The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-09
THE DAILY UNION.


igation.
place in the consideration of the general question
between us and Mexico. The only practical bear
ing of either Of them is in our favor, and we
invoke and claim its benefit II is upon Juerieo that
zoe have TO call to respect the treaty OF perpetual
peace between the two countries. III is from her,
aggressvely upon u.s. that some danger OF Its VIOLA
i ton appears to be impending She appears, IN a
spirit Of ignorant erocty and foolhardiness, under
the double influence Of national vanity and dema-
gogue counses, disposed to plunge into course OF
proceeding at once foolish unjasuiabe, and in vio
laton of the terms well spirit of our existing
treaties with her. Ii she shall persist IN 1t, she will
do to her own wrong, and will reap from moth
ing but disgrace and disaster.
i Having thus disposed of the Mexican argument
as founded on the two treaties cited, It is unneces-
sary TO dwell on its third branch, as we have above
stated it-naniey, that, independently of the two
treaties, annexation is an act OF wrongful aggression
and spoliaon, in violation Of the general principles
ofinemational law. This has been sufficiently COW
cred by the refutaton of the argument on its higher
grounds, and in its more imposing form The great
er includes the essthe higher obligation the infe-
rior onethe positive pledge to do right the general
equitable duty to This is is PLAIN enough to dis
pense with waste of words upou it.
i What right, then, has Mexico to complain What
right to hold to the insulting language of protest
against our imputed spoation of her territory and
violation of our treaty obligations What right to
II
al sentiment of the rest of the family OF nations, by
diplomatic protests addressed to their several courts,
in pretended attitude of rapacity and aithlessness,
under circumstances made the more odious from the
vast disparity of power between us and herr All
this is the most insoent farce ever attempted even
by the bombastic absurdity of Mexican conceit and
lmbecity And when see portion of our own
press at once emulatng and stimulating this tone of
slanderous insult against the honor of their own
country, for the qualification of factious animosty
against the ascendent policy of party always most
i obnoxious to them when most in harmony with the
true nationality of the country, confess that it is
hard to bear patiently, hard to remain content with
the simple Indifference and silence of that contempt
i which such a course deserves
Mexico has right to complain of anything
in the premises On the contrary, we have
borne and forborne much. We had right to
receive Texas into the Union at the time of
her first assertion of her INTERCHANGEABLE in
, dependence upon which she was thrown by the
! revolutionary usurpation of the Mexican central
4 government. If we then waived our right, and
even repulsed the application of Texas herself for
4 admission notwithstanding the earnestness with
I which our government has always pursued the OBJ
ect of the recovery of that REGION it was from de-
gree of honorable regard for what Mexico might
imagine to- be her rights, of which examples are
/ to be found in the histories of other nations. And
before further entertaining the project, we waited
through an ample length Of time, to afford Mexico
the fullest opportunity Of enforcing her pretended
rights; has it been till after practical demon
station of her utterly helpless and hopeless impo-
tence, as against Texas, to which eye posi-
1 bly, remain any longer blnd--till after time has
placed the independence of Texas ground in
conesable as supersede all need of pleading
it's original rightuness-that at last con-
summate this great and interesting measure of our
national policy.
4 few words only on single other point which
has been made prominent in the Mexican case, as
i usually urged against our country by Mexican
4 ministers in Mexico, and Mexican orators and wri.
tiers among ourselves They charge on our govern
ment the responsibility for the whole movement of
the assertion and forcble establishment Of the indie
| pendence of Texas. 1t sent our citizens into the
country to plumber it from Mexico--it connived at
the active participation of fresh hundreds and thou
sands of volunteers to aid in their Of ndepend
4 ence; and the whole affair." from beginning to end,
has been but scheme Of its public policy, deeply
planned and artully pursued, for the acquisition of
the long-coveted territory. The grossness of this
! calumny needs no refutation 1t was govern
ment that invited American settlement into Texas,
under all its guarantees of State independence, after
the establishment of the constitution of 1924 II
was our government which in 1885 revoutoniZed
the Mexican confederacy- the constitu-
tion--dissolved the whole political system which it
established and guaranteed casting each of its const
uent parts back on the rights Of its independ-
ence and integrity, and at the time established
at the seat of the former central government usurp
hand, and soldiers sword in the other, as the gov
eminent which it was to be expected that submis-
sion could be yielded by population freshly immi-
grant from our Union, ON Mexican invitation, into
Texas! 1t government, then, that did these
things, and therefore is chargeable with the respon-
sbility of their natural their inevitable consequent
Il ces!
And if, during the progress Of the brief contest,
succors poured in upon the Texars from the ada
cent section of the Union it no fault of our gov
= atnra pEn snotrt, and
n the defect of laws they then existed, it was
impossible to prevent it. Nor could any laws have
practically prevented it-nor any attempts to
cute those laws. The government did all that was
then in its power 10 prevent the organization of
armed bands for the purpose; but the right of expa-
Irritation and emigration which could not be contest
ed to the American citizen and which was in no re-
spect affected by the fact ofhostes in progress be-
tween Texas and her menacng assailant, Mexico,
baflled the attempts which were made in good faith,
and to the extent Of the faculties afforded by the ex
}, sting state of our laws If in the somewhat anal
ogous though far from identical which after
wards arose with England, in regard to Canada, a
greater and more efectual energy was displayed by
our executive government, It was partly because OF
the vast difference in the facilities afforded by the
section Of Union which was the field Of operations,
and partly because the former recent experience in
regard to Mexico and Texas had proved the nefii-
cacy of the existing laws on the subject, and had
led to the bestowa upon the executive of enlarged
powers and means of action.
Il Away with this Mexican gasconading about her
pretended rights and pretended wrongs! And away
with that less endurable cant of American factious-
ness which does not hesitate disgrace the country
for the sake of attacking an adverse party dominant
in the government The former, after disproving,
we can well afford to despise the latter we must
needs also detest This thing is done, and, so far as
regards Mexico, rightfuly DONE honestly and hon
, oraby DONE She loses nothing but gains much, in
exchanging independent Texas for great, pacific
and friendly Union, her conerminous neighbor.
i The matter might indeed have been conducted with
somewhat less abruptness- somewhat more of
diplomatic tact and good tastethan marked the ac-
ton Of the late administration and its agents. With
no less of the toriiter IN re- there might well have
been added little more Of the suariier 10 mode on
our part But these points Of form and manner sink
Unto insignifcance in the broader view called
upon take of the national rights involved in the