Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-02-02

boundaries between this Government and Mexi-
co-and il it had, she could mol have claimed, IN
virtue OF the contract the benefit oil such admission;
and, in fact, Mexico has never claimed that this
contract conferred any rights and privileges upon
her. How, then, can il be said, that the removal
of our army from Corpus Christi 10 The Rio
Grande was The cause OF The war with Mexico,
By reason that in the contract OF annexation be-
tween The United States and Texas, il was ex-
pressly agreed that the State "shouid be formed
subject To the adjustnen, BY this Government OF
all questions of boundary that may arse with
other Governments" The very terms OF the con-
dition negative the idea that there were at M"t
time any unsettled questions Of boundary. The
removal of our army then violated no rights of
Mexico under tina, contract, for she had none
Nor can il be said that il was cause OF war, by
reason that there was any unsettled question OF
boundary between our Government and Mexico,
independent ofthis contract, for there was no such
question.
And is il not curious, then, that The reviewer
should ask by what authority Mr.. Polk "has IN
derlaken 10 settle this unsettled boundary ques-
lion, left open by Congress for adjustment by this
Government, and not seizure by The Presidcnl?"-
The President has undertaken 10 settle no CUES
ton of boundary between this Government and
Mexico-lor repeat it, there was not then and
is not now any such question 10 settle. be has
seized no terrilory-lhe boundaries Of which are
a0,c subject 10 adjustment between This Govern
ment and Mexco-for Mexico has made no
such question Of boundary. She has not recos-
nized the existence OF any dispute about bounda-
ries; and, in her view OF The matter, il would be
just as much an aggression on our part upon her
rights to take military possession OF Galveston
as of the banks OF the Rio Grande. And she,
A., III ,rdc IN IN
and unreasonable as To The other. And SD lar
as she has "made claim" The one is just as much
in dispute as the other. So far as she has al
mitled our title it is mol more clear Ia the Eastern
than TO the Western frontier or Tcxas-,o The
banks Of the Nueces, than 10 the banks OF the Rio
Grande. And the argument III The reviewer, them
That The removal Of our armv from Corpus Christi
10 the Rio Grande was 10 Mexico "casaS beHt,"
inasmuch as there were unsettled questions of
boundary between our Government and Mexico,
would have applied with The same lorce 10 lis re-
moval 10 Corpus Christi, or TO any other point
within lie recognized limits OF Texas.
The reviewer, then, is forced, OF necessity, 10
aba ndon his first ground, and 10 maintain, in The
second place. a proposition directly in conlradc-
ton OF the trsi-lo vii, that the position occI-
pied by General Taylor upon The Rio Grande
was within portion ol territory 10 which the
"riehls OF Mexico were indisput0tie, and 10 which
the Government Of the United States had never
SET up any clain'-and thai, therefore, the occn
patton Of that portion OF lerri,oiy, admitted, as he
says, 10 belong 10 Mexico, was 10 her good
cause OF war; and for which Mr.. Polk is response
Die, because lie had admitted that that portion 81
territory was greatly beyond The Western from
tier Of Texas, and had been recognized BY him
as Mexican territory, until lie had involved The
country in a war upon "po,nt NJ etiquette" and
the reviewer pledges himself that il he does mol
convict Mr.. Polk Of such admission and recosni-
lion. that he, The reviewer, is willing 10 stand
charged with giving "aid and comfort 10 the enc
my" Now We beg particular attention 10 The
reviewers proof and submit, il he has not in the
calm and unprejudoec judgment of every man,
who is canable oil deciding any question Of ''nemm
and tunm" between man and man, failed 10 make
good his charge. And il he has, shall not judg
ment be rendered against him upon his own con-
fesson, Of having given "aid and comfort 10 The
enemy?"
Now, il we were disposed 10 hold The reviewer
down 10 his promises and 10 he sllic, rules OF
evidence, We might very well object 10 his
claiming the benefit OF any confession oil Mr..
