Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-04-12

al war il NAV at once annex either of them; and,
no matter what the matter in dispute, the other ma
ton is estopped, is deprived of the remedy il was
pursuing and is brought (wheher it wall or mott 70
state of peace We had really thought that this
sovereign power of making war or peace only at
ones own option inseparable from the being OF
a nation but here, it seems, is swift and an I'M
prescriptbe mode of negotiation that settles all
nations rights without for one instant consulting or
referring to it, by the magic of annexation-that last
great Locofoco discovery, utterly unknown in MIR.
VAN BuREN's time, when the Globe approved pre-
cisely an opposite doctrine Then, 1t held, win
Mr.. FORSYTH, that to admit Texas into our Union
was ipso facto war with Mexico, SO long as she
and Texas were at war. Now, 1t has discovered
mode of peace that Grotius, nor Pufiendorl' nor
Vattel never even dreamt of! But what are Gro
fins and Puffendorf, and Vattel, and President Van
Buren,, and Mr.. Forsyth, and the approving voice
of all parties alike, and even that OF the 6ope "
SELF to the new invention of its last code OF PUBIC
law for the universe!
Rut the Globe viii have it that because II Texas
were to incorporate herself with US while al war
with ENGLAND. she would therefore incur our war,
she must likewise, in annexing herself 10 Us while
we are at peace with Mexico, take our peacelui re-
latons with the latter.
Now. in the first place. the Globe should have
remembered that it is much easier to adopt state
of war than one of peace To DO the former re-
ouires nobody's assent but your own. ln the case
supposed by the Globe, Texas might join US in
war with England without asking even our Leave,
not to speak of England's but to make peace with
country without consulting it is little different
requires some beginning and bargain, we have
been accustomed to think, implies consent of the
parties. Here, who are these Mexico and Texas.
And are we mot partes) to make peace for Mexico
How. IN the name of all that is uninteiigIbie
Have we any power from her or ouer herr Have
we any right over either! Has Texas, even, given
us any right to make peace for her! If she had,
would that take away Mexieo's rghtto continue the
war! Can we do that if not party 70 the war,
which Texas herself could not do-make peace
without consulting the other party! II through US
the war is to cease, how 1t must be by our act
ing either mediatng neutrals or as party to 1t.
In the former case, both Mexico and Texas must
assent to our friendly interference and to the terms
which it may arrange ; and, in the latter case, we
must again have power from Texas and then bar-
gain with our mutual adversary. In a word, war
is sovereign, indefeasble right, aet Ct the parties
to it, and is theirs alone. In regard to it, others
have DO rights but those Of neutrals AS SUCH they
may mediate for peace, with friendly offers to both
sides to bring ii shout: butthey can do nothing else.
nation is in no sort bound to listen to such Of
fer nor is there the slightest offence in rejecting it.
OF course, then, no act is admissible nor magma
BILE, by which third party can, without the consent
of both begerents, put an end to the war. There
oan he no such not such fact ID pat ~
neurals; and not only is the Globe utterly wide of
the mark in saying that the incorporation of one of
the parties by neatra of itself brings about
peace, but it is even true that no fact known TO
National Lar cna hare any sueh s6set. except the
submission Of one of the parties the asseai ri
both.
These are plain principles. applicable TO all cases
alike: but the effect in particular cases will render
the thing still palmer.
In 1912 we went 10 war with England for her
Orders in Council and her practice of taking men,
as her narye-born subjects, from board ships
Now, will the Globe say that if England had, in
the midst Of that war, made herself member of the
Germanic Confederation, we should haye been at
once reduced to peace, without any remoyaa, by
either her or Germany, of the cause of war! But
suppose, them the really parallel case, that Germa-
ny had, by act of her Diet, annexed England to
her--wsyld that have at once ended the war, with
out the assent Of either England or ourselves!
What then, would have been the effect as to our
right of war! Nothing whatever 70 diminish it.
What as 10 England! As lite, until, by accepting
the incorporation, she parted--not with the war,
but with her own independent power Of conduct
ing it. Lastly, then, what would be the effect as to
Germany? BY lee far as depended on her choice)
taking upon her EngiaaS's war with US, she would
have given the right Of against her, without
impairing, of course subsisting ngh1 against
England. Whether or not the latter finally accept
ed her annexation il would be the same thing; she
Germany wouis siill have placed herself at war
with us, and we might prosecute it, without waiting
(uniess as matter of prudence) TO see the course
of England But if, in advance, we had giysp
Germany Jas Mexico has given us) notice that we
would consider her anpexing England declara-
ton of war against us, then we might at once, upon
the act take the field against her, without any f4r
Their formality or notice. And thisis SO strongly true
that She too on her side would haye right to con-
slider herself at war, without any new notice on opr
cart This is now our real position, If nce choose,
18Th ..o,.J 10 lfor;co She hac oiyen us O,1e M