Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-02-05
E,,r he Enquirer
FW NC IS''f
rur MEXICAN WAX.
manner.

.,,:a ,rar unsuitable on The part Vi 'ns
', erh;s NAV well appear 10 he s''a"ee
''a'es - vrw of the circumstances uuus
q"ea ;. .n,s ,snup. Yet such ale The rane'' 'aN
.:... If marty. that ii is sill sutlec' VI W
Pr -, The country. To ask ms q"esioi'
0"'S lace than 10 ask whether the America"
nsonIe should permit their enemies " 'n' Aoe MN
no,n,rv and shoot them down "hnou'
| 49, Mcxico commenced this war, oy tue se'1 '"e'
a,sa,a;ng her troops into the territory oe'"een
Woes and The Rio Grande, and there attack
~; WV onr army. The disputed territory between
,hs.s rivers was certainly invaded, and Mexico
.a-,o;n,v began the war in that territory by al
.e a,.;nn onr army. Now if that territory was
"nrs hen The case is made out that our e''emles
ous' o,,r couuiru, and there made lcar upon us;
"a 4 snch was the case, then by The fIst instinct
M our nature, by the avs OF reason and OF ma
inns we we've bound 10 fight. How then can II
| be commended that The sin ol TINS war lies d. our
door 2 h,,,roan ,hose
r;re,s i moi ours, Cor is al least dspuied,) and
therefore, that we had no right 10 lodge our army
mnon II that we improperly provoked The war by
sending our army into that territory before ihe
question of It's ownership was settled; and mat
| however necessary il was 10 resist Inc enemy
when actually assailed, il was improper 10 adop
The measure which led to hosiilities. Now was
that territory ours, or was u mol LIE. Us eAd
mine: We made Treaty with Texas, as an in
dependent nation Texas claimed, and was IN
nossession OF the disputed country between the
said rivers. al the date Of ha, Treaty. BY that
Treaty Texas conveyed the said disputed coun-
try 10 The United States and II was reduced 10
nossession by the United States accordingly.
| Thu, Texas conveyed and gave possession ofthe
country in dspnic 10 The United STATES IN sucn
case what say common sense anu inc Seueial
practice OF mankndl Ii a sells 10 b tract OF
land and delivers possession, and Z claims tne
nronerv who keeps the land until thu question OF
ownership is seuledl Why 3 certainly keeps H.
and exercises all the rights Of ownership over u
until iii ever il hapnens) the right 10 do so Is adj
Judged against him. In other words, me lana
belongs 10 A, until better Title Is SHOWN oy
another. Now This rule OF common sense
is just as obligatory between states as De-
tween men-and, therefore, il must follow mai
The United States had The right, from and alter The
treaty OF annexation with Texas, 10 exercise all
acts Of ownership over the country in dispute BE-
tween the said rivers; it was hers and she could
OF course send her army 10 any part OF II she
pleased Asain-Texas claimed The country IN
dispute as an integral part Of her lerInoyi ana,
| Therefore when we treated with her Government
for Texas. we treated for The disputed territory
i
ed ALL and BY our own &C, lot treaty. We acknow-
ledoed the reciprocal obligations between our
Federal Government and every par! OF Texas
We had no Iiaht 10 exc .ude from our protection
(aller that treaty. he particular district OF Iexas
IN question here, more Than a. or any DINER part
of Texas Why should we? Because MEXICO
claimed il If for that reason, lhen we snou!a
abandon al! Texas; Tor Mexico claimed and sti
claims the whole If il. All International nego-
\ ho hadh nf
IN fact, for obvious reason; and though, when
| contracting States take under contracts Which
| they make they must take subject 10 he rights o.
| third parles sill the possession must give Inc
| right OF enjoyment 81 The thing IN possession IN
I'll regular adjudication against that Ilsh'.-
Texas claimed all The country between these r.
yers, and conveyed il TO The United States ohe
had The possession OF il also; and her claim being
equally entitled 10 respect with that OF Mexico II
is obvious that her actual possession turned lh-
scale OF presumption in her favor. AND untIl
thai presumption is regularly rebutted IN ihIs az
in every other case The possession and enjoyment
must remain with the party having The presump-
live right Does il not appear then, clearly, 'hal
the u States had the right 10 dispose oil her army
in The said disputed territory as she pleased III
The Federal Executive had refused &c send 10
Texas The military aid that was called tor when
he did. and aay i'll conSt quence had resulted, whal
| excuse could ne have offered Ia his country T.
