The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-09-16
LETTER OF ALEXANDER ANDERSON
OF TEsNEssEE-(C,


| BY this programme of the facts we learn
that great mistake has prevailed upon
this subject, in all the discussions which have
appeared on the side OF the opposition. The
question OF remuneration has been treated by
It's enemies as though Texas had always be-
longed 10 a consolidated Mexican Government.
Hence has proceeded many Of the absurdilifs
with which the public are likely TO be deceived.
| The truth IL, however, that Texas never formed
any integral part of the consolidated Govern
ment of Mexico. Ii was not part of Mexico
at the time of the revolution there, nor was any
effort ever made TO involve il in her fortunes, by
those who were actors in the bloody and changing
scenes of that period, until long after me
destruction OF every restige Of Spanish Gu-
horiiy.
Texas formed separate province, and be-
came a member of the Federalive Government
of Mexico, according to the establi he'd consti-
tuition, under an express stipulation engraded
into hat instrument, that the Federation and
The States should nerer be reformed into any
other mode, and that no other supreme polrp
should be created This was the fundamental
law, and constituted the compact by which she
was bound, in the first and the only political r.
lations into which she ever entered with the
Mexican States and each State was recog-
missed by the other sovereign and independent.
Santa Anna overthrow, after several similar
and incomplete efforts by Others this form n
Government dissolved he Union, usuBed ~
preme pOuer, and proceeded to conquer the
several States in detail. They made more or
less resistance, but were finally subdued. with
the exception Of Texas. The war which be-
made upon Texas was, therefore, exclusively
one OF conquest. The usurpaton which made
Mexico central consolidated Government.
and destroyed all The obligations which had ~.
| sted befwepn The I'D M nd cpt,ld ygf
according to the laws of Nations, affect the
rights OF sovereignty and independence in Tex.
as. Mexico nerer returned 10 her former sys-
TEN, but continued 10 be held under The IRON rod
of the Dictator Texas was, therefore alb iH
inc, an independent State, de lure and de faci1
A forcible usurpation does moi. according TO the
wisdom and policy of international law. c0nst-
tute Government, either de lure, or. much
less, de fdcto, beyond The actual limits Of Ms
| forcibie action; and, therefore, cannot affect
by construction, the rights of coterminous com
munItes, under separate governments, although
;hey may have acted, previously, as independent
correlatlye powers IN The same general f,dera-
tive head. dissolution, BY usurpation Of
Government, formed by compact, as a So
preme federal power, destroys with the unity
of that head, every other obligation, which is
general and national, and each STATE becomes
national for itself, and a war by the stronger
State, or States, TO compel the others. or any
one of them, 10 submission, Is war Of conquest,
and not Of right. liza State nearest the centre
has right to make such war of subjugauon.
for the same reason the State at the remcteI
border has similar right to make war Of con.
quest upon the State nearest the centre. 10
this condition, either conquest, or consent
absolutely necessary 10 create any neu relations
Of united naionaliy Neither of these inui.
dents took place in the case Of Texas She
had the same right to conquer Mexico, either
IN her States separately, or as afterwards .ub.
jugated and united by Santa Anna that they had
jointly or severally to conquer her. The time
was, in practice, when right was might and
might was right But that day passed th WI
the steel-clad and hsrness-men of the leuda
centuries, and with the progress Of revolutions
Christianity, and enlightened liberty, civil
compscts, and human rghts, have become oil
higher respect than the sword, the spear ana
the bayonet. Nor was il necessary TO the per.
feclion Of the rights Of Texas, that she should