The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-10-29
Mexico never the title the Country
betNeen lhe Nueces and the Rio Grsndc.

I between The Nueces and the Hi0 Grandes
To the Editor Of the Unions
By the numerous eminent authorities and statesmen
9a6ed by you, TO wit: Messrs, Clay, Adams Benton,
Jefferson Madison, Monroe, Pnckney, and M Laussat,
nhe French commissioner who delivered the possession Of
Louisiana to the United States who have decided that the
title OF the territory Of Texas when first in possession of
the United States extended to the Rio Gande. you have
thus fact so concusvely, that the question
States and Spain, cedng Texas to SPAIN the inhabitants
OF Texas revolted against the transfer Span and made
declaration OF independence Of Spain as follows:
The citizens ofTexas ha long INDUCED the hope that
SONS IN America and Of the territories Of the United States
encouraged the hope.
The recent treaty between Spain and the United States
Of America has dispated an illusion long iondy cher
into which ancied security had uled them They have
seen themselves by convention to which they no
party, literally abandoned the dominion the crown Of
SPain ana let prey not only to mpostons already in
oebe but all those which Spanish rapacity
The citizens Of Texas would have proved themselves
unworthy OF the age In which they ye-unwohy of their
nentcoud they have hesi,ated in this emergency as to
what course to pursue sPuning the letters of colonial
potlsm that ever dgraced the annals of Europe-they
have resolved under the blessing of God, to be free
Thus the declaration of Texas was long antecedent to
that of Mexico Mexico overturned the dominion of
Spain I'm Mexco) by the overthrow of the royal govern
ment OF lturbide in August 1921. Now it cannot be
ducng to subsection the people OF Mexico to the revou-
honary government, that the people of Texas were euer
thus reduced or were ever after at any time conquered
Mexico. On the contrary whenever the armies of Mex-
co entered Iexasand they entered until after Mex
leo acknowledged her sovereign Satethey were uni
versaIly repulsed Then it not possible that Mexico
ever had acquired any title to that country east of the
RIO Grande., And il is not possible that the ac
lnal occupants and firm possessors of the province of
Texas could ever have been Invested Of their title
Mexico might Just as well have claimed the borders
OF the United States-unsettled as yet by citizens of the
United Sateson the ground that on some portions of
them the citizens OF Mexico had settled previous TO the
Mexican revolution II is self evident that those resid
ing In the province of Texas, and who above
toned had declared their independence, had the unques
tionable right to the sovereignty of the whole OF that
province
In the History of Mexico, by Niles, page ISL, it is
stated that 'after the overthrow of the royal govern
August, 1921 Mexico had been Sin point of fact entirely
independent of Spain" Of course Mexico could have
no claim on Texas while she (Mexico) under the
jurisdiction OF Spain, which was Gas above shown) up
TO the goth August 1921 AT time between this date
(2oth August, 1921 and the year is24-when the
stution of Mexico formed, admitting Texas be
free, sovereign, and Independent State, and admitting
her with constitution which stated that she was
a sovereign and independent Stae-dd Mexico conquer
or acquire one inch OF the territory of Texas east of the
or the Rio Grande with that purpose Then, if
Mexico did not wrest from the province of Texas be-
tween 1921 and 1924, the territory between the Nueces
and the Rio Grande, she never wrested it from her,
because Texas entered the Union of the United States Of
Mexico as a sovereign and equal power, possessed of
every right OF sovereign State, the most important of
Wi was her right to her original territory extending to
the Rio Grande After own declaration of indepen-
dence in l776, each State claimed the limits which be-
longed to them as PROVINCES II was SO with Virginia
and Georgia, who coded to the United States large terri
tories. And why is not Texas entitled to the same
rights So far from Mexico wrestling from Texas any
portion OF the territory east Of the Rio Grande even
with hostile forces to enforce cenralism or despotsm
upon her. she was always repulsed Added to the fact
that Mexico conquered this territory, the fact
that General Co.'S 11h December, 1885, sent flag of
truce and made capituation with General Bureson
commander OF the Texan forces (ude Niess
Texas, page 29l) article Sd Of which is as follows
THAT the General take the convcts brought in by
Colonel Ugartechea beyond the RIO Grande." And ar
tcle H., General Burleson will furnish General Cos
his troops TO The Rio Grdnde at the ordinary price OF the
country" Why mention the Rio Grande as the limits
SO often as to make two spuations in which that was
the line was not considered that in Texas resided
the title up 70 the Rio Grande' The generals of Texas
and Of Mexico would not have made treaty, which
would reflect the honor OF both, by STIMULATING how
far into the interior of Merco the Merican army should
retire, but merely that they should get their side
IF The line between Mexico and Texas.
The above mentioned history page 296, states 'the
surrender OF San Antonio lett the Mexican chief without
single post in Texas, and consequently terminated the
campaign Of 1885" Thus in neither OF the invasions OF
Texas did Mexico ever succeed in establishing her do
minlon, but was always repuscd; and thus she never
acquired one inch of the original provinceof Texas
she never acquired one inch east OF the Rio Grande
she came into the Mexican union as sovereign State
and as TO Mexico confirming few quit-caim deeds
given by the Spanish authorities TO some fen citizens
these did not overurn the strong and prior title of Texas
to Texas 1t is stated in the History of Texas, that
" Texas NEVER BECAME, however, AN lNTE-
BOUGHT, CONQUERED, SETTLED, GOVERNED,
OR PROTECTED it. Mexico had neither the will nor
the enterprise 10 the Rio Grande TO settle and cul.
tivate it,"
report made by Stephen F. Austin an officer of the
government OF Texas the provisional government of
Texas on the 30th November 1885, communicating the
decree OF Sd October, 1885, of Mexico abolshing the
constitution of 1924 and the State governments at page
276 of Nes's History Of Mexico states: 'The right Of
deemed from the piiderncss and CONQUERED WITH
OUT ANY AID OR PROTECTION WHATEVER
FROM THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT (FOR WE
NEVER RECEIVE ED ANY, y and which is clearly ours
OURS BY EVERY PRINCIPLE ON WHICH ORIGI-
NAL TITLES TO COUNTRIES ARE FOUNDED.
We have explored and pioneered it, developed its resor
ees, made hnown to he 1corid, and given to it high
and rapidly increasing value The federal republic of
Mexico had constitutional right to participate gener-
ally in this value; but it had not and cannot have any
other and this has been evidently forfeited and de-
sroyed by unconstitutional acts and usurpaton and by
the total dissolution Of the social compact. CONSE-
QUENTLY THE TRUE AND LEGAL OWNERS OF
OF THAT COUNTRY, ARE THE PEOPLE OF TEX
AS"
If Texas permitted Coahua for to unite with
her in the government of small portion of the territory
this side of the Rio Grande it did not dives the vested
right of Texas up that river but the violent and dsrup
the act OF desposm of Mexico in dssolvng the general
council, and in abolishing the constitution of 1924,
and the State constitutions and State authorities as Uide
said history page 206) DISSOLVED her connection with
Meyiro and stotad hv pdc