Jeffersonian Republican. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1840-1853, 1847-09-16
FAC testimony of a Dem 0crat "a against
the War with Mexico.


+ In Brownson's American Quurterlv Reuie,
: Tor the month Of July, lS47, the editor appears
TO have conclusively proved that the war will
Mexico is unoalled for, impotic, and unjust,
Mr.. Brownson is known to WELD powerful
pen; ne has been for many years considered
as no mean champion of Democracy; in sup
port oil which he obtained considerable ceIebr
~ while editor of the Democratic Review.
He Is still the political friend of The President
and an adherent of the party by whom he was
elected II was, therefore, certainly no, to be
expected tha, such man, in such a po.ition
would so completely demolish every arpumen,
advanced by Mr.. Polk and his friends in SUD.
port OF the present war; as Mr.. Brownson has
done. He has thus, voluntarily, rendered a
service to truths, for which the Democrats will
never forgive him. Blu, we will allow him TO
speak for himself:
For ourselves, we have regarded the Mex
| ican war from the frs. as uncalled for, impo j.
tic, and unjust We have examined the doc
umenls published by order of the government, ;
we have read the official defence Of the war in
the last annual Message of the President 10
| Congress, and with every disposition TO find
our own government in the right; but we are
bound 10 say, that our original impressions
have been strengthened rather than weakened
The President, undoubtedly, makes it clear
tha, he had many just causes of complaint a.
gainsi Mexico, which at the time of their oc-
currence nigh, have justified reprsals, perhaps
even war,-bu: he cannot plead these in justi-
fica,ion of the presen, war; for they were not
the ground on which we professed to engage
in it, The official announcement of the Pres-
Il sha oJ,,. ,oJ
between the TWO republics, by the act of Merico
herself, and whatever use we may make OF old
grievances in adjusting the terms of peace, we
can make no use Of them in defending The war.
We can plead in lis defence only the fact on
which we grounded il, namely, war exists by
the act Of Mexico herself. But unhapply, a.
the time Of the official announcement, war did
not eriSt between the two republics at all, for
neither republic had declared war against the
other There had been collision of their for
ces, bu, this was not war, as the President,
would probably have conceded, had he known
or recollecled The distinction between war
and hosiililies. BY placing The war on the
ground that it existed by The act of Mexico, and
that ground being false, he has left it wholly
indelensble, whatever the old grievances we
may have 10 alledge against Mexico.
The act of Mexico in crossing the Rio
Grande. and engaging our troops on territory
which she had possessed and still claimed as
hers, but which we asserted had, by recent
act against which she had protested. become
urs,-the act which the President chose to in
form Congress and the world was war-may
or may not have been just cause for declaring
war agains. her, but II assuredly was not war
ITSELF We have no intention to justify Mexico
She may have been decidedly in the wrong !;
she may have had no valid title TO The territory
of " hich The President had just taken military
occupation; that territory may have been right
fully ours, and i. may even have been the duty
Of the President 10 occupy and defend ii; but
il cannot be denied that she had once posses
sed il; that it was still part Of one of her
states or provinces that she still claimed il /;
and had continued 10 exercise jurisdiction over
II, ,ill driven from il by our army of occupation !;
that she invaded il with an armed force, if in
yason il can be called, noi as territory belong
ing 10 us, but as territory belonging TO her; and
that she attacked our troops, not for the reason
that they were ours, but for the reason. as she
held and she had as good right 10 be judge
in her own case as we had in ours, tina, they
were in,raders, ,respassers on her soil. The
motive of her act was not war against the Uni
ted States, but The expulsion of inlruders from
her own ierrrory.
No sophistry can make her act war,-cer-
iainly no, without conceding ,ha, our act in Ia
king military possession of that territory was
also war; and if that war, then the war, if it
existed at all, existed by our &C. and not by
hers, fer her act was consequent upon ours.
The mos, lha, The President was at liberty to
say, wiihou, conaemning his own government,
was, thai there had been collision of the for
ces Of The two republics on territory claimed
by each but this collision he had no right 10
term war, for every body knows that il takes
something more than collision of their re-
spec,ive forces disputed territory 10 con-
situie war between two civilized nations.--I
IN no possible point of view was The an
nouncemen Of the Presiden. that war existed
between The two republics. and existed by the
act of Mexico. correct 1t did not exist al all
or if il did, IL existed not by ac, Of Mexico, but
by our aci In either case, the official announce
men, was false and cannon be defended
The President may have been governed by
patriotic motives be may have felt hat prompt
and energetic action was required; he may