Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-08-27
Friday Morning, August 81, ls47.
MR.. BRowNsoN AND THE WAR.

MR. BROWNsON AND THE WAR.
We have read carefully the reply Of the Wing
10 our article OF Monday, commenced on Wed
nesday and concluded yesterday. Alter dong
90 we see no reason 10 alter word We have
written. Indeed, the Wing fails TO meet the point
we were discussing. Mr.. Brownson had drawn a
distinction between state Of war and mere hosii-
ties, and accused The President ofu,terins oeiioe
rate falsehood in his message 10 Congress- stating
that war existed by the act OF Mexico, anu d.
serted that he thereby trampled on the risn's o.
CONGRESS, violated the Constitution, ana maze me
United States responsible for the war. In our re-
NV. we admitted the distinction between war and
hoslililies: but conlended that The circumstances
preceding and attending the attack on Lieutenant
Thorp,on's command by The Mexican army, were
such as 10 justify The President in believing 'ha'
war did exis, by the act OF Mexico. Ihat Inc
course he pursued did not interfere with the
rights of Congress, or violate The Constitution,
and that the United States were not thereby made
responsible for the war;
In discussing the first question, we admi''ea
that we could see, and admit The force OF tie rea-
sons urged Ia Congress TO the preamble OF The
bill placing men and money al'he disposal OF The
President; but we commended that The attitude
which Mexico had assumed, from the time Texas
was admitted into the Union, was such, that
the President might well believe that The
acts of General Ampudia near Ma'amoras
were authorized by The Mexican Govern
ment and constituted war. That this proved
10 be the fact, no one can question ''otr, though
some doubted il thsn. Ii was in This view
that we alluded 10 The withdrawal OF Gen. Al
monte and the refusal 10 receive Mr. Slidell.-
Not, as the Wing would make appear, 10 Justify
the advance of Gen. Taylor 10 Fort Brown and
prove that our soil was invaded. That is Dill
ierent ques,ion-one which did not arise IN our
review OF MIR. Brownson's article, and was mol,
therefore, discussed We do justify that advance
but we are in the habit of discussing one Thing
a, time, and therefore do not state, at The pre-
sent moment The grounds on which we justify IL
Nor is ii necessary, as our opinions on this POM
have already been laid before our readers. We
believe, 100 that the country between the Nueces
and the Rio C;rande is portion of Texas, and
consequently, of the United States. But this was
not made point in The argumen. presented oy
us on Monday, for the same reason. The Wing
Anuauer. takes ground on this matter ard speak:
at some length in favor Of the right OF Mexico
Its chief supper; in this is speech OF Mr.. Ben
ton. As the authority OF names is TO have
weight, independent of The merits of The question
we win cite against that of Mr. Benton those Of
HENRY Clav and Daniel Webster, not TO men.
ton Monroe, Adams and Pinckney, all OF whom
con,ended that The Rio Grande is The boundary
line between Mexico and Texas. Messrs Mon
roe and Pinckney said 10 the Spanish Go
vernment il was as clear that The Rio del
Norte was the boundary Of the country, ceded
by France in 1908, as tina; the United States
owned the island Of New Orleans. In 1916
MIR. Adams reiterated their language. Santa
Anna himself acknowledged the Rio Grande
as the boundary, in his treaty with Texas, when
he was prisoner of war. Mr. Benton proves
too much for The Wing. The first proposition
advanced by tina. gentleman was that the raif-
cation Of the treaty would be, Of ,tser war with
Mexico. We presume that The same principle
would apply to The joint resolution. Now, The
Whig says that MIR. Benton made good this as
ser,ion with so much success that it has no, TO
this day been coD,rovered. II il thinks so, how
can it say that Mr. Polk made the war, when he
was private citizen of Tennessee atIhc time the
war was made7 The inconsistency is plain and
palpab'e.
So much for the accusation that the President
spoke falsely in his Message to Congress, in
May, 1876. We now turn 10 the o'her question.
In doing so We have a, once TO ask how did the
Message OF the President interfere with the war
making power of Congress How did his de-
claration that war existed interfere with The Con-
s,i,ution2 And how did make the United States
responsible for the war; Admitting The decla-
ration 10 be untrue, how did il affect The powers oil
Congress, or the principles of the Constitution, or
the Justice Of The war; We say that il could moi.
We may he shou-ssh,ed, but we see no connec-
ton between the subjects The Constitution
makes il The du!y of the President 10 send mes
sages to Congress whenever the public interests
REQUIRE, and no matter what the messages con'ar
The powers OF Congress are not impaired, and TIC
Constitution is not violated. AS 10 the justice o.!
the war, that must depend upon The causes Of
war. Ifihey are sufficient the war is Just, no
matter how declared, or by whom declared. IL
cannot fail 10 strike any one as remarkably SIM
eular that the United States should be held re-
sponsbe for The war With Mexico, because she
did not declare war when a portion of her
troops had been slain and portion were held
as prisoners in Malamoras. No one pretends
that state of hostiliies al least Gid no, exist on
The Rio Grande. The destruction OF Thomions
command and the battles of the 9Th and 9h Of
MAY, we think, will establish hat much, il no
more. We know further, that The Mexican Go
vernmenl authorized General Ampuda 10 pass
the Rio Grande and attack our troops. This can.
no. be questioned. Then we have the fact con-
coded tina, state Of hosliles al least existed by
the act of Mexico. How then can lbe United
States be held responsible for The war, because
she did no, declare il in The usual form before
men and money were appropriated TO carry j, o.
,sAen Merieo commenced 10stilities BY attacking
our troops, Without declaring 'cor in any fern
.shatsrer, and se,v them aritoat so mach as gip'ns
them or their government notice Of he, intent,ons
in amy manner? lit was obligatory on the Uni
ted States 10 declare war when notified by the
events on The Rio Grande, was ii not much more
obligatory on Mexico 10 declare war betore she
authorized Ampudia 10 assail our iorccs2 Ger
tainly. The question admits Of no other answer.
How, then, can the United States be made respon.
sible for The war, when Mexico is The other party
0 the controversy The idea seems prepostcrous
No candid and impartial man can fail TO see The
palpable absurdi,y in which Mr.. Brownson has
involved himself in this matter. No one would
fail to see it, il there were moi some who are pre-
JUDGED against their own Government, and who
grasp eagerly at any thing which may justify
them in assailing the cause Of their country.
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE CERTAINLY
DEMOCRATICl
The following letter brings Us the pleasant i'd