The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1847-03-04


The senator from South Carolina has been
wrong in all this business, from beginning To end
ing--wrong in lSl9 in giving away Texas.
wrcng in 1886. in his sudden and hot haste to get
her hack-wrong in all his Vaccinations for bring
ing on the Texas question Of s44 wrong in break
ing up the armistice and peace negotiations be-
tween Mexicu and Texas-wrong in secretly
Sending the army and navy 10 Il lht Mexico while
We were at peace with her---wrong in secretly APP
pointing the President OF Texas president general
Of the army and navy Of the United, with leave
TO fight them agans, a power with whom we were
at peace-wronS in writing To Mexico that he took
Texas In view ot all possible consequences. mean
ing war--wrong in secretly offering Mexico at the
time, ten millions of dollars 10 hnsh up the
war which he had created-wrong now in refusing
MIR. Polk three millions to aid in getting out of
the war W hich he made--wrong in throwing the
blame Of this war Of his own making upon the
shoulders of MIR. Pok--wrong in his retreat and
occupation line Of policy in expelling old
Father Richie from the Senate, who worked 40
hard for him during the Texas annexation aud
more wrong now than ever, in that string of resu-
buttons which he has laid upon the table, and in
which. as Sylla saw in the yonng Cesar many
Mariuses so do see in them many qualifications
In picture of many, and such dreadful
errors it is hard 10 specify the worst or TO dwell
upon any one to the exclusion of the resi-, : bu,
there is one feature in this picture of enormities
which seems To demand that distinction allude
TO the pledge upon which the armisice and the
peace negotiations between Mexico and Texas
were broken up in 1874, and lhuse two countries
put back into state of war, and ourselves nvolv-
ed in the contest The story is briefly told and
admits Of no dispute. The letter of the l7th of
January is The accusing record, from which there
il no escape. It's awful words cannot be read now.
without freezing up the blood Z" II is known ia
you that an arInstce exists between Mexico and
- Texas, and that negotiations for peace are now
going on under the mediation Oft two powerful SOW.
ereigns, mutually friendly. IL we yield To your
solicitation tn be annexed to the United States
under these circumstances. we shall draw upon
ourselves fresh invasion from Mexico, incur the
impnta,on otbad faith. and lose the friendship and
respect OF the two great mediating powers. Now
will you, IN the event If our accedng To your re.
quest, step between MS and Mexico and take the
war off our hands? 2" This was the letter. and
the terrible question with which it concluded -
Mr.. Upshur, To whom il was addressed. payo i,
no answer. In the forty days that his life was
spared, he gave 1t no answer. Mr.. Nelson, his
Temporary successor, gave it an answer and
speaking for The President Of the United States,
positively refused 10 take annexation on the con.
dion proposed. This answer was sent to Texas
and put end TO all negotiation for annexation
The Senator from South Carolina came into the
Department of State. procured the reversal of the
whole extent that Texas asked it, Without in
the least, denying the knowledge of the armistice
and the negotiations for peace. and all terrible
consequences which were 10 resul, from their
breach, he accepts the whole, and gives the fatal
pledge which his predecessors had refused, and
follows itup by sending our troops and ships "a
fight people with whom we were at peace-the
whole yelled by The mantle of secrecy, and pre-
texted ny motives as unfuuded as they were alb
surd. Now. what says morality and Christianity
to his condnc,2 Certainly, if two individuals
were engaged in strife, and two others should
part them, and put them under an agreement to
submit TO an amicahle settlement and while the
settlement was going on, another man, lying he.
hind hedge. should secretly instigate one of the
parties to break off the agreement and renew the
strife. and promise 10 take The fight off his hands
If he did: what would morality and Christianity
say to this? Surely the malediction of all good
men would fall upon the man who had interfered
TO renew the strife. And if this would be the
voice of all good men in the case ofmere indiyjd
uas. what would il be when the strife was be
tween nations, and when the renewal of it was
10 involve third nation in The contest, and such
war as we now have with our sister republic of
Mexico? This is the question which now pre-.
SCENTS i,selfto the moral sense of civilized world
In Judging the conduct of The senator from South
carolina in writing that letter of The 18th of April
1914, aggravated by now throwing upon another
ihe blame of a war for which he contracted