, an overwhelming preponder ance, an impregnable ascendency in Fed eral affairs. What, I ask, did Virginia do with this, her vast Western domain ? Why, sir, towards the close of the war of Independence, she ceded it in free gift, without money, and without price, to the old Congress for the payment of the Re volutionary debt and for the common use of all the States. In her articles of ces sion. she took care to stipulate for the for mation of new of Ihe territory she had thus given away, and for the ad mission of those States into the Union. But, sir, it occurred not to her confiding and patriotic nature to insert one word in reference to allowing die introduction and ownership of slaves. Not one word, sir, did she think to pul into her deed of ces sion for the purpose of securing to her own sons and daughters, in their migra tions to the rich regions with which she was parting, the inestimable privilege of carrying along with them their household goods, their indispensable property, the faithful servants whom they both loved and needed, the modes ol file and domes tic organization to which they were born and bred, and which had become in wrought among the very necessities ol their nature. Sir, she thought not of sti pulating for this inestimable privilege in behalf of her sons and daughters, because she dreamed not that any would ever think of taking it away from them, fur, does this conduct on the part of Virginia look like sectional selfishness to the gen tleman from Oiiio? Does it look to him like having more at heart the protection and extension of the institutions of slave ry than the spread and developement of the population, power, and grandeur of our country ? I leave these questions, Mr. Chairman, lo be answered l»v the gentleman to him self, in his calmer and juster mood, and invite him, in the mean while, to view along with me the other side, the Northern side oi the picture of this greatly impor tant transaction. And what does he there behold? Nathan Dane, of Massachu setts, (a man whom the eloquence of Dan iel Webster has at a recent date almost apotheosized tor the deed.) lie there be holds, sir, Nbthan Dai:e, of Massachu setts, standing in the midst of the old Continental Congress, holding up exulting ly the scroll whereon was written the or •d-inauce oi 17»7 for the organization and government of the Northwestern Territo ry—that Territory which Virginia had just ceded so generously and confidingly. \\ hat is there in that ordinance at which Nathan Dane and his northern associates la that Congress so much exulted, and which their Northern successors to this day dehght so much to laud and migni- V • W hat great paint was carried by it lor the North : \\ hat foundations were laid deep and broad in it fur securing per petually Northern supremacy arid rimnh <»rn inferiority? What new lever of tre mendous power, planted on the soil so lately V irginia’s, was now secured in JSortucrn htinds forever ? A single short clause in the sixth arti cle «»f the compact which the ordinance creates between the original Slates of the Confederacy and the people of said terri tory and the Slates to be formed out of it, unfolds all. J* l here shall be neither slavery nor in voluntary servitude in the said territo ry.” ileee we see standing out in bold relief the selfish sectional advantage which the North was prompt to lake of the magui .. was tire North, . mid in the most en ... l'es, sir, that short clause i ..men i have quoted from the famed Or dinance of ’67, acted, and was intended to act, decisively on die balance ol power between the North and South. It caused, and was intended to cause, the permanent preponderance to shift from the Southern to the Northern side, and to settle down there for ever. Such was the sure and necessary effect of the inhibition contain ed in that clause, as our national limits ! then stood : for the Mississippi river was then our western boundary. Behold here, then, sir, what the South lost on one side by a 100 confiding generosity, and what the North gained on the other by a long sighted, calculating, sectional policy. Why, sir, but for a great and unforeseen event, which happened afterwards, this transaction would have fixed for ever the doom of the South as a people, too weak to make even a struggle against their own perpetual subjugation under the yoke of the sectional power of the North. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to close this review of the case of the Northwes tern Territory by a single question: — With wl.al face can the North after hav ing in such a case, and under such cir cumstances, seized upon all for herself in the Northwest—with what face can she now inveigh against the South as being sectional and selfish, in seeking to have all in the S »ulhwest ? I rejoice in the fact that we are surrounded here by so many gentlemen from the non-slaveholding States who scorn to join in such invective, or to give it the slightest countenance by speech or vote. Their course and their feelings do infinite honor to themselves and those whom they represent, and fur nish a cheering augury of the future desti nies of the country, an l o‘ her speedy triumph in the great question now press ing upon us for decision. But, Mr. Chairman, there are yet other great facts