The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-12-06

Il
other OF The aforementioned titles When negotiations
Tor peace have been conducted at place not belonging
either OF he parties unless general congress Of
have been chosen for the business, minister Ia
supposed to be always accredited to government"
| We have already exposed Mr.. Clays gross mssta,e
men "that Gen. Taylor ordered to the Rio Grande
| while Mr. Slidell was on his way to Mexico" Inexcu.
sable that is, it is perhaps less astounding than
these of MIR Galatians The wings unfortunate
in their manifestoes. The people will draw the natural
inference from these desperate and hopeless efforts ms
state the wing view of past and present Mexican re.
lations into something like plausibility!
With these specimens of the accuracy and rustworth-
ness of Mr.. Gallatins pamphlet before US, we call the
attention of our readers TO of his positions
Mr. Gaatn ayowedy rests all his conclusions as to our
present relations with Mexico, and present ghtfu
policy towards her. the view which he takes of the
annexation Of Texas. On this point his conclusions
Jump exactly with the Official declarations of Bocanega
and Cuevas of Herrera and Paroles, and with the equal
y explicit and more recent pronuncianento of Mr. Clay
Mr. Gallatin says that annexation on part WAR
not spiritual war;" Mr. Clay phrases it-but WAR-an
actual assumption Of and engagement in the between
Mexico and Texas AS if TO shut out all possible doubt
on this point, Mr. Galatn lays down the general a,o of
the question thus:
Nothing be clear and undeniabe than that
whenever two nations at war; if third Power shall
enter into treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive with
either of the beeeents and if such treaty contn-
gent and is TO take effect Immediately and pending the
war, such treaty declaration of against the other
party The Of the between the begerents
do not alter the fact Surprising that the third party the in
teering Power should have concluded the treaty a-
with that bellgerent who clearly engaged in
most just the treaty would be the less declaration
Of ioar against the other beHigerent
" If Great Britain and France war, and the Uni.
ted States into sIch treaty with either
there be the slightest doubt that h,s poud be tcar
against the other party; that voud be considered such
and that must haze been intended for that purpose? IT, at
this moment, either France England make such
treaty with Mexico, thereby binding themselves defend
and protect with all their forces against any other power
whatever, would the United States nstantaneously
piep such treaty as DECLARATION OF WAR,
coRDINGLY 7"
And now he brings the case of Texas far ,oitin his
rule in the following strong terms;
the annexation of Texas by the United States was
even than treaty of oGensire and defensive alliance.
embraced all the conditions and all the duties growing
of the alliance and it imposed them forever"
And further:
"But the annexation of Texas ordinary occur
most clear act Of nnpropoked aggression
deep and offensive injury fact, declaration Of
,car, If Merico had accepted it as such"
And again, in his "Recdptuiation:"
sit ndispuabe fact, that the annexation of Texas
then ,cith Merico, declaration of
and that the comparative weakness of Mexico alone
prevented its government from considering it such"
AT this point pause for moment to contemplate the
aacfM schism which rends the whig church in twain
this most vital and cardinal question: not of discipline,
but OF doctrine. We turn to the Springfield Platform
lately laid down with due soemnties by the wings Of
Massachusetts, in council-Mr Webster officiating in
chief Mncing no words upon the matter, he says:
81 THINK, IN FAIRNESS MUST ADMIT THAT
lSO al, A. and 49, Texas INDEPENDENT STATE
AMONG STATES DO NOT ADMIT,
THEREFORE,, THAT 1T WAS ANY JUST GROUND
OF COMPLAINT ON THE PART OF MEXICO THAT
THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED TEXAS TO THEM
SELVES"
Bear in mind, this is Massachusetts, The wings there
are in no jot Annerationists; what they admit-what
Mr. Webster at their head feels bound in honesty" to
admit in tacor of annexation, is, all presumption what
no man can deny, however much he wishes to do it.
Bear in mind oo that this Texas question is house
hold business" to Mr.. Webster. He had it with him
long time in the Stale Department. And now he comes
up judgment on it, and gives Judgment and he "knows
the lay."
But we return to Mr.. Gallatn and his doctrine that
the annexation Of Texas instead Of giving Mexico emo
just ground of complaint" was, part, most sun
provoked" "inurous," and "ofensive" "DEcLARATIoN
OF WAR" against Mexico IF MEXICO had accepted it as
such" We aver that she "accept as such" She
proclaimed, before annexation, that she would hold
nexation to be declaration of and an act OF war
and after annexation she announced that it ,cas war;
and that she should fight it out What says the record
on this point
Under date OF August 90, 1913, the Mexican Minister
of Foreign Relations, in the name OF his government
addressed TO minister in Mexico the following Ian
guage:
"The Mexican government will consider equivalent to
declaration of against the Mexican republic
OF an net for the Incorporation of Texas with the
tory of the United States the certainty the fact being
fcicnt for the proclamation Of Oar leaving the civilized
world determine with regard the justice of the cause
of the Mexican nation in struggle which has been
from provoking"
On the 18th of june 1874, just two months after the
signature by Mr. Calhoun of the treaty for the Annexa
ton OF Texas, Santa Anna then the President of Mexico
announced to the government of the United States "a
erico ras rcsolred again to undertake vigorously the
campaign against Texas, for hich she held IL, readiness
large army and further expressed the determination
OF Mexico upon the subject as follows:
"That in will she consent to dismember her
which may be necessary sustain her rights and that
nations do die, OF REooNquEnIse THAT
RrToRY CHILDREN AND OUR
CHILDREN; THAT THIS THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE MExicANs."
Ca Ar, fallD Hale