Wisconsin tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1847-1854, 1847-09-17

In s. Brownson's Quarterly Review :"
Tor the last month, Julv. I647.} the cdi.
tor argues that the war with Mexico is
uBcallcd for. imp.liic, and unjust. ;"
Mr.. BRowNsoN is known To vi I'D a pow
ertnl pen; he has been for many wears
considered the champion of Democracy,
IN support of which he obtained consider
able celebrity while editor of the " Dem
ocratc Review" He is still the political
friend of the President, and an adherent
OF tie party by whom he was elected. 1t
was therefore certainly not 10 be expected
that such man, In such position, would
undertake TO d"molIsh every argument
advanced by Mr.. Polk and his friends,
IN support Of the present war, as Mr..
Brownscn had done. He has thus voun-
.arIy rendered Il service 10 truth, for
which the Democrats will never forgive
him. But we will allow him TO speak for
himself:
L" For ourselves we have regarded the
Mexican war from the first as uncaled
for, impolitic, and unjust We have ex-
amined the documents published by order
of the Government; we have read the
official defence of the war in the last an
nunl message of the President to Con-
grcss, and with every disposition to find
our own Government in the right but
We are bound to say that our original
impressions have been strengthened rather
than weakened. The President undoubt-
eddy makes 1t clear that we had many
Just causes Of complaint against Mexico,
which at the time of their occurrence
might have justified rcprisals, perhaps
even war, but he cannot plead these in
justification of the present war; for they
were not the ground on which we profes
scd to engage in it. The official an.
nounccment of the President to Congress
was that war already existed between the
two Republics bytte act of Meuico herself;
and, whatever use we may make of old
grievances IN adjusting the terms of peace,
we can make no use of them in defending
the war. We can plead In its defence
only by the fact on which we grounded
Iit-namcly, war existed by the act of
Mexico herself. But unhappily, at the
| time Of the official announcement, war
did not eris. between the two Republics
at all, for neither Republic had declared
war against the other; there had been a
collision of their forces, but this was not
wlr, as the President would probably have
| conceded had he known or recolected
the distinction between war and hostili-
ties. BY placing the war on the ground
that it existed by the act of Mexico, and
the ground being false, he has left it Who'll
ly Indefensible, whatever old grievances
we may have TO allege against Mexico.
" 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
had protested, become ours = the act bv
which the President chose to inform the
Congress and the world was war-may or
may not have been Just cause for de-
claring war against her. but it assuredlv
was not war itself. We have no inten-
ton to justify Mexico. She may have
been decidedly IN the wrong; she may
have had no valid title 10 the territory of
which the President had Just taken mill
tary occupation; tn at territory NAV have
been rightfully ours and it may even have
oecn the duty of the President TO occupy
and defend it but it cannot be denied
that she had once owned it; that it
was still a part of her State. or Proyin.
ccs that she still claimed it, and had
continued TO exercise jurisdiction over it
until driven from it By our army of occu.
patton; that she invaded 1t with an armed
force, If invasion It can be called, not rs
a territory b 'ongIng 10 us, but as terrific
ry belonging 10 her and that she attacke ed
our troops, rot for the reason that they
were ours, but for the reason, as she held,
iand as she had Il ght TO be Judge in her
own case as we had in ours that they
were intruderS, trespassers on her SOIL
The motive of the act was not war against
the United States, but the expulsion OF
intruders from her own territory.
=" No sophlstry can make her act war.
certainly not without conceding that our
act in taking military possession of that
territory was also war, and, if that was
war, then the war, If it existed at all, ex-
listed by our act and not by hers, for her
act was consequent upon ours. The
most that the President was at liberty to
say, without condemning his own Gov
eminent. was. that there had been a col
lIsIon Of tine forces of the two Republics
on territory claimed by each but this
collision he had no right TO term war, for
very body knows that IT takes something
more than collision of their respective
forces on disputed territory to constitute
war between two civilized nations. In
no possible point ofview was the announce
ment of the President that war existed
between the two Republics, and existed
81 nl a I'd nt