Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-02-05


war which Mexico has caused by The invasion @
our territory and 10 show that il is not "unjus
and unnecessary" nor one OF aggression on
weak and injured enemy" lie in substance say
that, as Mexico has always refused 10 satisfy In
Just claims 81 The citizens OF the United States
which Of Itself would have justified The Unite,
Sla!es in the eyes Of The world in declaring wa
against her, since war has been commenced bJ
Mexico, We will now take redress into our owl
hands, and make her pay her just debts.
"But," continues Querisi, this is not the only
instance in which the reasoning Of The message
seems, 10 my simple apprehension, loruous and
inapplicable. He Qhe PresidenD asserts that The
Rio Grarde was The ancient boundary OF Louisi-
ana, when held by France and afterwards BY
This country" Querls, then proceeds 10 arsu
that this fact has no connection with the question,
what are the present limits Of Texas? that this
fact cannot abish our claim 10 the Rio Grande
by virtue Of The annexation OF Texas; that the
United States resigned all their tile 10 Texas 10
Spain BY The treaty Of 1919; that Spain having
thus become undi.puted owner OF Texas, could
Law Of that country into such provinces and by
such bounds AS she thought expedient; thai she
assigned the Nueces as The Western boundary
Of Texas that The country between the Nueces
and the Rio Gfande was component part Of an
other State Of the Mexican confsdsracy, and hat
il is nha bilec BY MeIicans, who have always
remained sead!ast 10 The central government
Such is substantially The argument OF Quefisi.-
The Times admits, and Querst will not con,ro-
vert il, that the Rio Grande, al least near It's
mouth, was the Western boundary Of Texas
while owned hy the United States up 10 The ces-
sion Of 1919. But Querisl contends that Spain
changed the old boundary Of Texas on The West,
making il the river Nueccs. This IS lhina, an
assumption tina, cannot be sustained. IL is an
historical fat, thai as soon as Texas was aoancoh-
ed by the United States 10 the od;ons despotism OF
Old Spain. her citizens assembled in contention,
adop'ed plan OF government and dec!aled theni-
selves free and independent. Spain did no. fati!y
the treaty OF 1919 until sometime IN The summer
OF 1920 Immediately after the ratification Of
The treaty. Spain undertook 10 coerce the resisting
citizens of Texas into an acknowledgment oi her
sovereignty; but fortunately Tor Texas, Inc re,
bellion of the Mexican provinces, whicn nau
been temporarily quelled and smohered, again
burst forth, in the all oi 1920, all over Mexico ana
New Spain. This ensgosscd The whole aueh-
,icn of Spain and diverted her forces from Texas
Now, can il he supposed, tina, Spain, while
both Texas and Mexico were in state OF re-
volt, could ccoly and deliberately proceed
10 assign new boundaries and lay OH new provin.
ces while her sovereignty was not acknowledged
and her laws not complied withs Such pre-
sumption is too preposierous 10 be Tor Inoiheh
entertained. One II the Editors q The Times
seemed 10 have been aware ol ms ior IN an
editorial commenting on the message, he assert
that when Mexico became independent. lexas
was included in The revolt, and that, therefore, II
was compelen, icr Mcrico 10 assign 10 lexas such
limits as she pleased, regardless 81 ihe FORMER
boundary between The United States and spanish
/ - ,iaa did ASSIGN the
Nueces as the Western Boundary OF Texas
Now am sure tina, The Editor is too expert and
a,iroi dispu,ant, 10 have argued that Mexico
assigned the Nueccs as the Western Boundary ~
Texas whose right 10 10 il, he knew, wouu DC
disputed, could lie have proved mat SPAN ulu y,
whose right 10 do it, he knew, could not be dispu-
led. The Editor, then, commended That u was
competent for Mexico 10 assign whatever boun-
daFies she thought proper TO Texas, because, rs
he alleges, when Mexico became independent,
Texas was included in The revolt. bui does II
follow, that when Mexico achieved her lndepen
denc-, Texas was included2 The only ii9ht mat
Mexico acquired BY her revolution, was ~ me
country then known as Ire Vice Koyaily o. New
Spain, OF which Texas formed no pari: and ~ Inc
ac, II recognition oil Mexican independence by
Spain, there is language, (as am informed, J
that excl des Texas. Bui suppose that iexas
was included in the act recognizing me ln'epen-
dence OF the Mexican provinces II Is mahiics
that Mexico could not thereby acquire any light
In Texas, since Texas never was part, patcei or
norton oil Mexico, except as member ol 'he
conledcracy Of 1924. As The editor contends ina
il was The independence OF Mexico that gave her
right 10 Texas, il follows that in his opinion,
bsfo7c Mexico became Independent, she had no
right To Texas. II, then. Mexico had no rishI 10
Texas when neither had achieved lis Indepen-
dence. by what mode OF reasoning can u be SHOWN
that when both became independent, Mexico mao
more RICH, 10 Texas than Texas had 10 Mexicos
Mexico had then no more right TO assign any IL
yer North of The Rio Grande as The Western
boundary Of Texas, without her consent, Imam
Texas had In aS.ion some iivrr beyond ihe k,n
C;Iantc as the Eastern boundary Of Mexico, with.
