The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-11-04
For the Union.
THE WAR AND TIE OPPOSITION TO or IT


another the subject involving national principles and
duties, which although we'll illustrated in your own
editorial columns, may perhaps Jusufy, or at least
excuse some further remarks from your cOrrespon-
dent. arm tempted to the task by an inclination to
touch upon little Of our pAal history full as much
TO say anything the present posture Of affairs,
In the National lnelIigeucer Of the 10Th Of Octo-
Der, there is editorial article running In part thus:
"The Executive must employ soma other argu-
rnent to sustain the policy of Its war against Mexi-
co, than resort to our arguments IN favor Of the
war Of 1912 The official paper OF yesterday, with
amusing simplicity quotes an article Of the Ma
tlonal lntelligencer, Of August 1912 in defence Of
tie war with Great Britain TO prove what Why
that il was patriotic in 1879 10 support the war
for free trade and sailors rghts' against the
powerful Of nations, It Is unpatrioc IN 1916 to con-
denim a Of aggression iosIk one"
| cannot easily express the surprise with which
read these last words. WAR OF AGGREssIoSl
Who that remembers the flame kinded in England
some forty years ago, because a British sailor,
humble Jack Tar, was left upon the island Of Som.
brero; or that England was ready to 90 TO war for
an outrage committed upon the person OF another Of
her subjects, Jenkins by Spanish guarda costa;
the part she acted when refused 10 surrender up
Mcleod few years ago what rejecting person,
remembering more than these things and then
recalling the Of Baldwin, who was placed 10 the
public stocks in Mexico like felon, though yirtu.
Gus citizen, and afterwards confined in Oathsome
into prison at Diego, and subjected to eruees
under which one died, though they had committed
| no crime; or Of the Americans, twenty-one in num-
Der, treated thieves and robbers at Chihuahua
though equally innocent or the sending Of the sea
men Of our national sloop-of-war, Natchez, TO
prison at Vera Cruz, and barbarousy treating
them there, while the American consul, Bar
roughs, was menaced with like fate II he
interfered for their liberation or the case Of Mr.
Slacum, one Of our naval officers, whose pub
lie pagers seized, even while he displayed
| his passport from the government of the United
States who that considers only the foregoing facts
| all udically otherwise sufficiently established,
not taking others from the Uiy-ssptn Of Mexi-
can outrage upon American citizens in violation Of
the treaty Of 1881, authenticated in report from
the Department Of State; who, would ask, can
calmly weigh only the few Of personal wrongs
and national inffingements here recall, throwing
from the account all the heavy pecunary losses to
| American citizens and their families, (hough we
came near to war with France for nothing else
than not paying up five millions of dolNrs,) with
out thinking It passing strange TO hear at this tune
| of day, our against Mexico called A WAR OF
AGGRESSION
They teach in pathology, that Impressions long
continued on one spot lose the power Of exciting
sensation. When gentlemen SO enlightened as those
who conduct the lnteigencer, and whose patriotic
motives feelings It is part Of my design to inn
peach, speak OF thus war as one OF AGGRESSION,
driven to the necessity of inferring that twenty
years Of national prouoeaon acting upon their
sbties, must, according to the principle of the pa
biologists at last have deadened all Of that
| kind of proyocation. Had we, in the beginning,
| taken redress into our hands, as did France and
England with better knowledge Of the genius Of the
Mexican government and people than we have
| shown, we should have had no upon our hands
at the present day. Why Eugland, in 1893, COM
| PEELED, under threats from her naval cannon--her
| Jamaica squadron heing close at hand-the repay
| IN hera fhpn
bred thousand dollars, which the then Mexican func-
| tonary, Arista, had mprovidently and fapaciously
seized. England thought that ground enough
for coercion, well knowing Mexico. And so, If pe,
after the gross outrage upon Mr.. Baldwin-still
| more after the Imprisonment of tho seamen of our
national vessel--had promptly sent a strong squad
rem to chastise this vain glorious and pertnaciously
offending people, in the event of adequate and mme-
diate reparation being refused all would have been
well now; and least of all, should we have had any
difficulty about Texas Such a course, taken at the
proper time would have insured her acquiescence in
that national transfer when the ripe day for after
wards arrived; Just as, lot it be incidentally said
Sir Robert Peel, Lord Aberdeen, Lord Palmerston,
Mons. Guizot, and all statesmen in Europe, have
since acquesced in it fairly conformabe to the
code of nations, whatever their contrary ishts at
first; and acquiesced in it as an international
act favoraby characterized by the wholly voluntary
nature of the transfer on both sides.
| So much, only, as matter preliminary, am not
going into the long story Of Mexican WRONGS.
These are now abundany understood through full
discussion and irefragable proofs, some Of which
include solemn treaties, to which Mexico herself
was party. What desire 20 do on this occasion
is, to deal with different part Of the nelligencers
dialectics. 1t is that part which would fix demert
upon those who, in 1919, opposed war with Eng
| land, "the most powerful of nations" for Stree
trade and sailors rights" and claim as mertorious
the conduct Of those who, in 1916, oppose war with
Mexico as one Of aggression upon ,oeak nation.
| regard all sound ideas as here transposed. By
my reasoning, merit and demerit should be made
to change places. | hold the lntelIigencer's doc
rine to be full Of error 1t strikes at public prin-
cples long recognised, and at high names; and may
| thence deserve momentary analysis. For my
own part, can imagine grounds, and patriotic ones,
for opposing the war with England; but none, be-
yond. party. grounds, for opposing this war with
but knew then, as do now, great numbers in that
| party---not merely patriotic, but also highly
enlightened men; and desire to do them passing
act Of historical justice. 49, - Nv
There were two classes Of federaliss at that era
LIST those who opposed the war, tooth and nail, UNI
der all views They prononnced It unnecessary, un-
just, and wicked. These, If they did not justify
Eng land in all her wrongs, were led on step by
step to palliate them-even to the inlpressment Of
our seamen; and it is due even 10 these persons,
and to the whole case, to say that England never
claimed to take Americans out of our ships, but
such. In regard to the excuses which they we're
also ready TO frame for her numerous captures of
our merchant vessels, it must be owned likewise
| by those who remember along with other things,
the celebrated English pamphlet called "War in
Disguise or the Frauds of the Neutral Flag" writ
ten by Stephen, that all the captures were not
wrongful OF this class Of ou-and-out federalists,
| will say no more than that their own subsequent
change of opinion has probably, in most cases,
brought sufficient Of regret if not condemnation,
at the course they pursued There let it rest
But, 2dy, there other federalists who, though
opposing the war, did not deny its just causes, but
took post upon its nexpediency. They said that,
great as might be our wrongs, an attempt to redress
| them by war at that time against nation of Eng
lands vast power, was unwise; that our wrongs
had been almost exclusively suffered upon the ocean,
where we had large commerce at stake which
would be at once destroyed by the nnemy that both
| by sea and land we were uuprepared, and exposed
/ an immense sea-coas MS well as interior frontier to
L taa., r. Al. 4 u