The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-13


THE REJECTION or OUR MINISTER BY MEXICO
A Boston journal quotes the following question
as addressed to us by the New York Commercial
| Advertiser
"Aiter all said and done why Ord not the govern.
ment fall IN with the humOr of the Mexican Pres-
dent, and give Mr. Sdell credentials as a simple
commissioner great many people are asking the
question, and the world will ask It hereafter; and We
should like to be ready with an answer"
Promising that this is query which may, in ouI
judgment, be safely left for answer to the common
sense Of any journal toIerabIy well informed as "a
the history Of our relations with Mexico, we viii
make such reply to it as common sense seems to US
to suggest
We say, that TO have commissioned our minister
to have settled only the Texan question with Mex
co, would have been proceeding wholly nugatory,
Inasmuch his mission would then have left open
other controversies on our part with Mexico, in,
VoVlng, most manlfestly, just cause Of war.
We say farther, that to have treated with Mexico
on the Texan question alone, would have been an
admission on the part Of the administration, that the
annexation Of Texas was wrongful act, while
every department Of our government and the voice
Of the country have decided the exact contrary.
This will appear at once, when It is remembered
that Mexico has always protested against the an.
ntrdtion Of Texas, and not agalns! any particular
boundary of Texas. Now to specially commission
minister TO treat with Mexico about Texas ercl,l-
siusiy, while many questions Of long standing are
open between her and the United States, would be
most manfestly to admit that she has a right to
complain Of annexation. We hold that Brazil has
just as much right to complain Mexico.
We say farther that, II all all this were otherwise
there has been no sufficient reason to believe that
our minister, # so specially commissioned, would
have been received by Paroles. Paroles got
the supreme power IN Mexico, on an implied pledge
TO the army that he would go to war. To keep this
pledge for his own profit he violated without scruple
the promise which Heueras administration had
made to in terms to receive minister empowered
to settle our dispute with Mexico. The war feeling
of the sodiery was so strong as to make even
Heueras administration look about them for
some bubble upon which, IN violation of their
faith, they could postpone the reception of our
minister, or refuse to receive him altogether
IL Nlt SpCNlal SpIIul'nlpu NlulDDlC Hau not Dten
found, some other would have been trumped up for
the purpose. Throughout the whole business, the
Mexican government was acung with us Just as 1t had
before acted with the English and French ministers
I'LL the Jamaica squadron and the French admiral
were ,lructed to take the matter in hand. IfHer-
rera had remained power therefore, It is altogeth.
er unlikely that Mr. Sldell would have been re.
"a ,,,k
Paroles got the power, the rejection Of our minister
in any event, was undoubtedly settled fact.
We say farther, that 10 send minister to Mexico
at all, was under the circumstances of the case, to
push pacific policy to its extreme limits. 1t was
to go farther than government would have been
fully justified in going with any leading nation in
EuroPe-with any power, indeed less entitled than
Mexico to a eonemptuous kind Of pity.
We say further, that to negotiate upon the Texar
question, independently of our long standing claims
upon Mexico accruing from outrages upon our cir
zens, would have been most gross and papabIe
injustice on the part of our government toward
those citizens.
We ssy, moreover, that to have specially COM
mssoned minister to treat upon Texas alone
upon that matter on which she had no right to COM
plaln-and so to patch up with her hollow and
imperfect truce, leaving just demands altogether
unsettled would be at once to mistake the Mexican
character, and our own duty and interest. Such
course could not secure permanent and rightful
peace. That is our object. Mexico has been
very bad neighbor for twenty years. Such
haua do hn-
an intolerabie one. A different method is need
ed with her All nations have found it So
The reason is, is one word, that the Mexican gov
eminent, in its dealings with foreign powers, is
government which does not observe with any
toerabe sricness the laws and the restraints of civ
izatlon, save when she stands in sautary dread
of force. The true cause of our trouble wrh her
is that she thought could not be provoked. She
now finds her mistake; and when we make peace
with her again she will profit by her experience,
keep her promises better respect citizens and
let our merchant ships alone.
And say, the las, place. that, on the subject Of
annexation Mexico had no just claim to separate ne
gotation at all. We deny that Mexico has ever pos
sessed rghtfu authority Texas since the DISCO
In ton of the Mexican confederation. The short
lived dctatorshps, which have since that time in
succession plagued Mexico, have possessed no one
element of legitimate rghtful authority over the
Texan republic.
In giving these reasons why Mr. Slide should
not have been specially commissioned, we have laid
out of view the fact that our government sent min.
lister, as il toas agreed that minister should be Sent
and received. When that agreement violated
by Mexico, will the Commercial Advertiser assert
that it would have been proper or dgnifed pro
cee1ing for our government to issue a new commits
sion1 The New York journal has its answer now
We hope it will study the hereafter, at least
so much as to be "ready with it,"
Let us not deceive ourselves Let not those
editors who ask "Why not offer the olive branch
now why not stop the war ," deceive themselves.
As gentleman who knows the Mexican character
well, remarked to-day, awe must whip the Mexicans
again before they think of offering peace. The first
victories Of Taylor they may, in their absurd vanity