The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-10-21
MIR. Webster's Mexican speech-His third Pretext"
Executive War"


MIR. webster's speeCh-His third sPretext'-
Executive War"
From the commencement of the existing war with
Mexico until the present tme the leaders and presses OF
the federal party have abored with a zeal and perse-
worthy OF better cause, impress upon the
American people the belief that the President the
author Of the war; that he commenced it, by his own
act, for the base and unworthy motive of securing his
re-election that having been commenced by the Presi
dent, by his wanton and unauthorized act the
is unconstitutional; that Congress enacted lie" Ito
their "decent" phrase,) when il voted that
existed by the act of Mexico that Mexico is the wrong
ed and injured party; and of them go far to
say that we should make reparaon to that injured ma
ton for the wrongs have committed upon her This
has been the constant caor of the federal press since
the began the burden of the speeches OF the
advocates of Mexico in Congress, some OF them being
the very men who voted this "le" which they now so
vehemently repudate and it the burden Of good
share of Mr.. Webster's speech at Springfield.
To apply of the expressions of his speech to
himself-nutdtis misunderstanding what should be
changed-tha eminent advocate of Mexicothe most EN-.
nent certainly of all that belong to Mexico in this coun-
ty-so eminent that if Mexico not foreign power,
would strike rather oddly that Mexico does not belong
to him. rather than he to 1fercowe mean OF course,
Mr. Websterhas, in his 'pron,ns iaaento, pronounced
Springfield in behalf of that government declared that
the unconstitutional in its orign"-that it
"a OF pretexts"-that it was an Executive war
that "the Executive Chat Isl the PresidenD plunged the
government into the and undertook Justify the
three "preexs" which this Mexican apoogist speccal-
y assigns and sets forth in the aforementioned "pro-
,sunciamento." Two of these professionally, the
claims of citizens upon Mexico, and her refusal to
receive minister-we have already proved to be mis-
representations and calumnies deliberately uttered mas
much Mr.. Webster pretended to refer to "facts and
circumstances" in proof of his allegations The "pre-
text remaining to be considered Isl the assertion of the
President in his message of May 18th, 1885, that
Mexico had invaded the territory of the United States,
and 'shed American blood upon American SOIL" thus
causing war to exist by her act To this averment
Mr. Webster in behalf of Mexico, puts in the plea
OF "not guilty." rendering the issue with flat
tradcton of the assertion of the President in the
following words: ''Now, in my Judgment this 1.-THE
invasion of territory, &c] is not the case" Pa
Tedes Santa Anna could not have been more direct
and pointed Mr.. Webster proceeds to say that the
march of the troops to the eastern bank of the Rio Gande
the occasion OF the sping of American blood, and
that territory claimed by Mexico Mr. Webster asks,
Was that American soil ," and adds That was soil
claimed by the United States but which Congress had
recognised 1t claimed by Mexico as firmly
The city Of Mexico ITSELF and at that time, in the
actual possession of Mexico" And he draws the
cusion that the invasion the part of the United
States that the President caused it, by marching the
troops without authority to the Rio Grande; that he,
therefore, originated the war, thus making it an uncon
sttutional Executive war !" and that Mexico stands
before the world, in regard to this NATTER justified and
with hands clean. This is the argument of Mexico's
great special pleader and advocate in this country.
The justification or culpabty of the President and the
truth fasy OF Mr. Websers charge depend upon the
single question: arheer not the territory of TEXAS er
tended to tie Rio Gyande? In discussing this subject
waive for the present, the question whether not
the grew out Of the annexation OF Texas The Pres
ident not responsible for that 1t the act of
Congress; and if annexation caused the war, Congress
, the author Of it, and not the President.
The true question: then, is, did the territory of Texas
erend to the Rio Grande? Because, if it did, having be-
come, by annexation of the sovereign States of the
Union, the President bound by his constitutional OBJ
legations to defend from invasion, and of course had
the right to occupy any part of it with the troops of the
United States whatever might be the consequences re-
sulting from such occupation.
In the first place, will consider the effect of the act
OF annexation Before that took place, Texas had
passed law defining her boundary and according to
that law, which was declaration OF her claim to the
whole world. her territory and jurisdiction extended to
the Rio Grande Claiming the Rio Grande for her boun
Diary with Mexico, she treated with other nations enter
ing into relations of amity and with them and
fin, lily agreeing to compact of annexation with the
limited Safes. The Congress of the United States, of
course in the act of annexation, took Texas as
she claimed TO be- with her dominion extending to the
Rio Grande This government was therefore, in good
faith to Texas bound to presume that her limits thus de-
fined were her true limits until the contrary should be
made to appear and to defend and maintain her domn
ION and authority within those limits and, as the chief
executive officer of the Union, this duty fell upon the
President In this view of the question, therefore, is the
President justified If any person body is in fault it
as Congress ITSELF which failed, before passing the act of
annexation to ascertain precisely what the rghtfu
limits of Texas
But we do not rest the justification of the President
upon this ground We contend, and will endeavor to
shesy, that the territory Of Teras did rghuy and detu
ally extend TO the Rio Grande; and that, after annexa
ton that portion of it between the Nueces and the Rio
Gande being a part of of the sovereign States OF
this Gaon the President had the right only send
tho ,ro,ns of the United States there but II mas his con-