The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-03-20

tory has defnitiuey ended all hope of peaeeabe settle
ment Of the question. The Mexican government IN view
policy prudent than to await the final determination
OF the United States That determination, unfortunately,
doubtful; but in the time It was the duty
OF Mexico to be active IN taking precautions, and IN pre-
pairing for war"
And in referring the reasons for the rejection of Mr..
Sidel, the same paper remarks:
"The relations between the United States and Mexico
had been interrupted the representatives, OF both rePub-
hes had retired from their posts this state of affairs II II
be not one OF actual hostility Is certainly not one OF har-
mony, and such Immediately pecedes the commence
ment of hostites. But there rcas stall more than his:
the Mexican had declared with the assent OF
Congress, that the annexation of Texas to the United
States would be casus beii The annexation, neverhe-
less took place, and the situation OF the two countries
was substantially Zen toldo) situation OF war.
The reasons assigned by the Mexican government for
the rejection of Mr. Slidell frivolous. that
ardent opponent, in Congress, OF Mr. Pelks adj
minstraon, and of the Mexican war--Mr. Winthrop of
Observation-Disclosures compelled, by a of truth to
pronounce them insufficient and to declare that the Mex
lean government not UNSUITABLE in violating its
pledge, and rejecting the minister OF peace
The real and admitted cause of Mr.. Sdefs rejection
is one which, of ITSELF would abundany have justified a
declaration of part-that the government
could not venture TO oppose the wishes OF the people
How is possible to make peace with the government Of
any country possessing shadow of freedom if the peo
pie obstinatey bent war; If the had been
the reverse--if the Mexican government had been in
favor OF the war; but the Mexican people opposed to it,
we might have had sufficient hope of peace patiently
await change in the administration of their govern
ment. But while the people OF Mexico were clamoring
against and overhrowing successive administrations oil
their government because the not prosecuted
with sufficient vgor only hope OF peace consisted IN
bringing the people themselves to their by visit
ing upon them TO the utmost of ability the evils of
the war which they obstinately provoked and a.
m nceb No man who is nj the and
vanity of the people of Mexico, and is informed of the
occurrences that country subsequent to the passage OF
the resolution in our Congress for the annexation of
Texas, entertain any reasonable doubt that their
threats and preparations for hoslites would have
nued that they would have persisted in refusing to lis
ten any overures OF peace, however humby rendered
that their arrogance would have increased in proportion
appeared anxious to propltiae them their bold
in proportion to hesitation and that they would
eventually have attacked u.s. if troops had
crossed the river Nueces, and have attacked the
readily from seeming TO want the courage to it
Would not this state of things have been sufficient
for anticipating attack, provided that we had
given them Just for their contemplated host
ties? Were we bound TO be perpetually guard
against medtated atack--to endure for indefinite
time the annoyance and expense of quasi with a
conteminous natonto submit to all the inconvenience
of an underlined boundary between US and nation 50
disposed toward u.s. and to wait patiently until ad
versary, subbornly refusing hearing, found a
favorable opportunity to attack us? There can be but
one rational answer TO these questions. According to
public law nation far from being bound 10 await
contemplated attack, has right TO demand assn
RANGES from another which is making warike prepare
tons of suspicious nature, that such preparations are
not directed against it.
Mexico had not only no right to expect us 10 wait
quietly while such preparations going but she
had right TO refuse delay unreasonaby the discus
sion and settlement of boundary, Such refusal and
delay necessarily gave the right, since there
tribunal to which could appeal, to occupy all the ter
rtory to which we had claim under the treaty of ces
SION We could not occupy less, under such crcum-
stances, without tactly admitting that ourselves had
strong doubts of our title to what refained from oc
cupyng; and the claim of adversary extended 10
the whole territory ceded to us, he precluded from
assigning and never has assigned occupation of any
specific portion of it as his cause OF war The unvarying
declaration of the Mexican has been that the
annexation of Texas the bei; that
ing the Sabine was the all-suicien cause of war.
The only question, then, which remains to be consd-
cred is whether our annexation of Texas furnished
Mexico with just cause OF against us; and this
question fully, deliberately, and earnestly dis
cussed before the annexation took place, that new
light be thrown upon it. The opinion of the
American people, at least without distinction of party,
must be considered rrevocably fixed that the
ton not a of nor has public opinion,
in Europe accused of violating public law by
the annexation of Texas Mexico alone makes the com
plant, and has doggedy submitted it to the arbrament
of war