Polk Since he has seen til 10 impeach him as
.antro,thu Of credit, but give him The benefit Of
this confession and OF all The testimony which he
claims, and what does il amount to, and what is
the argument upon ii II is in substance this
that because MIR. Polk says in his message 10
Congress OF December, 1915, tina, he had, as a
precautionary measure, ordered an efficient
military force 10 be concentrated on the Hest
er,s frontier Of Ii1as," and the commanding Ge-
neral had, in obedience 10 that order, concen
lra,ed his forces al Corpus Christi instead OF
upon The banks OF he Rio Grande, that therefore
MIR. Polk admitted that Corpus Christi is upon,
and the banks of the o Grande greatly beyond
The "Western frontier Of Texas"-and so il is
the action of General Taylor al last, and moi any
admission deduced from The orders OF Mr.. Polk,
that has determined Corpus Christi 10 be upon,
and The banks Of The Rio Grande greatly beyond
the "Weslern frontier OF Texas" And there is
therefore Just about as much logic in The arsu-
ment Of The reviewer, by which he endearois TO
conria Mr.. Polk NJ a confession, that The Eastern
bank Of the Rio Grande is greatly beyond the
"Wesiern frontier of Texas" and within The
Mexican territory, as there would be 10 say, thai
because The Stale OF North Carolina is recognised
as being in the Southern division OF cur Union,
the State of Florida, which is three or four
hundred miles farther South, is out of The Union.
And so if Mr.. Polk, as precautionary mea-
sure against an invasion OF our country by Mex
leo, had thought proper 10 order General Taylor
10 concentrate his forces al some point in the
South Western portion OF our Union, between
the Stale OF Mississippiaand The river Sabine,
and the General had, in obedience to that order,
stationed his forces al The city Of New Orleans,
that, according to the reviewers logic, would
have been an admission on The part Of Mr.. Polk,
that the city of New Orleans was on The utmost
Southwestern limit Of our Union, and that the
State OF Texas was out OF il, and within the ter
rory Of Mexico, and OF course a removal oil
our army from New Orleans 10 Galveston would
have been monstrons nfraction OF The rights OF
Mexico, and for which she wonld have been
UNSUITABLE in Selling our soil and numbering our
citizens and for which Mr.. Polk himself would
have deserved impeachment al the hands OF an
American Senate. A very summary way this,
which The reviewer has Of disposing OF The Ter
ri DRY Of the United States, and lew more wars
would make far moIe dangerous havc oil our
territory than of The lives Of our citizens
But The reviewer attempts TO show that The Mes.
sage OF Mr.. Polk Of the llih Of May, 1876,
purpos ly ocntradcls his Message Of December,
1915. And in what does This designed and will
iul contradiction consist z II is-"Angels and
Ministers of Grace defend us !"-lhal those
words OF awful impou-"We>lern Frontier Of
Texas"-which, like The >hadowy Kings If Ban
quo's line, are continually disturbing the re
viewer better senses, are no where 10 be found in
the message Of The llth of May, 1876. This
omission is 10 be fatal, and is 10 stamp Mr.. Polk
with deception and talsehood. Now look al il.
The complaint is, that Mr.. Polk in his Message
OF December, ls45. says that he had "ordered
an efficient military force 10 be concentrated on
the Western frontier Of Texas while in his
Message OF The llh Of May, ls4G, announcing
the existence uf The war; he says that he had
informed Congress in his Message OF December,
l845, that he had "oIdered an efficient military
force 10 take position between The Nueces
and the Del Norte." Now the reviewer very
we'll knows, al least he ought 10 know from
the importance he attributes 10 il, lha, the
Western frontier OF Texas, il it have a
aocal habha,ion," is Somewhere between The
Nueces and the Del Note; when, therefore, Mr.
Polk says in his Message OF lS45, that he had
ordered our forces TO be concentrated upon The
"Wes,ern frontier OF Texas" does be not neces
sariy say that he had ordered them 10 take po.
silion between the Nueces and The Del Nore
But we are not leitlo speculation in regard 10 this
matter, for Mr.. Polk expressly says in his Mes
sage Of December 1915, that "our army was or
dered 10 take position in The country between the
Neuces and the Del Norle." Now where is the
contradiction
"Opiics sharp IL needs wern
-