and grave considerations per taining In the sectional relations between (the North and South, which render the half-and-half compromise proposed by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Robin son,) ands» zealously espoused by the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Brinkerho A) in the highest degree unjust, unfair, offen sive, and inadmissible. We have had one compromise already—the Missouri compromise—to which the South submit ted, making a virtue of necessity. By that compromise the South is still willing to stand, both from a principle of honor .and from the continuance of that necessi ty which originaPy forced it upon her. The necessity to which I refer is that which grows out of the inability of the South, as t le weaker section of the country, to car ry any measure however dear or impor tant to her, without yielding to such terms and conditions as the North, being the stronger section, may deem fit to impose. The adjustment of tire celebrated Missou ri controversy was, in fact, a compromise in little else than the name and the thin outer integument of tlie tiling. It was, substantially, a great victory, achieved by tlie North and a coercive obtaimnent by her of the grand object for which she hail embarked in a most fearful and unscrupu lous struggle. The object of that strug gle was, at bottom, nothing more nor less than a vast expansion of the prohibitory principle of the ordinance of ’B7, over territory extending from the Mississippi to the Rocky, Mountains, which did not be- long to us when the ordinance was adopt ed, but which had been afterwards ac quired. The enforcement of that princi ple upon the Northwest Territory, in the manner I have already detailed, was amply sufficient, so long as tlie Mississippi re mained our western boundary, for all those ends of perpetual Northern sway and masterdom which Northern policy anil politicians aimed at. But all their calculations, founded on the success of this masterly stroke of sectional states manship, were frustrated and overthrown when, instead of the Mississippi river, the Rocky Mountains became, by the treaty ot Louisiana, our acknowledged western boundary. The North had now to go to work anew ter securing her oid and in veterately cherished object of Northern pon-slaveholding ascendency in the Un ion. And she seized upon trie application of Missouri tor admission into the Union as the occasion of making the grand effort for this object. And she succeeded effec tually. Yes, sir! After a struggle, in which she caused the very foundations of tlie Comleracy to tremble under the shock ot maddened sectional conflict, she suc ceeded, at last, ia her main object. By tlie cheap, conciliatory device' of con senting to let in Missouri as a solitary ex ception to the restrictive principle about, to beestablished, sire succeeded complete ly'in causing the darkly ominous anti- Southern line of prohibition of slavery to he solemnly drawn by law ag rinst all that huge extent of territory ceded bv France to the United .States, which lies north of thirty-six degrees anil thirty minutes of north latitude ; —territory sufficient to ’ form some dozen Missouri*, if'the maps be lie it not : and from which one new. non fllaveholdjng State now stands readv to' come in, a« the forerunner of the long train that is destined to follow. ross one-sidedncss in favor ol the ' this celebrated arrangement — * *uri compromise—does not, how ; develop itself until we turn to j ant event which had then bat jccurrcd, affecting deeply the ide of the line of the cotnpro dlude to the Florida treaty, become ours as pait of Loui ■ the cession made by France Yd. In 13 L 9, our Government to the treaty of Florida, by rive up Texas to Spain in ex the FieriJas and the Spanish claims on the Pacific above the .ond parallel of latitude. The . was thus bereaved of an immense scope of territory, stretching from the Sabin to tlie Dei Norte, a loss which was but very little counterbalanced, in point ot sectional p lilical strength, by the ac quirement of Florida. This great cur tailment of the South by the act of the treaty making power, taken in connection with the heavy anti-Southern interdict under which the Missouri compromise soon afterwards in 1820, laid all the coun try (except the State of Missouri) lying above the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, was a death-blow to whatever hopes of a future equi-polleuee in the Union the South had been entitled to found on the acquisition of Louisiana. Yes, sir, these twoevents, the loss of Texas and tlie Missouri re striction put together, restored with a vengeance the certainty of Northern pre dominance at the permanent future state of things; a certainty which the North first obtained for herself bv tlie aforesaid prohibitory ordinance of 1787 ; but which she afterwards, however, seemed for a period to have lost forever, in consequence of our vast territorial expansion under the treaty of Louisiana. Well, sir, it so happens that now, in tlie great whirlpool of human events, things have come around in such a manner that we have lint to stretch out a friendly, in viting hand, and Texas grasps it at once, and is ours again. In this state of things, what do we behold? Why, sir, certain good friends of Texas in