The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-05-08

this head, explodes itself, by assuming principle
whose fret application and effect must be to annul
the very treaty to which It itself appeals u, is ey-
dent that so far as regards the country in dispute
Texas now stands between up and Mexico ON pre-
cisely the same footing as she herself (Mexico)
stood between and Spain. SPANS formal recog-
milton of the Independence of Mexico was not made
till after the treaty of 1881.
| So much for the boundary treaty, which evident
| ly has no more bearing on the real merits OF the
| question than Mr. CushDg's late treaty between the
] United States and the Tia Tsing empire.
i This brings us TO the other treaty of the same
date--the treaty Of amiiy, commerce, and naviga-
| ton. BY this pledged ourselves 70 maintain per-
petua peace with Mexico; which, Of course, forbids
our ever engaging in any other war with her than
one defensive against her aggression or made
UNSUITABLE by her violation and abrogation of the
treaty. The Mexican argument now is, that mas
much as she is sat war" with Texas, we, by annex
ing Texas adopt that war; an place ourselves ipso
faeto in state of war with her-of course agrees
sivey, and in violation of the treaty. Let us exam
inc this point closely and clearly.
Assume the annexation to be completed, and the
sovereignty Of Texas to be merged into the broader
and higher sovereignty of the Union of which 1t
then becomes small fraction; retaining indeed its
sovereignty in regard to internal affairs subect only
to the obligations Of the federal constitution) but
having wholly parted with in regard to all foreign
relations what then has become of the war be-
tween Texas and Mexco' Why, Texas, as body
polite capable of any foreign relations, whether of
peace or war, has ceased to exist. Her war is as
much at an end as in litigation between individuals,
the death of the terminates it as between those
parties--or as in the Homerc combat between
Paris and Menelaus, when the former is sud-
denly borne off by his patron Goddess in cloud,
nothing is left but the empty air to receive the blows
of the remaining party TO the engagement. BY the
annexation, Mexico is brought up face to face with
a new party--the United States 1t is not we who
assume the war Of Texas, but Texas which, merg
ing itself into political being comes ipso tacfo
into existing relation of peace. 1t is with us
that Mexico now has to deal We are now the on
ly other party in the case; and it takes two to make
| a war as well as bargain. We are IN state OF
peace with Mexico--peace guaranteed by treaty
The question then arising is simply whether such
step our part is, or is not sufficient cause for
Mexico 10 declare war against us' Perhaps II may
be--perhaps not This will depend on various con-
alterations, both of fact and Of right. All we are
here contending for is, that annexation is not an
adoption of the war of Texas but at the worst,
ly the performance of an act which may possibly
give Mexico right to declare war against us.
OF the considerations which are to determine that
point, must be the judge on our side, and Next
co on hers; the general reason and conscience Of
mankind between us two.
II the preponderance of those considerations be
against us, then would the act of annexation be q
departure more or less decided, from the spirit Of
the treaty in question. If not, not.
So far as regards the letter of the treaty, it is not
at any rate violation of it. Texas, we repeat,
comes within the embrace of our existing peace;
precisely as, if the were reversed and we were
at war and Texas at peace, by coming into the
Union she would come within the scope Of our ex-
listing war
Before the country thus annhlated so far as re-
CARDS its sovereignty, merged itself by annexation
into the political being of another, the nation which
was then engaged in war with it may have had GER
tain grounds of quarrel, which it maintained by
force because justice was refused IT, by the imper-
feet moral imperfect intelligence of its OPP
ponent But it by no means follows that that refu-
sal of justice would be continued by the new and
enlarged party whose control the matter in dis
pute would thus become transferred. Texas by
herself, while Independent sovereignty, might
insist on certain grounds in her relations with Mex
ico which the Union, of which Texas would be-
come by annexation only small fraction, might
regard with very different eye. We by no means
intend to admit that in the instance of Texas there
was any injustice done to Mexico, which might per-
haps be corrected by the more enlarged views and
action of the Union. We give the statement of the
case in this form for arguments sake, only to make
the palmer the truth that annexation under such cir
cumstances is act of war, no adoption of pend
ing war--(even admitting anything resembling an
actual war to have been pending between the two.)
Even supposing Mexico to have been the object Of
any wrongful treatment on the part of Texas justify
ing war, the only effect would be that Mexico would
then have to address her complaints and her re-
CARNATIONS to the new party brought into the case
Perhaps they would be received in very differ
ent spirit than before. Possibly the equity of all
Mexico's demands might be recognised, and full
right done her in the premises. Perhaps it might
be by ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS by restoration of all
the territory in disputeperhapsb by renewed boun-
dairy treaty, with the Sabine again fixed the limit
Who knowsl The probability of such result as
the latter might not indeed be great; but how can
Mexico know even that, until she has tried-untl
Il. 81 tlo. IL IcI
ing treaty Of amity for the adjustment OF disputes
until she has asked and been refused satisfaction
arbitration And in regard to the former result,
what right has she to assume that ample satisfaction
would not be done her, by an appeal to the LIBERAL
ity and justice of our government and people-sat-
sfaction going perhaps to the full extent Of making
her rejoced and grateful for the bargain? 1t is very
certain that no small amount Of encouragement has
been held out to her to expect such disposition
our part, not only through manifold organs Of pub
lie sentiment but through distinct and direct over
lures of our government ITSELF IL would be time
enough for Mexico to think Of war--to fancy her
self aggreved at all by usafter having in vain APP
peaed to these chances of redress; especially when
she may read in her existing treaty with us such a
provision as the following:
"If(what cannot indeed be expected) any of the
articles contained in the present treaty shall be vo-
lated infracted in any manner whatever, is stp-
uated that neither Of the contracting parties will or
der authorize any acts of reprisal declare
against the other on complaint Of injuries daA-
ages, until the said party, considering itself offended
shall first have presented to the other statement of
such injuries or damages, verified by competent
proofs, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and
tho same shall have been refused or unnecessarily
delayed"
This line of reasoning, not the less just and sound
because it may be nice and strict disposes satisac-
torily Of the Mexican argument the ground the
treaty of amity, commerce and navgation-so far,
at least, as we have carried the reasoning. II remains
then TO examine these considerations of fact and
right, on which must depend whether annexation
is, or is not, departure from the spirit of that
treaty F
And these hinge mainly on the question of the
legitimacy and completeness Of the independence Of
Texas. If Texas is NOT really and truly indepen-
dent but bears towards Mexico the relation pretend
ed by the latter, of merely insurgent province,
Justly liable to reconquest, and probably about to
be reconquered then annexation would be an act
Of aggression upon Mexican territory, such as TO
Justify war. But if, on the other hand, Texas is
reallv and truly indenendent of Mexico sn as To