Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1847-09-04
THE TESTIMONY OF A DEMOCRAT
AGAINST THE WAR WITH MEX

In "Brownson's Quarterly Review" for
July, 1919 the editor appears to have
conclusively proved that the war with
Mexico is "uncaled for, impolitic, and un.
just" Mr. BRowNsoN is known to WELD
powerful pen; he has been for many years
considered as no mean champion Of De.
mocracy; in support of which he obtained
considerable celebrity while editor Of the
democratic Review" He is still the po.
litical friend of the President, and an adhcr-
ent of the party by whom he was elected.
II was, therefore, certainly not to be ex.
pected tina, such man, in such position.
would SO completely demolsh every argu-
ment advanced by Mr.. Polk and his friends
in support of the present war. as Mr..
Brownson has done. He has thus, volun.
tarily, rendered service to truth, for which
the Democrats will never forgive him. But
we will allow him to speak for himself:
"For ourselves, we have regarded the Mexican
war from The first as uncaled for, impolitc, and
unjust We have examined the documents pub.
Iioueu OiuCl VI tuc 6oSOihtuCutJ We uoFo 10
the official defence OF the war in the last annual
Message of the President to Congress, and with
every disposition 10 find our government in the
right; but we are bound 10 say, that our original
impressions have been strengthened rather than
weakened. The President, undoubtedly makes
it clear that we had many Just causes OF com.
plant against Mexico, which at the time Of their
occurrence might have justified reprisals, perhaps
even war,-bul he cannot plead these in jusf.
cation OF the present war; for they were not the
ground on which we professed to engage in it.
The official announcement Of the President to
Congress was that war already existed between
the two republics, by the act of MEXICO herself
and whatever use we may make OF old grievances
in adjusting the terms Of peace, we can make no
use Of them in defending the war; We can plead
in its defence only the fact on which we grounded
it, namely, war exists by the act OF Mexico her.
self. But uDhappily, at the time Of the official
announcement, war did not eriSt between the
two republics at all, for neither republic had de.
clared war against the other. There had been
collision Of their lorces, but this was not war,
as the President would probably have conceded,
had he known or recolected the distinction be-
tween war and hostlities. BY placing the war
on the ground that il existed by the act OF Mexi-
CO, and that ground being false, he has left it
wholly indefensible, whatever The old grievances
may have to allege against Mexico.
"The act Of Mexico in crossing the Rio
Grande, and engaging our troops in territory
which she had possessed and still claimed as
hers, but which we asserted had, by recent act
against which she had protested, become ours
the act which the president chose 10 inform con-
gress and the world was war-may or may not
have been just cause for declaring war against
her, but it assuredly was not war itself. We
have no intention to justify Mexico. She may
have been decidedly in the wrong; she may have
had no valid title to the territory Of which the
President had just taken military occupations that
territory may have been rightfully ours, and it
may even have been the duty Of The President to
occupy and defend it: but cannot be denied that
she had once possessed il; that it was still part
Of one OF her states or provinces; that she still
claimed it, and had continued TO exercise juris.
diction over it, till driven from 1t by our army Of
occupation that she invaded it with an armed
force, If invasion it can be called, not as terri.
tory belonging to us, but as territory belonging to
her. and that she attacked our troops, not for the
reason that they were ours, but for the reason, as
she held--ard she had as good a right to be
Judge in her own case as we had in ours--that
they were intruders trespassers on her soil. The
motive Of her act was not war against the United
States, but the expulsion Of intruders from her
| own territory.
"No sophistry can make her act war--certainly
not without conceding that our act in taking mill.
tary possession Of that territory was also war; and
If that was war; then the war, il j! existed at ALL
existed by our act and not by hers, for her &C.
was consequent upon ours. The most that the
President was at liberty TO say, without condemn
ing his own government, was, that there had been
a collision OF the forces Of the two republics on
a territory claimed by each; but this collision he
had no right to term war, for every body knows
that it takes something more than collision oil
their respective forces on disputed territory tc
constitute war between two civilized nations.
In no possible point Of view was the announce
ment Of the President that war existed between
The two republics, and existed by the act OF Mex.
leo, correct. 1t did no. exist al ALL or If it did
it existed not by act Of Mexico, but by our act.
In either case, the official announcement was
false, and cannot be defended.
"The President may have been governed by
patriotic motives; he may have felt that prompt
and energetic action was required; he may have
believed that in great emergencies the chel
magistrate Of powerful republic. having 10 deal
with weak and distracted state, should rise
superior to mere technical forms. and the nice.
ties OF truth and honor; but it strikes US that he
would have done better, proved himself even more
patriotic, and sufficiently prompt and energetic
il he had confined himself to the ordinary rules
OF morality, and the we'll defined principles oil
International law. BY aspiring to rise above
these, and 10 appear original he has placed hi;