Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1847-08-26

THE PRESIDENTIAL FALSE
HOOD.

OREsTEs A. BRowNsON, somewhat OF an &C.
centric in his religious gyratlons, and power
full reasoner and writer, when he discusses great
truths, has 4 long article in his last Quarterly on
the Mexican war" Mr.. b. is a democrat, and
has heretofore been a sc close communion" poll
tlclan of the Polk party; but he cannot endorse
the great Presidential talsehood that "war eX-
lists by the act of Mexico" or that it is Just
war. We give the extracts below:
For ourselves, we have regarded the Mexican
war from the first as uncaed for, lmpolitic and
unjust. We have examined the documents pub
lshcd by order of The government; we have
read the official defence OF the war IN the last
annual Message of the President to Congress,
and with every disposition to fluid our own gov
eminent in the right; but we are bound to say,
that our original impressions have been strength
ened rather than weakened.
"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 mad protested, become ours,
the act which the President chose TO inform
Congress and the world was war,-may or may
not have been Just cause for declaring war A.
gansI her, but 1t assuredy was not war itself
We have no intention to Justify Mexico. She
may have been decidedly IN the wrongs she
may nave no valid title to the territory of which
the President has just taken military occupation
that territory may have been rghtiully ours, aud
il may have been the duty OF the President to
occupy and defend it, but 1t cannot be denied
that she had once possessed it; that It was stlll
Il part of one Of her states or provinces; that
she still claimed it, aud had continued to eXer-
else jurisdiction over it, I'LL driven from It by
our army of occupation that she invaded 1t
with an armed force, if Invasion it can be called,
not as territory belonging to us, but as territory
belonging to her; and that she attacked our
troops, not for the reason that they wero ours,
but for the reuson, as she held,-and she had as
good light To be jadge in her own case, as we
had IN ours-that they were intruders, trespas-
pussers on her soil. The motive Of her act was
pulsion OF lntruders irom her own territory. No
sophistry can make her act war, certainly not
without concedlng that our act In taking military
possession oil that territory was war also; and
II that was war; then the war, If II existed at all,
existed by our act, and not hers, for her act was
consequent upon ours The most that the Pres
ldent was at liberty to say, without condennng
his owl government, was, that There had been
collision of the forces of the two republics on
territory claimed by each but this collision ne
had no right 10 term war; for everybody knows
that II takes something more than collision oil
their respective forces on disputed territory
10 constitute war between two ciVllzed nations
| In no possible poiut OF view was TIE announce
ment OF The President that war existed between
two republics, and existed by the act OF Mexico,