Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1847-11-04

naent of Herrera. 1t must, be remembered
here, that ,as soo., as Parades had organised his
government, all the functionaries Of which
we're chosen because of their hostility to Her.
rera's pacific views, Mr.. Slidell was rejected,
without referring the matter again to the
council.
Welease it with any man of sense, after a
careful examination Of the documents to which
we have referred, to determine whether we
have not been perfectly consistent with the
facts in the case, in stating that the ''decisfen
of the Mexican Council of Government was
made known at the Department Of State, be-
fore the order was made for oar army to move
from Corpus Christi"
We propose now to notice briefly the elf
cumstances attendant upen the removal of the
army from Corpus Christi to the east bank of
the Rio Grande The writer in the Republi-
can of the 10th ult., charges the President
with "pianting our cannon directly in front of,
and pointing into the Mexican town of Mata-
moros. Now, what are the facts in this case!
In an order from the War Department, dated
January Sd, 1916, MIR. Marcy says:
T ''From the views heretofore presented to
this department, it is presumed Point Isabel
will be considered by you an eligible position
This point, or some one near it, and points op-
posite Matamoros and Mier, and in the vicinity
Of Laredo, are suggested for your considers
ton; but you are left to yoar better knowledge
to determine the post or posts which you are to
occupy" sc. |: will be seen, that it is left en-
tirely to Gen. Taylor's ''Detter knowledge" to
choose his position. He made choice Of po-
stion opposite Matamoros, believing, as he
said in his letter Of the 4th February to the
Adjutant General, that "our adrance to the
Rio Grande ,Oill itself produce a powerful. e.
.fect;" and in his letter ofthe 10th of the same
month. he says: ''F,om the best information
am able to obtain, and which deem as au-
thenic as any, / do not bsHere that our ad-
cance to the banks Of the Rio Grande ,c;H be
resist ed" Gen. Taylor, then, acting under
positive instructions from the War Department,
to avoid ''all aggressive measures toward Mex
leo, as long as relations Of peace exist between
that Republic and the L. S." selected his po-
stion with the belief that it would have a
''powerful effect" in lettering the Mexicans
from crossing the Rio Grande, and invading
=. +Lo
Rio Grande as ''the boundary between the two
countries il only excepting any posts on the
eastern side thereof which are in the actual
occupancy of Mexican forces, or Mexican set
Elements over which the Republic of Texas
did not exercise jurisdiction at the period Of
annexation, or shortly before that EVENT.
Now, it would be supert1uous to discuss the
question Of right, on the part of Texas, to &C.
cupy by conquest, any territory not properly
included within the limits of Texas, while
under the jurisdiction of Mexico, at the time
of the revolution of 1886. Suppose the Tea
ans had conquered the lchole of Mexico, in
stead of only port. can any just reason be
assigned why they should not have exercised
jurisdiction over the whole? Assuredly not
How then, we ask, can it be inconsistent with
the usages of nations and with justice, for the
Texans to retain possession of, and exercise
jurisdiction over Mexican territory which they
had conquered, and which, up to the time Of
had NOT been sin the actual occu-
pancy of Mexican forces, or Mexican settle
ments"? The idea of restricting the present
bound airy of Texas to the limits as prescribed
by Mexico in 1919, in view of the changes
which have since taken place in the govern
ment of that country, is absurd in the extreme
Gen. Taylor gave the Mexicans every as
sufance that the intentions of our government
were pacific, and that no hostile movement a
gainst Mexico would take place unless they
should cross the Rio Grande, and attempt to
invade Texas The brutal murder Of Col.
Cross and others of our army were acts well
calculated to provoke merited chastisement.-
No act of aggression was committed, however,
and the war was commenced by an act of the
.Mexcans, and all the responsibility of its con-
sequences must fall upon their heads.
The writer in the Republican does not at
tempt to extricate himself from the dilemma
in which he finds himself, respecting the orr
gin Of the war. His assumption, in the first
place, that annexation was the true cause Of it,
s. his subsequent declaration that the removal
Of the army from Corpus Christi was the imme-
date cause, are passed by. Nor does he attempt
to prove that, according to his former PROPOSE
zion John Tyler was not the author Of the war.
The writer asks rs, whether, the Con-
gress, the only war making power, was ac-
tually consulted upon the subject Of our diff
culies with Mexico, before or after hostilites
had been commenced" We reply, that Con-
gress had adjourned, and consequently had it
been necessary. that body could not have been
consulted. But we deny that the war was
commenced nv any act of the President in any