The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-09
POLITICAL.
From the Democratic Review MAY number.
THE MEXICAN QUESTION.
CONTINUED.

We do not propose here to go infinitely into the
historical facts Of the case. Without narrailng, 1t
will suffice to indicate them. Texas never bore any
other relation to Mexico than federative She
declared her independence of Spain in 1913. as a
province. After going through the long and con-
fused struggles of the war of independence, she
eventually the reorganization OF the country INTO
political system by the constitution OF 1924 took
her place in the Mexican Union, in a sovereign
capacity as State, and with guarantees OF State
Independence still more distinct and positive in
terms, than those secured by our federal constr
tuition, which afforded the model on which the Mex
lean constitution was moulded. This position, with
the rights incident to it. is in no degree affected by
the fact that Texas and Coahuia were then united,
with but one Legislature for the two. Their distinct
political being at the same time recognised, and
the right of Texas to her own distinct independence
and sovereignty secured, by the guaranty that this
temporary union with Coahuila should cease, as
soon as Texas should reach certain complement of
population. Santa Annals violent military usurpa-
ton in 1885, and his overthrow of the constitution,
carried into effect by the force of arms, and accom-
panied by the conversion of the States into depart
menis and the Capitalization of the whole politica
system Of the country into despotism--h himself at
the central State and city, Mexico, being the despots
was, undeniably complete dissolution of all the
rightfu bonds that united Texas to either the State
of Mexico sngly, to any, all of the rest Of her
former sister sovereigns in the confederacy. This,
this was the revolution which separated Texas from
yolted province. Other States attempted likewise
to maintain the independence which this violent and
wrongful dissolution of the existing political SYSTEM
with all its fundamental guarantees, made righfuy
theirs. They were rapidly overrun and conquered
by the dictator. Texas alone succeeded, and, by
that success, remained standing in position ofinde
peddence, tghtful well as actual, as complete in
all its respects that of Mexico herselas that of
any empire, kingdom, republic, on the face of the
globe Even before the battle Of San Jacinto, Texas
was rightfuly independent and sovereign, precisely
as, in the case above supposed, Switzerland would
be, even while awaiting, under the protection Of God
and her right alone, the approaching menace of Aus
trian After that battle the seal of consumma-
ted fact became added to what was before but a
moral equity.t
We have here passed over more than one collat-
eral point which would have added strength to this
statement Of the case. They were unnecessary
Why pause ito gid refined gold or paint the liy''
We will simply direct the readers thought, by
passing alluson, to the invitation held out in the
interval between 1924 and 1885, to American immi-
grafton into Texas, by the guaranty of State indie
pendence and self-government, on the model of the
institutions familiar to them, in the homes they were
thus tempted to abandon. The right of indepen6-
ence would have been not jot less perfect, he'd
every Texan, down to the very drummer-boys 1t
San Jacinto, been of Spanish or Mexican BIRTH TIE
feeling likely to pervade the population Of Texas on
the explosion of the centrast revolution of 1885,
under the usurping military dictatorship of a SAINT
Anna, might have been sufficiently anticipated from
the character and origin Of that population was
sufficiently proved in point Of fact, by the brief hiso
ry of the contest,
How then stands this question Of fact the fact Of
independence was the question stated little above
We have answered it, by showing its impregnabh
establishment equally on both of the two grounds,
either of which would have been singly sufficient
for all the purpose of the argument
From this 1t follows undenably, that Texas IS
no revolted province of Mexico--that Mexico HIS
no better and no stronger rights over Texas than
Texas over Mexico-that annexation involves 10