The daily national Whig. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1847-1849, 1847-12-10
From The Neip Orleans Picdyune Ind. Wing.
The ReaI Cause OF the War.

II seems to us that Mr. Clay has not made out his
case in denouncng the unjust by proving thai
the primary cause of il was the annexation of Texas.
He must further prove that annexation was wan
ton wrong done TO Mexico. This we think II diff
cult to show. Texas was free, independent State,
acknowledged such by the civilized world, and
Mexico was VIGOROUSLY incapable OF reducing her
to her former allegiance. Mexico had not for years
before annexation attempted such reduction; and the
question of Independence was merely kept open by
her politicians as topic of party contention and
preext for levying military contributions upon her
people. In this view Of the case, the people of
the United States and Texas had right to dispose
of their national domain as they thought fit, and II
they chose TO join their desnes they cannot be said
to have begun a war unjustly because another ma
ton took nmbrage ut what 1t could not help, and at
what they had right 10 do.
Mr.. Clay may be right in saying that :" the imme-
date occasion of hostlities arose out of the or
der Of the President Of the United States for the
removal of the army of General Taylor from its
position ut Corpus Christi to point opposite Mata
moras the east bank of the Rio Grande;" yet
granting this much, 1t does not make out the charge
of injustice. The question is, had the Government a
| right to move the army across the Nueces? And
| this must be tested by concurrent facts. Mr.. Cny,
in his speech that in the purchase of Florida
the United States paid five millions of dollars and the
right to insist upon the Rio Grande us the western
boundary Of Louisana--which was, Mr.. Clay
thinks, the true boundary Of the French purchase
Now this same question of boundary arose in the
formation OF the Republic of Texas and Mr.. Clay
justly remarks that when Mr.. Sdel was despatched
to Mexico to treat Of boundaries, the territory be-
tween the Ncuces and the Rio Grande was disputed
territory. Taking this to be the true state OF the
case the United States had much right to have an
armed force on this neutral ground Us Mexico had
| Now it is notorious fact that Mexican armed bo-
dies had crossed the Rio Grande before Gen. Taylor
was ordered to cross the Nueces 1t is also noo-
rious fact that Gen. Taylor was met at the Arroyo
Colorado by an organized body Of Mexicans ant
that he was threatened with battle In case he crossed
that stream. These facts are part OF the history
aft AVID antar M
| with armed troops was an unjust commencement o
| the war, Mexico first committed the wrong. More
| over, not only had Carvaal, Cannes, and Romano
Falcon crossed the Rio Grande before Gen. Taylo
| left Corpus Christi but American citizens traven!
| on lawful business through the disputed territory
men, women and children, had been murdered b.
the followers of these Mexican officers in such br
| tai manner that what was right in respect TO tn
previous acts of the enemy became duty on tn
part of the Government as protection 70 our owl
| people. Whatever motive may be Inscribed to tn
Executive, the act OF crossing the Nueces, at IN
most not merely retaliutory, and at best needful t
the safety Of our citizens and proper lest the excu
sve military possession of the country be construe
to weaken our title in the negotiations for bounda
ry. II was our duty, as public Journalists, to kee
Ourselves advised of what was passing in the neutrl
ground at the time, and we speak with knowledge
| on his subject.
T his view of the causes Of the war leaves out {
question the insults and injuries which the Govern
ment and people Of this country had borne with pa
ten &c from Mexico The national magnanimit
passrd over sights and wrongs which might jusll
have provoked war; but TO abandon the disputed tel
ritory the exclusively military occupation of tn
enemy, and our citizens to the murderous practice
! of Mexican armed bodies, would have carried tina
virtue to the point Of sacrificing the lives Of our pee
pie and the property of claims of the nation 10
, fantasy which the enemy even to this day cannc
comprehend.
In respect 10 the terms upon which peace Is I
be bought we do not hold that the United States ar
bound down TO the object involved In the commenc
ment Of hostlities. The ixation Of the boundary
Texas may have been the only object Of the war a
first--or the conquest of peace ii you will--but Il
the prosecution of the war, the United States hay
acquired certain belligernt rghtsrights OF conques
and military occupation, which, under the laws @
nations we may hold or abandon, as we see fiji
Questions of this nature are the exclusive concer
of our own people, and II, we think, the war wa
just in Its ncipiency, all the rights growing out @
its prosecution are legitimate property of the Union
Mr.. Clay isfor giving up the whole Of IL; but this
and other modes of bringing peace, are question
too large and important TO be discussed in the con
clnsion of an article Whilst we agree with Mr.
Il Clay that IL would not be dishonorable 10 treat
beaten enemy with liberality-Day, il would not b
dishonorabe TO give them more than they had befor
because we may do il OF our own free motive we
we think Il would be foolish to take any thing Int
consideration, in making peace, except what ma!
be deemed needfnl, prolific, or convenient to thi
Republic The olive branch has been thurst into tn
faces of the Mexcans till oil the leaves shaker
Off Nothing more can be asked Of us In this behalf
and now we think the conquered territory should b
disposed Of to suit ourseves-and OF this hereafter