Could he have said that The district in question
was no, our territory lie could not; for our
own Federal Legislature had recognized II as
ours. and had extended her Government over ",
and il was mol competent 10 the Executive 10 nut
iiy The laws; but, on The contrary, it was his du.
Is 10 see Them executed In the acl coihpld'ncu
o. he performed that duly.
Thus then, it does manics,ly appear that The
lhxican oynp commenced ms mar W rnradtng
0ur lerriio,u ami mating nterc an offensive attack
upon our cuu@cns.
But il is insisted that Mexico is comparatively
feeble power and that il was incumbent on US,
therefore, 10 employ all peaceful measures iof
the adjustment OF difficulties between US, before
resonins to that ultima ratio reeunl"-the lriou-
nal OF war. Grant it: Andyet what peacetui e3-
Incident has not been resolled to by our Govern
ment 10 accomplish that most desiranle emu =
Our people have been for years The victims OF uh-
redressed grievances by Mexico. Their rights
have been violated, and they have been plumber
ed Of their property yel in the face Of lrea-
~ stipulalions reuibuion has Teen wilhhelo.-
, Ne have been menaced with war Tor treating
with an independent nation Our oHers 70 auJue'
matters of difference between us amcabiy nave
E hcen twice rejected and our Minister sent home
ONE grievance has followed another, from time
10 lime in almost uninterrupted succession, until
al last and in spite Of our generous and CHRISTIAN
y Iorhearance she has broken down the last barrier
OF reslrant-invaded our terrilory-and wage
asa'-et US an open war. Is il possible that, under
r. circumstances such as these any man who loves
his country can SIN say-torbear} II such is &c
be the character Of our Government then we may
$, as veil shut up The shop and burn The books y
:. We should, by adopting such principle, declare
u ourselves the football OF naions-the prey OF pi
1 rates and handful There is point in the pro
& gress OF aggression al which forbearance is nc
J, longer a virlue-and We are ever al that poin
D when our enemies are shedding the blood ol oul
: people.
: II has also been said, that the war was pro.
yoked-ha, we should 4, havf wilhhs slaaird for
.aua .ne aariiiisIment 81 ,lierences. This kind
D u argument may satisfy such as are determined
to be convinced that The war is wrong, but II does
] MOI seem adequate 10 The conviction OF an Impair
tial mind. The long series OF injuries previously
inflicted BY The Mexicans upon our people-thcr
omen threat that the annexation ot Texas would
result in wa. against The United States and The
evident intention OF The Mexican Government 10
, reject our Minister, were abundant ground 10 ap-
prehend war of invasion. This being So the
question arises, was il our duty 10 fold our arms
!, in imaginary security, and wall iorlhc MeXlcans
To invade our confines and commence their cpe-
raiions of murder aud "a pine upon our defence
less cilizens7 Or was il our duty, on the contra
~. to meet them al the threshold and repel lhenl
The history CT The war answers the question, and
fully i,,slilips the decision o The Government
Had we held of our forces, what might mol have
: been The consequences? Instead Of our holding
and terrifying Tor defence the Western district Of
Texas the enemy might have taken it-thrown
upfouhca,ions throughout its lenglh-and thus
have made our own country the scene OF war
an evil hard 10 be appreciated. Many Of our c-
items also mus, have persisted, and their property
i have been destroyed before assis ance could have
!, reached them. In such circumstances, could we
c believe they would do Us no harm And ifihey
pleased, what hincered them 10 do 500 In such
a case, how useless would il have been 10 remain
inac,ve wise man ioresees The evil thai is
coming, AMI provides against ii; but The fool lis
still and is destroyed. The formally of actual
invasion would have been strange requirement
/ 10 Justify preparation for war, when already the