this House and elsewhere, certain hearty well-wishers to her immediate union with our country, those friends and well-wishers being gen tlemen, too, belonging to that very non,. ! slaveholding section which has so vastly strengthened itself by taking all northwest oi the Ohio by' means of the ordinance of ’B7, and all west of the Upper Mississippi, (the State of Missouri excepted,) by , means of the Missouri Comprou isc— why, these friends and well-wishers of Texas and our country take a most extra ordinary stand. r J'hey take the stand of making the reception of Texas depen dant on what, sir? Why, upon their be , ing permitted, after having thus always been in the habit of seizing and seeming to themselves even more than the lion’s i share in all our more northerly domains — to come down now, for the first time that such a pretension was ever heard ol'—to | come down now, 1 say, sir, upon our Southern plains, and to have an equal di vision of them with tlie people of the South, or to speak more accurately, to have a re striction w hich shall exclude the Southern people from one-half of them. This is magnanimity, sir; this is fairness and justice, in the eyes of the gentleman from Ohio, and the other espousers on this floor of the half-and-half project presented by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Ro binson.) But I must assure them, sir, that to us of the South, and to all impar tial minds, it appears in a very different, and not a very fl ittering, light. Sir, will gentlemen never he content with their advantages of sectional strength over the South ? Why, sir, the North western Ordinance first, and the Missouri Compromise afterwards, placed the non slaveholding interest in an impregnable permanent ascendency. There was some thing noble, perhaps, although aggressive and unscrupulous, in the spirit and per severance with which that interest has sought political superiority. But that superiority being placed beyond the reach of contingencies by the operation of the two causes j i*t mentioned, and being now about to be still further heightened by the expansion of our popu'ation anil Govern ment to the Pacific, what decent apology is left to the North for pushing down even into our Southern climes her anti-South ern game of aggression anil restriction ? Sir, we cannot permit you to come there with your Missouri restrictions and North western prohibitions. You have chosen your own limit, and it has Been submitted to by the South, and sanctified with the name of compromise. Thirty-six de grees and thirty minutes of north latitude is a barrier which you must never pass, nor attempt to pass. Yea, more, sir. You must never make the being allowed to pass it a sine qua non of your assent to the enlargement of the Union on its Southern side. So to insist upon it would be dan gerous in the extreme. Jt would drive us at once to consider how potent the prin ciple of hatred to our institutions had be- come, when it was strong enough to pre vent a grand and beneficent national mea sure, because that measure would inci dentally lead to the expansion of those institutions. It would drive us further to reflect what a narrow line of distinction separates tlie principle of rejecting a great measure under the influence of such ha tred, from the principle of adopting a great measure under the same influence ; and it would drive us, moreover, to ex pect a speedy transition from the one to tlie other, unless prevented by a resort to die most extrema measures on our part, ft is impossible, sir, to over-estimate the fearful magnitude of the consequences! that would flow from such a demonstra tion of hostility to the South and her in stitutions, as would be given by n jecting .Texas on the ground of the refusal of the South so permit the black line of restric tion to bedrawu through her midst. And, sir, it has now become very’ obvious that Texas will be rejected, if rejected at all, upon that ground. Let me implore gen tlemen to pause and ponder over the whole matter afresh, before they lake the irrevocable and portentous step of giving such demonstration. Me. Chappell next adverted to the con stitutional question which had been raised, as to the proposed mode annexation, which, he said, he would touch very briefly, both because it bad been so fully and conclusively discussed l>y gentlemen who had gone before him in the debate, and because, really, be did not see much necessity for argument to sustain the plain letter of the Constitution—" Congress may admit new States into the Luion.” The resolutions on your table, sir, are not the final and consummating act of ad mission, they are merely an overture or invitation to l'exus to come into the Un ion on certain terms ; and should Texas accede to those terms and accept that in vitation, the effect of what is proposed to ! be now done will be to bind Congress ab solutely to receive Texas into the Union as a State, upon her conforming to the Constitution of tire United States. The question, then, which the case presents, is, as to the constitutional competency ot Congress to make a binding overture or | invitation of this sort to a foreign State or people. It is tube remarked,'.sir, that even those who deny this competency to Congress, admit, nevertheless, that the thing