The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-10-23

Hon. II. ID. JOHNSON, (Of Galveston Texas
CORNELIUS GLEN. for the State of New York.
Mr.: Webster's Mexican Decentralization OF Texas
the Mexican 'prctcxt" for tho War.-Mr Web
ster's Observation-Disclosures allen sympathIes,
In our article in the Union OF Thursday evening we
think established the satisfaction of every honest
candid and patriotic mind the positions that the territory
OF Texas extended to the Rio Grande that the most
ilustrious of our statesmen, living and dead conended
for the Rio Grande the true boundary of Texas that
Texas herself proclaimed the world in solemn act of
her Congress- that her boundary extended to that river
which claim was prima facie recognised by Congress
by the compact of annexation. and this government
thereby became bound in good faith to Texas to maintain
her dominion to that river until appeared that she had
no just claim to that boundary that Mexico herself had
admitted the right of Texas all the territory on this
side OF the Rio Grande; from which resulted the concu-
sion that the President as the executive power of the
Union, was under constitutional obligation to defend
the jurisdiction of the United States and of Texas to the
Rio Grande and therefore not only had right but was
bound to send the troops of the United States to that
portion OF Texas, threatened with invasion by foreign
power; that having sent the troops there and the latter
having been attacked and slain by the army of Mexico on
the soil OF Texas, the was begun by the act of Mer
ieo and not by the President constantly and falsely
alleged by the adherents and apoogss Of Mexico in the
ranks of the federal party in this country.
The question arises, Why did Merieo commit this
act Of rar against the United States We are not
obliged to go far for answer Her distinguished ad.
vocatethe generally retained advocate of all foreign
powers in controversy with this country(we particular
ly intend Mr. Webster)has given the pretended rea-
son. rather the 'pretert," on which Mexico waged
against That prstert acas the annexation of
Teras Mr. Webster himself says, s'that the fact was,
that Mexico did take offence at the annexation of Tex
as; and he afterwards alleges "tha the direct conse
quece of the act of nquy in the annexation of Texas
as the car in achch zoe are engaged"
Here, them is the ground on which war was wagea by
Mexico against the United States distinctly admitted by
Mr. Webster her leading advocate and apoogist in this
country That ground the annexation of Ieras, and
the march OF the troops to the Rio Grande as Mr.
Webster with his usual unblushng inconsistency in other
parts OF his speech alleges and every federal press
and public speaker sympathizing with Mexico traito-
rously eliminating and malgning the cause of their
own country, falsely allege.
We believe this admission of Mr. Webster to be the
truth We canddy admit that the annexation of Texas
was the preer which Mexico waged the present war
against the United States AS we remarked in a former
article when the measure of annexation was pending,
country, informed government that his government
would regard the annexation of Texas as casus bel
and when it accomplished he demanded his pass
ports and withdrew from the country which was a step
preliminary to war. The Mexican Minister of Foreign
Affairs, under the government Of Paroles, Mr. Castillo
Lanzas, in his letter Mr. Slidell dated March 70.
1916, (rom which, in last article on this subject we
quoted extractO also declared that his government
air IF - brJ.
declared to the United States adding and, as con-
sequence of this declaration negotiation was by its very
nature at an end and the only recourse of the
Merican government
Paredes Also made war with the United States for the
recovery OF Texasthe ralying cry in his assault upon
the government Of Herrera and ii was by thus stimulating
the pride and vengeance of the Mexican people that he
succeeded in overhrowing his rival. He accordingly
made preparations for He issued proclamaons an
nouncing that war existed with the United States He
raised armies, sent them to the frontiers of Texas with
orders to attack the troops OF the United States and one
of those armies did actually cross the Rio Grande and
make upon troops occupying posts this side of
that river Thus Mexico threatened war on account of
the annexation of Texas and did in fact make war for
that pretended cause We thus find that Mr.. Websers
assertion, conforming for once least the facts is
ruestrange it may after many misrepresena
tons of which we have convicted him.
We inquire, whether not Merico had anu Just
to rage against this country account of the
annexation Of Texas?
In order to determine the true answer to this question:
we have only refer to facts notorious to the whole
world In the first place. Texas was in fact, free and
independent She had noby conquered her independence
in the ever-memorabIe battle of San Jacinto, in May
1885, For nine years after that event. not hostile SOL
der OF Mexico had contaminated her soil with his foot
steps Mexico had by failing 10 attempt the subugaton
OF Texas, acknowledged her inability to her
volted province. The other nations of the world had,
therefore, the right to treat with her as nation alb
solutely and de jure free and independent They did
treat with her. The United States England France
and Belgium, entered into commercial treaties with
her During the period above mentioned she had
exercised all the powers and functions of an indie
pendent nation without hndrance or molestation bv
Mexico Other nations, therefore, had a right TO re-
gard the claim of Mexico sovereignty over Texas as
waived and abandoned. In this view of the subject
then, is this government justified in annexing Texas to
the Union.
But Texas was free and independent as we have be-
fore shown by the acknowledgment of Mexico Santa
Anna then President and dictator Of Mexico, after the
battle of San Jacno. acknowledged the independence of