out Ihe consent OF Mexico. Did Texas, then,
ever assent 10 The boundary alleged to have been
assigned her by Mexico on the West? We have
no evidence whatever Of il. But Il may De SAID
that the assent Of Texas was implied IN The iaci
that she allowed Mexico 10 lay off provinces in
the country between The Nueces and The Rio
Grande and did not openly claim the latter IL
yer as her Western boundary until 1886. now,
il Texas ever assented 10 the partition oil ner ter
rlory By Mexico, il was beyond all touht, upon
he implied condition. that whenever The provin
res Of which The territory between the Nneces
and the Rio Grande formed parts. should have
The required population, they should become and
remain members of the Mexican coniederacy.-
When, then, Santa Anna abolished the iedera
government, and established in lis place cenira
,iespotism, The implied condition upon which
Texas had assenlcd, Gf she ever did asscni,) Il
This parliun OF her territory, being 10 longer com
rIiei with, she very naturally il 1886, asserted
her rieh,lul claim 10 the Rio Grande, her ancient
boundary on the West.
"Querisl" having stated that the act Of tht
Texan Congress declaring the Rio Grande to b'
her Western Boundary, was mere nulliy, pro
ceeis TO comment on the Treaty with san'i
Anna, in Which he recognises that iIver as No
Western Boundary lie asks, "did not The Treaty
in question provide in terms Tor ratification ny
he Government OF Mexico H. focto? ana so,
NOT that ratification withheld e Here again
mus, "enishien The ignorance" ct "Querisi."
have eramned 'rhc Treaty. in question. and ran
moi find single article in il that provides IN Tern
,or ratification ~ Mexico. II Is not stated any
where in il, thai It's rat hcation by the Mexican
Government is essential 10 lis vaildly. aue-
ris;" next asserts that Santa Anna was incoHpe-
Ten, 10 make Treaty, because ne was IN duicss.
nm that cannon make The Treaty VOID, since u
was signed by five other Mexican Generals, VINO
were not prisoners; and admitting that Santa
Anna was in dnress, that does not impair The va
liiily the Treaty, since he acknowledged !. wheh
Al liberty In his letter dated July J. 1885, he
saws :"When Offered TO treat with TINS Govern
mcnr, (aluding 10 Texas,) was convinced tina, II
was US less for Mexico 10 continue The war
And General Vincene Filisola, who never was
a prisoner, in his despatch 10 hi Government
dated the 10th OF June, 1896, says: His Excel
lcncy Santa Anna, in my humble opinion, in The
treaties he agreed upon, and that had The honor
10 send your E.xcelency, acted with t'nue liberty
and had nothing more in view than the interest :"
his country" "Querisl" next asks, Gil not hi:
Treaty. s,ipulale the immediate release oil Santa
Anna7 and was he mol detained in captivity fol
u,onlhs after, and his lie oarharously threatened
in defiance OF is provisicns?" The 10 h hni
Gle of he Treaty "entered into between his TX
cc,ency David G. Burner, President Of he Re
public of Texas Of The one part, and his Excel
icncy General Antonio Lopez DR. Santa Anna
Plesdcn; and Genera!-in-chet q! the NJ. 1icaf
amy OF The other pari," is as follows "Genera
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sent c Vera
Cruz as soon as siaEbs dccmcd proief. The con
,acling parties sign The instrument Tor The atove
mentioned purpose. by duplicates, a, the por, 0
Vclasco, this fourteenth dag OF May, 1870. Does
,;s ,,;nn.ir far ihp immediate release" 81 Saflis