itself, or what is fully tantamount to it, may be done by another department of the Government —the treaty-making pow er. That power, they say, may acquire for the United States foreign territory, and may enter into stipulations in the treaty of cession for the admission of such terri tory and its inhabitants into the Union as a State —which stipulations would be ob ligatory on Congress, anil compel it in ! good faith to exercise its power of admis sion. This process has the advantage of being supported by two precedents, name ly, the cases of Louisiana and Florida; in both which cases the treaty-making i power laid Congress under express obli gation to admit into the Union, Stales to be formed out of foreign territory annex ation to the United States. Well, sir, I pretend not to call in ques tion the constitutionality of this claim on the part of the treaty-making power to control and bind Congress in the ex jercise of its power of admitting new States. I concede, sir, that it is com petent to the treaty-making power to act with a constitutional compulsion on Con gress for the admission of new States formed out of territory once ibreign. But surely Congress is not obliged to wait for this compulsion. Surely it may, of its own accord, and with the assent of a for eign State, admit it into the Union without the previous mandate of the trealy-mak j ing power. The words are general j and without qualification, that Congress may admit new States. And it seems to me, sir, that the strained and inadmissible | construction is on the side of those who contend for the necessity of the interven ! lion of the treaty-making power in order to authorize Congress to exercise its pow er of admission, rather than on tlie side of those who contend that Congress may ex ercise it without that intervention as well as with it. What is requisite to the ad mission of anew State ? Evidently, j nothing but its own assent and that of Congress. And what kind of logic is that which, without one word in lire Constitu tion on which to base itself, insists on a ! third requisite, namely, the previous as sent or intervention of the treaty-making : power ? Then as to tlie precise question pre sented in this case, namely, the eonstitu j tiunality and binding effect of an overture tor admission made by Congress and ac cepted by a foreign State, I would re mark, that the power of Congress to ad mit a foreign State with its own assent, necessarily draws along as an incident the power of asking its assent, and of making an overture or proposing terms of admission. This power of proposing or inviting is certainly a more easy and na tural, not to say neccessary, offspring ol the specific power to admit new States, which belongs to Congress, than of the general power to make treaties, which belongs to the President and Senate. It requires, indeed, a considerable stretch •!' construction to hold, in the face of the grant of the power to Congress to admit new States, that the President and Sen ate have the right to make treaties, render | ing it constitutionally binding on Con gress to admit n®\v States. This, I say, requires a considerable, though I would • by no means say an unwarrantable, stretch of construction. But it is certain- j ly a matter of wonder that those who rea dily reconcile themselves to this stretch can find any difficulty in deriving to Con gress the incidental power of making an overture or invitation from its specifically granted and unqualified power to perform ; the principal act, to wit—that of admis sion. Mr. C. next alluded to what had been said by gentlemen touching the manner in which the proposed annexation would affect our rational honor. He said some gentlemen seemed to think that a due at ; tention to our national honor required that we should take care by our conduct to court the approbation of European sover eigns and their subjects. He appealed togentleuien who hail shown so much sensibility to tiio national honor, and to the light in which we should appear be fore Europe anil the world, whether they had duly considered the standard of na tional honor and rectitude to which they were disposed to appeal. A great deal had been said as to how this measure ot annexation was likely to lie regarded in Europe and throughout Christendom gen erally. But were Europe and Christen dom to set up otic rule for themselves and another torus. What was the political morality which reigned there? How did Europe, and how.did the world act in re gard to the annexation and separation of territories? How were such changes. viewed, in fact, by all Governments ex- < cept our own ? slost truly bad it been ■ said that towns, and provinces, and na tions, were considered but as so many i articles of trafic, to be exchanged and j disposed of by monarebs at their will. Were they not every day treated as this patrimonies ?