The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1845-03-28
THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS.

Developments.
THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS.
The New York Evening Post publishes an
article (which has been transferred TO the Ma
tional loteligencer) commenting on the probable
ity of war with Mexico, and purportlng to speak
on the authority Of Gen. Almonte which circum.
stance alone entities it TO particular consideration.
The writer argues, with most edifying simpli-
city, that il is for the interest of Mexico TO go
to war with the United States, in order (by un-
dergoing blockade) TO prevent the expectation
of silver, and the importation OF foreign manu-
features, forgetting that silver 10 Mexico (iike
iron in Sweden) is the chief merchantable COM
modify of the country, and that the cotton mills
of Mexico depend mainly on the United States
for raw cotton and as TO the night of Mexico in
the ques ton of peace and war; after conceding
that this depends upon the question, whether
the United States, England, and France were
justified in acknowledging the independence
of Texas, the writer comes to a conclusion
legal grounds
consistently with the reasonings adopted in all
treatsss on the laws Of nations, from Grouus to
Whesion, there be doubt that easus beih ex-
sts both against England and France for the recogni-
ton Of the Independence of Texas while Mexico
stiii struggling to her control there"
(and of course an equal bsli against the United
Statss.)
Now, fortunately il happens that here is po-
sition which can be brought to the test OF proof;
and it will be found on examination that the
exact reverse of this position is the reasoning
Gin oil ueatises on the law Of nations, from
Gro,ius to Wheaton" OF these it will be suffi-
cient TO cite the following passage from Whea-
ton:
Sovereignty is acquired by State either at the
origin Of the civil society of which it consists, or
when it separates itself lawfully from the community
of which it previously formed part, and which
it was dependent.
IF the revolution in a State be effected by pro-
vince colony shaking of its sovereignty, long
the Independence of the new State is not acknow-
lodged by other powers, it may be deemed doubtful
in International point OF view whether its
rsignty can be considered as complete, however it
may be regarded by its government and citizens. !,
has already been stated that while the contest for the
sovereignty continues and the civil war RACES other
nations may either remain passive, allowing to both
sontending parties all the rights which are given to
public enemies, or may acknowledge the independ-
snce of the new State, forming with it treaties of
amity and commerce or may join in alliance with
party against the other In the first case neither
party has any right to complain so long other
tons maintain impartial neutrality and abide the
event Of the contest The two last involve ques
tons, which seem 10 belong rather to the field of
politics than of law but the practice of nations if il
does not furnish nvarable rule for the solution of
these questions will al least shed some light on them.
The memorable examples Of the S,oiss Cantons and Of
the Seuen United PROVINCES Of the Netherlands ,chich
long Levied car, concluded peace contracted rancey
and performed every other act Of sovereignty before their
Independence finally acknowledged Of the first
blythe German empire and that of the latter by Spain
soJu to shsso the general Of mankind on this sub
jset.
The acknowledgment Of the independence of the
United States Of America by France, coupled with
the assistance secretly rendered by the French Court
to the revolted colonies, was considered by Great
Britain unjust,6able aggression, and under the
circumstances, it prpbaby wa, so. But had the
French Court conducted itself with good faith, and
maintained an impartial neutrality between the two
belligerent parti,s, il may be doubted whether the
treaty of commerce. the eventual alliance be-
tween France and the United States, could have fur
nished any just ground for declaration of war
against the former by the British government The
more recent example Of the Acknowledgment Of the nde
psrdenee oihe Spanish .ansrcan Provinces by the United
Stass, Great Briisn and other powers, whii the parent
country still CONTINUES to ,ciihhod her sni also con
ours 10 illustrate the general understanding Of nations
that where revoted province or colony has de.
ssrsd and shown its ability to maintain its ndepend-
socs tho gn,on Of its sovereignty by other soye-
reigp'ies is question of policy and prudence oplyn
Wbsaton's Law of Nations, Pr |, Oh 9
If il were otherwise, if no neutral Cavern
ment had right TO enter into treaty relations
with revol,ed colony or province until IT'S in.
dependence had been acknowledged by the mo-
Their country, or original sovereign, then neither
Switzerland, nor the United Provinces, nor the
United States, nor Mexico herself, could ever
have attained tn. rank of an independent Gov
eminent; because, however truly independent
it might be in fact and however poweress the
mother country or nominal sovereign to regain
the actual control OF it, yet by merely withhold
ing recognition, the latter might forever prevent
the revolted colony or province from being recog
Missed by other Governments. Such pretended
rights on the part Of the mother country, or