The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-08
POLlTICAL.
From the Democratic Review May number.
THE MEXICAN QUESTION.


From the Democratic Review MAY number
THE MEXICAN QUESTION.
It's an i'll bird that fouls its own nest He is bad
patriot who is seen to make it object of eager par
tisan zeal to degrade and disgrace his country
and his country's government, not only in the eyes
Of our own people, but Of the rest of the world
not only OF those engaged in controversy with on
the point at ISSUE but of that enyious step-moher
land ever scowling malignly upon up us with evil
eye from across the water keen for the discovery Of
every occasion for sneer, quick TO seize it, and bit
tery scornful in pushing it to Its utmost possible
length, Of insult against US, and disparagement OF
democratic institutions
The annexation Of Texas is measure which in
dustrious arts Of misrepresentation and sophism
have labored to pervert into act of national rapa-
city, spoliation, and bad faith--aggnvated by the
Comparative weakness of the poor neighbor who is
the object ofthe imputed wrong. In the relations
Of private life, similar charge would certainly be
one which an honorable selfrespect would repel
with the most sensitive indignation. The honor OF
our country surely should be no less dear to each
Of her sons not wholly unworthy Of that percentage
We acknowledge, therefore, sentiment not far re-
moved from that which is the just need Of all trea-
son, when we see a portion Of the American press
itself teaching to the foreigner this language of out
rage against our national honor-pleading gull
ty TO the charge in the name of the country, for the
camor against antagonist party ascendeni in the
government. To the American in Mexico or in
England, reading in the journals of those countries
copious extracts from the papers of his own,
stamped on every line with this unpatriotic moral
treason, and fully sustaining the worst that be
even pretended by our worst enemies thereby a
testimony paraded as the confession of the party
eliminated there can be but little consolation in the
reflection that these are indeed American journals
from whose columns such insulting citations are
thus fouted in his face.
Smarting for his country beneath the sting of the
insult--(and to jealous delicacy of honor, insult
does not need the barb of truth to pierce and stng)
he will remember that so the t'struck eagle"
Views his own feather on the fatal dart.
And winged the shan that qulvers in his heart
Keen were his pangs, but keener far TO feel
He nursed the pnion that impelled the steeln
been dealt with all too leniently. Too much indul
gence has been extended to that which may perhaps
have been honest difference of opinion before the
action of the country became decided and commit
ted, but which, after that time, lost its right to
similar charitabeness e construction and treatment
The more patriotic and loyal portion of. our press
have been too much content with defensive atti-
tude on this point when the scofer and the SANDER
er of his own country's honor should have been
shamed into silence by the crushing rebuke Of just
indignation. We have been content with deferen-
TALLY disputing and calmly dsproving his charges
sometimes with little more than simply parrying
or palliating them.
Now, we wholly deny that there is anything in
this case of annexation, far regards the rights
of Mexico, any relations of ours to her, to cast
shadow uponthe honor ofour country. There is no
prima Jacie case, even against u.s. There is no color
of truth in her charges, insoently though she may
parade her ridiculous protests through the courts Of
the two worlds. On the contrary, all that there has
been ofvolence and wrong, of cruelty and treache-
ry, of abuse Of force over supposed weakness and
Il A. -.
this history Of the origin, growth, and emancipa-
ton of the State Of Texas. Whereas, on the other
hand, our conduct has been characterized by de-
gree generous forbearance, Of regard for the
appearances Of good faith and national JUSTICE car
ried to point only this side of quixotism and
tainy far beyond any precedent as yet afforded us
in the history of any civilized nation on the face of
the globe. . ~. ~
recognise our obligation at this time to do SO, in
response to the action which lat the date Of the
present article) Mexico appears to be taking in re-
is the imperative from the fact of the vast dis
parity between us in power and resources for the
forcibe maintenance of our respective rights. The
obligation would be still stronger, were Mexico
still feebler power. We would not consent to be
placed in the wrong, in national dispute with the
mightiest sovereignty in either hemisphere less
with one of the weakest and meanest Hence the
duty of distinct exposition ofthe true merits of this
case between Mexico and ourselves, at the present
moment, even though at the cost of the recapitua-
ton of views and arguments already familiar to the
public, and already amply covered by the discussion
of the question some Of its former stages in pre-
vious articles of this Review.
The Mexican argument against US is this--that
Texas is a revoed province, with which she is
rightfuly engaged in war for resubjugation, and
that by its annexation to our Union, we do her a
threefold wrong; namely,
a. bo,, 10
of April 5th, 1884, by which we established the Sa-
bine as the boundary between the two countries.
That we violate the treaty Of amity, commerce,
and navigation Of the same date, by step which is
virtual act of war, since it involves the assumption
of an existing war between her and Texas.
And that we commit an act Of aggression and spo-
liaiion and assumption Of an existing war, in viola
ton of international law, even without the special
obligations imposed by our treaties.
This is her argument, and her assumption of the
state of the facts involved in the argument Very
well-let us look first to the two treaty questions
thus brought into the front of the case.
And FIRST as to the boundary treaty. This was SIM
ply treaty determining the boundary between she
two countries, with reference to all then existing
rights and claims. 1t was nothing less than
the transfer to Mexico, now become independent
ofSpain, of that mutual recognition of boundaries
which WI chad had been agreed upon with Spain, BY
the Sabine was declared the boundary as between
the United States and Spain; by that of 1881, with
Mexico, the same boundary was recognised be-
tween us and Mexico. A treaty of this kind is GER
tanly a mutual abandonment of all existing terrific
rial claima founded on any rights existing at that
date; and SO far as regards the argument sometimes
advanced in the pronunciation discussions that any
unexhausted or unforfeed rights remained to us by
virtue ofthe original Louisiana treaty (under which
we had claimed to the Del Norte) this boundary
treaty of 1919 and 1891 was certainly conclusive
against us. But it is equally clear that it has no
bearing whatever upon new rights accruing in
the course of subsequent events, by which
portion of the Mexican territory should
become disntegrated from It's main bulk, and
converted into a separate State, rightfully indie
pendent and sovereign, and entitled to form any al
lance or union with us any other power, as it
may deem proper. As, by the establishment Of the
Independence ofMexico, our former boundary treaty.
with Spain became justly applicable to the new Sow
ereignty, ghtuly entitled to, and in fact possess-
ing the same country SO now, by the subsequent
tabshment of the Independence of Texas, the just
al ndarx,