—as appanages, to make up the marriage settlement of princes and j princesses? Were not both people and soil, and all the goods they might possess, treated as mere chattels ? And yet, tor- I sooth, we were to be all scruple and sen- j sitiveness how European kings and their subjects might view the conduct of our Government. He would ask gentlemen j who were fastidious on this subject, ; whether a very high standard of Euro- j pean morality bad been indicated on the j occasion of the partition of Poland ? That ! event —the stigma of tire age, and an ever lasting blot on human nature itself—j "made” (to use the words oi' an eloquent j writer) ‘mot as much noise in England as ! a Westminister election.” The entire company of European powers laid down i before such a spectacle in silent acquies- . cence. European opinion as to the An- j nexation of Texas! Why Mr. C. con tended that the sale and exchange of whole colonics was an every day practice lof European Cabinets, and bad been, from time immemorial. Let gentlemen look at a more recent instance : let them 1 turn their eyes to the quiet transfer of the kingdom and people of Norway to the 1 crown of Sweden, by the Emperor of! Russia, as a compensantion for the loss : of Finland, which Russia had lierselfj taken from Sweden. And how did France j get Louisiana from Spain ? Was it not j to provide a marriage settlement for the king of Spain’s son-in-law ? It did seem to him that gentlemen, in their zeal against j Texas, had quite lost sight of all tlie lights j of history, especially when they talked of appealing to those standards of political morality that had always prevailed among the Courts ol the Old World. What? Were European Kings and Cabinets to denounce a free Republican country for; contracting a voluntary union with anoth er free Republic, while they themselves might traffic away kingdoms, and traus-, ter their people like so many flocks and herds, without a whisper ofeensure being beard ! But let us on this side tlie Atlan- j tie so much as speak ol the union oi two! rising empires in the New World, and in! a moment ail the privileged orders, and all the organs of despotism, cried aloud j at the atrocity, and pronounced it a poli tical felony. Strange, indeed, that Aine- ; ricati Representatives would not look this ! matter in the face according to truth and fact, but would submit their country’s honor to the very pure and lofty judgment of European Cabinets. To Mr. C. it seemed that the people of this country must be the keepers of j their own honor ; but if we must look across the Atlantic for instructions as to what was due to international morality, he for one should lie rather inclined to take j as liis rule precisely the opposite of what! such judges might prescribe. Thai which was now proposed, was the free and votuntary union of two indepen dent Republics, who, according to the law j of nations, had a right to dispose of them- ! i selves ns they pleased. Was this going! to tarnish the national honor? Would gentlemen of large and liberal minds— j would American representatives and le gislators— sloop to join the cry ol Euro-; pean despots and their slaves and minions, land denounce their own country ? Mr. 1 C. appealed to them with confidence, ami was well persuaded that, on a calm re view of the whole ease, they would yet take their own proper stand in behalf of their native country belb.e the world. This was a question that should lie looked i at apart from any reference to the views of the powers of the Old World. We must make it an American question, and we must decide it on American principles— on the principles of virtue, of honor, and of sound political morality. On this side of the Atlantic, whose voice ought to be heard and regarded ? Certainly not that! of Queen Victoria and her ministers and | subjects, to the exclusion of heeding our I own enlightened and independent Ame rican views of our rights, interests, and : obligations, and mission in the world. Mr. C. proceeded to say that there were j some gentlemen—who, however, were of ! that class that seem to rejoice over all the difficulties they can bring up in the way j of annexation—that laid no small empha- j sis at this late day on the wrong that would ! be done to Mexico by this measure ot an nexation. Did gentlemen mean to take the position that Texas was at this day the property of Mexico? Did they hold that, by the law of nations and tlie ac-! knowledgment of the United States, Tex as was still a province ot Mexico? Mr. C. declared upon his word that it seemed to him there had been a great abundance of declamation on this topic of Mexican rights. But what were her rights? Was Texas hers ? Mr. C.’s time would not allow him to argue this question at large, but he appealed to all gentlemen who knew the history of our transactions in relation to both countries whether we had not, by our own public acts, solemnly ad mitted that Texas was a province of Mex ico no longer. She has become a sover eign and independent Slate by the rights of successful war and revolution. The utter inability of Mexico to resubjugate her, or even to keep up a respectable show of war for that pur|>ose, has been palpa ble to the whole world for nearly nine years. Asa consequence of this state of things, Mexico has, under the law of na tions, lost all right of reconquest, and would herself be guilty of a wrong if she attempted it, or attempted in any manner to interfere with the exercise of perfect independence and self-disposal by Texas. Mexico having thus lost Texas, having | lost the very right of recovering her by forcible means of any kind, and being ut terly devoid of the ability lo reduce her again to subjection, it is obvious that