The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-05-17
ANNEXATION NO CAUSE OF WAR WITH
MEXICO.

The grand argument. at present, of the opponents
OF Annexation is that il would necessarily involve u
in a war with Mexico. To use the words of thu
In,elgencer, ''of all the arguments against th'
measure-always excepting that of the indeiible ma
tional disgrace attending breaches OF faith by 'h'
wilful violation of solemn treaties-the one which Il
entitled to the greatest weight is the fact that the
proposed Annexation, and assumption Of the rela
tons and obligations of Texas, would be the estab-
Iishmont Of slate Of between the United States
and Mexico"
The answer to this argument is obvious. Mexico
Is not compelled by fate, nor by any superior power
to wage war against Texas The war IS perfectly
voluntary on the part of the Mexican Government,
and may cease whenever that Government Pleases.
The Government Of Texas has avs been ready to
conclude peace upon reasonable terms. 1t may be
moro or less probable that in the event of Annexa-
ton Mexico would continue the war against u.s. SO
il might be predicted with certainty that might
result from some other act of our Government; but
if we had right, under the law Of nations, to do
that act, we should not be responsible for the war,
nor the aggressors in it.
The question still is therefore, notwithstanding
the specious shape in which this grand argument Is
presented, whether Annexation would give Mexico
Just cause of war; Should we violate any Of her
rights by III
II is true that Mexico has right 10 declare war,
with or without sufficient cause, and while at war
she has certain bellgereDt rights. But If her bel
igerent rights should happen TO come into conflict
with our rights neutral, which is bound to
give way' Belligerent rights always more
los a( pr
neutrals but they are submitted to upon the
ground that is calamity Of so seri-
Gus a nature that no nation would incur
il without strong provocaiion or just cause; that i
is misfortune to which all nations liable. The
question is, whether Mexico, in her with Texas,
can rest her belgercnt rights upon that strong
ground She certainly has no right to wage an in
terminhbe war to the annoyance of the rest Of the
world, in the meantime insisting on beigerent rights
which conceded only 10 necessity or misfortune.
II has been eight years since her present Chief Ma
gs,ratc and Dictator pronounced his opinion
military man, and from personal experience and OBJ
servaton, that it was in vain for MEXICO to continue
tie contest against Texas, and time has demonstrated
that his opinion well founded.
A still greater Argument, it seems is, that AnneIs-
departure from the friendship stipulated in thai,
treaty. We have the same stipulation 10 all our lrea-
ties with fore en- powers but this docs not bind to
nantes, towards them the friendship Of Damon and
Pyihins, Of couple Of boardingschool girls. 1t
does no, require US 10 sacrifice national policy or
convenience, where either can be promo ed without
an infac,ion Of the law Of nations. Such general
professions of friendship mean no more among ma
tons than they do among individuals in private life.
The treaty with Mexico no more requires us to re-
fran from annexing Texas than 10 refrain from any
other perfectly UNSUITABLE of policy by which
MEXICO might be deeply bat indirectly, injured
II no more calls upon to surrender our chance OF
reacquring Texas, than it does share our posses
sions and resources, and haves common purse, with
Mexico
IL ,ucb general professions Of friendship were re-
CURED to be literally fulfilled instead OF conducting to
peace and harmony smorg nations, they would be ar
endless source Of oonten,ion and war.