The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-09-25
THE DAILY UNION

Was not this a tacit acknowledgment by Mexico,
through high military officer, Of the territory east
Of the Rio Grande being Texan, and not Mexican
II the vanauishing of an invading army, taking
possession Of and holding for ten years territory,
is not evidence Of conquest, and reasonable right
of sovereignty, why then Texas has no color Of
claim to what the Intelligencer denominates the
"disputed territory"
Il was this Texas that the United States, having
all along, since the treaty of Louisiana, claimed the
Rio Grande to be the true boundary, recognised TO
be independent II was this Texas which England,
after due explanations with the agent of Texas,
recognised as independent. II was this Texas
which was recognised by France and Belgium. 1t
was this Texas which we have united to us by the
consent Of the people of the two republics II
was this Texas, extending to the Rio Grande which
we now claim to be part and parcel of us-"bone
of our bone and flesh of our flesh" II was this
Texas, which gives to US the natural boundary of
the Rio Grande, and proper military post, mot
the little river of the Nueces) which we now claim
And it is this Texas which our administration
means to maintain, and our people mean to defend
with their hearts blood. And, IN fine, 1t Is this
Texas which no American will think of denying
and aburing until all his Roman spirit has been sub
dued or corrupted by foreign influence.
The lnteIligencer is mistaken in saying that the
disputed territory" "except at few remote and
Mexican Jurisdiction only" The very reverse is
the fact for, with the exception of post at Brasos
Santiago, on the Gulf Of Mexico near the mouth Of
the Rio Grande, and the settlements at and about
Santa Fe the entire country on the east side Of the Rio
Grade is and has been since 1886, occupied by and
under the Jurisdiction Of Tsras. Laredo, the only
other Mexican settlement on the east side has not
only acknowledged the government of Texas, but
holds grants of land under it.
have now a word to say in relation to the Santa
Fe and Micr expedition, which the Intellgencer al
leges to have been avowed enterprises Of conquest,
and having proved failures, is evidence conclusive
that Texas has no fight TO the country. So far
from this being the fact, the first was for the pur-
pose of trade, and the latter retaliation. For the
truth of which, refer the Intelgencer to the Hon.
B. T. Archer and Gen. t. ]. Green, (the latter, the
second officer of the Mer expedition, both of whom
have been recently, and will be again, IN this
| city Indeed, when we consider the numbers em-
ployed the first about 500, ard the latter 800 men,
It is perhaps the best refutation that be offered
That body of FIVE hundred at one time, and at an
other three hundred men, should attempt the con-
quest Of territory some fifteen hundred miles IN
extent, with population of from twenty to thirty
| thousand inhabitants, Is proposition too absurd
and preposterous to be seriously entertained.
| With these facts, submit to the lnteigencer,
and to the American people, whether Texas has or
has not made out clear case Of only conquest,
but of occupation; and whether, far as conquest
and occupation give right, she has not as much
right TO the disputed territory" as TO any other
Gained or acknowledged If the right of Texas to
any portion Of the territory within her limits is
made to depend upon the recognition and acknowl-
edgment Of Mexico, as conended for by the ntelli-
| gencer-then, indeed has she no right; for Mexico
not only denies her right of sovereignty, but claims
the entire territory Of Texas as one of her depart.
ments. To put her claim upon such an issue, both
as respects sovereignty and limits will not be
tended for, even by the lnteligencer.
AN OLD TEXAN.