Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1846-12-09

'OIIi'oTy VI the Oulteu safes was bound
ed by the Nueces. and everything bevond
that was in the actual possession of Mex
| lco"-all this is very remarkable; not be.
cause 1t shows (what was known hefore)
that Mr.. Webster, for party purposes, can
go any length in opposing his countrv's
war, but because it shows that Mr.. Web.
ster is willing to stand up in Faneull Hall
and makes assertions which half the
school boys in the country well known to
be destitute of any foundation in truth.
"The Nueces The boundary of me Tex
an republicE Everybody knows tn 1t, by
her organic law Of 1886, coevaI with her
declaration of independence, Texas fixed
for her boundary, not the Nueces, hut the
Rio Grande. 1t is just as we'll known
that among our own statesman, M. JEFF
ferson, Mr.. Madison, Mr.. Monroe, Mr.
Adams, and Mr. CLAW, in state papers
over their own signatures, proclaimed the
Rio Grande, and not the Nueces, to be
the boundary of Texas. 1t is just as we'll
known that Santa Anna, the Mexican die.
tator, stipulated bv the treaty with the
Texan government, IN 1887, that the RIO
Grande, and not the Nueces, should be the
boundary OF the Texan Republic.
"Al beyond the Nueces in the actual
possession of Mexicow Who Is ignorant
of the fact that, before our army moved
down to the Rio Grande, "all beyond the
Nueces," as far rs the Grande, was a con-
gressIonaI district OF the United States-
was actually represented at the beginning
of the war in the Senate of the United
States, while its representative in the
lower house was fastening to his post?-
Who is ignoran: that this region between
the Nueces and the Rio Grande (Which
Mr.. Webster claims to have been in the
"actual possession" Of Mexico) was de-
clared by Congress a revenue district of
the United States, with United States
custom house and United States colec.
tor there, to collect the revenues? If Mr..
| Webster will perpetrate speeches which
are outrages on all patriotic feellng-if he
really will speak in Faneuil Hall as if he
were the retained advocate of the Mexi.
can government-we trust that, in future,
he will take some little pains to study al
least the outlines of his case.
But in the above extract Mr.. Webster
apart from the general blunder of tax.
ing the side of Mexico against his own
country-falls into another more specific
mistake, which betokens the extreme has.
tiness of his preparation to appear for
his new clients With view To show the
"iIlegal character" of the war, he says in
reference to the advance of our army from
the Nueces to the Rio Grande, "because
the Mexicans resisted this encroachment
upon their soil, we have nert the prcCtd-
nation of the President, that war exists
between Mexico and the United States +"
This brief narrative leaves out of view
one fact intervening between the advance
of our army anh the Presidential prncIa.
nation, which fact, as an acute lawyer,
Mr.. Webster might really be expected TO
notice. The fact is an act OF Congress
expressly recognizing and legalizing the
! war, and appropriating men and money to
carry it on. The next day after this ac
T was passed and approved, came the pro
, clamation of the President. We hope
Mr.. Webster will, in view of this fact, re-
t model his legal argument a little-unless
: indeed, he may think it easier to make e
3 new one altogether. AS it stands, hi:
S statement is discreditable to his accuracy
r without rejecting any honor at all on hi'
j. patriotism.
In the Judgment of Mr.. Webster and
apparently of his federalist audience, the
defence by the President of the country
, between The Nueces and the Rio Grand.
}, from MexIcln invasion. vas an ''impeach
e able otfenre!" We hold this sentiment ~
s before the country as a specimen of tn
J. reckless and rabid spirit with which tn
i federal party, at least in Massachusetts
i. are now ralIying Il shall rot oe our FAM
;, if those shameful words, as spoken by Nj
}. Webster and .cheered by bis audience, arr
e soon forgotten. We will hold them up !
(, that universal and unmitlgated execratIol
), and con- empt, which their unequalled al
!, dacity richly deserves. In view of thl
G language we will waste no words on III
n argument Of boundary question. ia.
}, two facts in the case are wanted to set /
, a light hideously clear The whole airorit
v of Mr.. Webster's declaration The r.
lr Grande was prima facie our boundary.
g 1t was so by the law of Texas, by the st
)" pulations Of Santa Anna, bv the uniforl
e tenor eff our old diplomatic claims, and Il
n our own recent end repeated laws esta
r. fishing on its banks congressional an
Ne a revenue district In this state of fact
Mexico spurned our offered negotiatio
10 announced her purpose of war in ht
Sc state papers, before our army had mov'
1T from the Nueces, and gathered her troo
I'd to invade and subjugale not part, but 4
e. whole of Texas. The President dete
rs mined to meet her, If need should be
iii the threshold. And for coming 10 this d