The Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1834-184?, 1846-12-14


in April, 1886, TO the present moment, Tex
as has exhibited the same external signs Of
national independence as Mexico herself and
with quite as much stability OF Government.
Practically tree and independent, ackowl-
edged as public political sovereignty by all
the principal powers of the world, no hostile
foot finding rest within her territory for six or
seven years and Mexico retaining for all that
period from any further attempt to re-estab-
lish her own authority over the territory, it
cannot but be surprising TO find Mr.. de Bon
can erga (the Secretary of Foreign Affairs TO
Mexico) complaining that for the whole
period, citizens of the United States, or its
government have been favoring the rebels of
Texas, and supplying them with vessels. am
munltlon and money, as if The war for the
reduction of the province of Texas, had been
constantly prosecuted by Mexico and her
success prevented by these influences from
abroad" In the same despatch, the Secre-
tary of State affirms that ''since 1887 the
United States have regarded Texas as an
independent sovereignty, as much as Mexico
and that trade and commerce with citizens
of a government at war with Mexico, can
not on that account be regarded as an in
tercouse by which assistance and succor are
given to Mexican rebels. The whole current
OF Mr.. de Boncanergra's remarks run in the
same direction as if the independence of
Texas had not been acknowledged. 1t has
been acknowledged was acknowledged
in 1886 against the circumstances and pro-
tests of Mexico; and most of the acts of any
importance, of which Mr.. de Bancanegra
complains, flow necessarily from that recog-
niton.n
He speaks Of Texas as ssill being Gan in
tegral part Of the territory OF the Mexican
Republic" but he cannot but understand that
the United States do not SO regard it. The
real complaint of Mexico, therefore, is in
substance, neither more nor less than COM
plant against the recognition of Texas in
dependence Il may be lhoughlra Their late 10
repeat that complaint, and not quite just TO
confide il to the United States TO the exemp-
ton of England, France, and Belgium, un-
less the United States having been the first
TO acknowledge the independence of Mexico
herself are to be blamed for setting an ex-
ample for the recognition of that of Texas"
And he added, that the constitution, public
treaties, the laws cblige the Presidentto re-
| SdIu SAdS uS oil luuCJCDuCut ototO, anu Ito
territory as no part of the territory OF Mexi-
coz Texas has been an independent State,
with an organized government, defying the
power of Mexico TO overthrow or reconquer
her for more than ten years before Mexico
com menced the present war against the Uni
ted States, Texas had given such evidence
to the world of her ability 10 maintain her
separate existence as an independent nation
that she had been formally recognized as
such not only by the United States, but by
Sc veral of the principal powers of Europe.
These powers had entered into treaties of
amity, commerce and navigation with her.
They had received and accredited her min
listers aud diplomatic agents at their respec-
tive courts. and they had commissioned min
listers and diplomatic agents on their part to
the government of Texas. If Mexico, not
outstanding all this, and her utter inabili-
ty to subdue or reconquer Texas, still stub
bornly refused to recognize her as an indie
pendent nation, she was none the less so on
that account. Mexico herself had been re-
cognized as an Independent nation by the
United States, and by other powers, many
years before Spain, of which, before her re-
volution, she had been colony, would agree
to recognize her as such; and yet Mexico
was at that time in the estimation of the CT
vilized world, and in fact, none of the less
+ an independent power, because Spain still
t claimed her as colony. If Spain had con-
tinued, until the present period that Mexico
was one of her colonies in rebellion against
her, this would not have made her so, or
, changed the fact of her Independent exis-
tence. Texas at the period of her annex
alton to the U. S., bore the same relation to
Mexico that Mexico had borne to Spain for
many years before Spain acknowledged her
, independence, with this important differ
ence,-that before the annexation OF Texas
, to the United States was consummated,
J Mexico herself. by formal act of her gov
, ernment, had acknowledged the indepen-
dence of Texas as nation. 1t is true, that
in the act of recognition, she prescribed
canditon which she had no power or author
ity to impose, that Texas should not annex
herself to any other power, but this could
not detract in any degree from the recogni-
: lion which Mexico then made of her Aactual
independence. Upon this plain statement Of
a facts, it is absurd for Mexico TO allege, as a
n pretext for commencing hostilities against
i the u, States, that Texas is still q part of
;. her territory.
a But there are those who, conceding all
e this to be true, assume the ground that the
h true western boundary of Texas is the Neu-
n ces, instead of the Rio Grande; and that
e therefore, in marching our army to the east
bank of the latter river, we passed the Tex
h as line, and invaded the territory of Mexico.
= A simple statement of facts, known TO ex-
ist, will conclusively refute such an assump
ton Tens "a coded to the Il Sfnfes hx