no question of Mexican rights is really involv ed in the measure of annexation. j\[ ex _ iro will neither be a loser by the success of that measure, nor a gainer by its failure. For all her chances of ever again posses sing Texas are gone, and gone forever in any and every event. And so will those now presented to the United States soon pass away if not seized and improved with the'greatest promptitude. Let us be guilty of the folly, I had almost said the I criminality, ol one more rejection of Texas, and, in all probability, she will ; quickly be as much beyond our reach, as she is acknowledged to be beyond that of Mexico. Hence, sir, the extreme impor tance of laying hold at once of the pres jent fleeting opportunity. Mr. Chappell was going on to urge the imperative necessity of prompt and de ; cisive action, when he was brought to a i dose by the expiration of his allotted hour. THE REPUBLIC. II EL W. STRONG, Editor* ~ MACON, APRIL a, 1846. < OTI ox AI ARKBT. Our market is rather more quiet than it was in the first few days of last week. Prices, however, are steady and the anx iety to purchase continues. We quote extremes to-day 3T a 5; principal sales 4^. THE PRESIDENTS OP TEXAS. The Democratic Review of March, con tains a spirited and graphic sketch of the “ Presidents of Texas.” It is written by one evidently familiar with the private and public characters of the distinguish ed individuals who have presided over the destinies of the young Republic. The word disti/iL'itished, however, can only be applied with much significance to but two names that have lillcd the measure of their country’s glory, by giving to it nulioiiahlij and rank among the indepen dent sovereignties of the earth. Those two are the Ex-Presidents Houston and Lamar. 'Tlie lirst of these distinguished men, without the courage utul force of character n cess.try to accomplish great things, has j most pre-eminently the talent to appro priate mat, cucumslancrs and events, to his own advantage. 'Thus, for example, the ; buttle of Fan Jacinto, which ought forever |to have disgraced anil sunk him in the estimation of the brave and patriotic, has igiven him a lame as enduring as the re collections of that splendid victory, made ! him President of one Republic, and may eventually elevate him to the Executive chair of another. The prolific wheel of the inconstant and eccentric Goddess has evolved stranger events than even this. Be that as it may, the concurrent teslimo -1 ny of every creditable historian who has written the history of Texas, supported : by the evidence of those heroic braves by i whose undaunted courage and more than Roman daring, the country is indebted for its liberties, establish the tact that General ! Houston was actually compelled to light ! the battle ot’ Baa Jacinto by the indignant j soldiery. Braver spirits repose not in the pass of Thermopyhe, than were to bo hound on that memorable day in the ranks of the “forlorn hope” of Texas. Hous ton bad already, by bis supineness, cow ardice, or stupidity, sacrificed ihe chival rous Fannin, the heroic Travis and Crockett, and the brave anil unfortunate Ward, together with the gallant men who tell with them, before he could be inilu t ceil to rally to the rescue of his bleeding country. Even then, alter the army bad been recruited, %nd he was enabled to take the field with an imposing force, he lay lor some days within reach ol one di vision of the Mexican army, eight hundred strong under Gen. Sesrna, without stri king a blow. And at length after hearing of the fate of Col. Fannin, be “broke up camp” and retreated as if panic stricken, with an effective force of sixteen hurtdred men, before the approaching Mexican.— It was then that his soldiers lost confi dence in him, and hundreds disgusted with bis want of courage anil decision, abandoned him, until at length after re treating across the Buffalo Bayou he found the army reduced to some seven hundred lighting men. ~ lu this condition Santa Anna overlook him. Houston still insisted upon retreat ing across the Babine, remembering th° old saw that, “in a multitude ol counsel lors there is safety.” But, happily fur Texas, the subordinates were greater and braver than their chief. The authority of the commander was merged and toi gotten in the heroism of the soldiery. They resolved to fight! For the first time in the history of Anglo-American war tare, we saw an army, in the place of being led, actually hading their commander t*> the field. , Houston was dragged to victory. An by Sherman, Wells, Lamar, Franklin, Carnes, Smith, and their brave coin pa triots, the Mexican host were swept timn “the soil indignant with a hurricane o Death. . So much for Houston’s military fame. To tlie heroic men —to the common soldiers of that little army by whoso un surpassed gallantry the victoryjwas ac a veil, Houston is indebted for bis P a:,t a present fame. , Not so with his distinguished coteu p rary, General Lamar. f , • The sworn enemy to tyrants, he e __ country to become a soldier ol t cr / , He entered the army as a voluntee fought himself into command. ue the Chevalier Bayard ot the ~ lotion. By bis courage m tjie aided in avenging the disaster'. Antonio and Goliad, in demo i=' S armv of Santa Anna, and cslabh.' , independence ol his adopted a