Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, W.T. [i.e. Wis.]) 1843-1844, 1844-01-13

OF The following logical EXPOSE of President
Tyler's sophis,cal and muddy reasoning in regard
to the proposed policy of tho United States to-
wards Mexico and Texas, is from the Dollar News
paper:
UNSOUND DOCTRINE.
THE LAW OF NATIONS DOES NOT sus-
TAIN THE PRESIDENT IN HIS RE-
MARKS AGAINST MEXICO.
The Presidents Message says that
the Creator has given TO man the earth
for his resting place, and its fruits for
his subsistence; and that hence wars,
by rendering any portion Of the earth
a scene of desolation, are general ca
lamity. This is sound doctrine wheth-
er preached by President or priest; and
therefore the duty of nations is TO pre-
vent wars as much as is possible. But
this very obligation of nations implies
national existence and independence,
and the corollary is, that even to pre-
vent wars no nation has right to CO.
cree another. The President admits
that wars are sometimes necessary;
though he says that all nations are in
terested in bringing them to conclu-
sion. This also we admit. But how
shall neutral nations bring to conclu-
sion a war between two belligerents?
If by prohibition against the prosecu-
ton OF the war, and threats of force
upon refusal, then natirnal sovereignty
is abolished; the belligercnts arc no
loHger Independent nations, but the
vassals of the ncutrals; and national
rights become merely the rights of the
strongest. Let us, TO test the Presi-
dents principle, suppose case. Eng
land claims "the right of VISIT" and
detains and searches our merchant yes
sells on the ocean. We deny the right,
demand justice, and finally, in self-de-
fence, declare war. France, Austria,
Russia and Prussia tell US that wars are
general calamity, that nations are in
terested in bringing them to conclu-
sion; and that as we begun the war we
must sheathe the sword and end il. We
reply that we drew the sword in de-
fence of our national rights. They
reioin that our national rights may be
very important TO US, but not quite so
important TO them as general peace; and
that as England will not yield her
ground, we must yield ours, and cease
from disturbing the general peace. We
sur-rejoin that, by forcing us TO yield
our national rights, they strike at their
own sovereignty, and infringe funda-
mental principle Of their own safety.
They rebut that they are competent to
protect their sovereignty against all as
sailants, and that ours is much less i'm
portant 10 them than general peace, and
therefore that they must compel US to
yield, if we will not yield voluntarily.
What should we think Of this doctrine
when preached TO US by these Europe
an powers? We should be very much
disposed TO nullify it. Yet it is the
very doctrine which the President
breaches to Mexico.
The President says THAI we have an
immediate interest in the termination
Of this war. Why? Because the par
ties are our neighbors on the same con-
tinent, Docs he rccollect the war be
tween Britain and the Canadas: The
Canadians were our neighbcrs; and il
ncighborhood gives US the right of IN
reference for Texas, il gives US the
same light Of Interference for the Can
adas. We may add that the Canadians
fought for freedom, while the Texans
are fighting for usurpation and slavery.
Yet in the Canadian case, the Federal
Government decided, and very cor
rectly, that VIC were no party to the
contest, and were bound by our nation
al obligations to let both parties alone
If this was sound doctrine then, II is
sound now, for principles do not vary
with degrees Of latitude. According
10 the laws of nations, neighborhood
gives no additional rights; and there
lore the national rights Of France are
precisely as numerous and definite a.
gainst England, separated from 1t by
the ocean, as against Germany, separa-
ted from it by "a mere geographical
line"
The OREGox TRRRIToRY-A bold
push il is thought. will be Immediate
iy made in Congress, for the instant