The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-09-28
the resolutions of annexation, Mr. Almonte demanded
nc and


his passport, and said
'Tha contrary his hopes and his sincere prayers.
he consummated, the part of the American govern
ment, of aggression the unjust which can be
found recorded IN the annals Of modern history-nameyi
that of desoiing friendly nation, Ike erieo Of con
'The undersigned, moreover protests, in the name OF
his government the said law (of annexaton) can in
nowise nvadae the rights viii IA Mexico relies TO re-
cover the ADORE mentioned proUinee Of Iras Of hie she
sees herself nHJusty depoed and that she will main
tain and uphold these rights at all times by every means
which may be IN her power"
This extract, from the valeictory communication OF
the Mexican minister, exhibits clearly the ground on
which she predicated her assumption OF a hostile att
tude towards the United States That ground is shat Of
despong friendly nation, Ike Merleo Of a CONSIDER
able portion Of her territory" 1t further declares hat
the SAID lGtD (of anneXaon) can IN mouse inUdtidae
the rights ace 1ierieo relies, TO recoUer HE above
mentioned pyoUince Of IeTas, of which she sees
herself unjusty desPoiled and that she wH maintain
and uphold these rights at all times By every lic
MAY be an her pOUer Now connect this with the dec
ar,ition which Mexico made long prior TO annexation,
hat she tsouid look upon such act bell,,"
and what does it proved 1t proves two propositions
FIRST that the measure oil annexation is the true ana only
ground OF her complaints and secondly that she had de-
hberatey determined TO assert her right TO Texas by
force OF arms.
Was she ustfable in assuming such position
ards the United States If had the right TO receive
and Texas had the right to incorporate herself into
government then Mexico was not justlhabe in acng
herself in attitude OF hostility 10 the United States
maintain that, at the time OF annexation Texas was IN
independent sovereign Sale and therefore capable OF
dlsposlng OF herself IN any manner consistent with her
views of interest and policy. She could form alliances,
make treaties and do all other acts which free and nde
pendent States may, OF right, do. This will be made
manifest by brief consideration of her proper relation
ship 10 the republic of Mexico and the events OF her
revolution.
But before proceed to these topics must premise
one remark suggested by the character of the resolutions
of annexation Those resolutions IT is well known, left
the question OF the western boundary of Texas open to
he settled BY negotiation between the United States and
Mexico not that entertaine doubt lis location,
but in Difference 10 the feelings OF that republic This
must have been well known by Mr. Almonte when he
demanded his passport and therefore this step, on his
part, tinamount TO a rejection in advance, by his
government OF this peaceful mode OF adjustment, 10
VIII ch she bound 10 resort before she could be ust
fled in appealing 10 arms Why this course adopt
lei' Had government exhibited any unwilngness
10 negotiate On the contrary did not the terms OF the
law of annexation invite III She was governed by the
determination not 10 treat OF the question OF boundary,
for the expressed in Mr. Almones letter, that she
regarded the pOutnce Of Ieras as considerable por
noa Of her territory" She did not complain that we
claimed more territory, embraced within the limits OF
Texas, than just and proper; but that Texas, the
whole OF Texas, Texas annexed, was portion OF her
territory; that we had unusy despolled her OF it, and
that she would maintain her title to by force of
In this determination she persised-relected perempory
offers of negotiation. as shall show IN the progress
of my remarks, and voluntarily took the initiative in ac
tual hosttes.
The question recurs, Was she UNSUITABLE in such
duci confidently maintain that she was not for the
reason that Texas was a free and independent State,
possessing all the rights and powers appertanng 10 such
a condition
What the relation which Texas sustained to Mex
leo at the outbreak Of her revolt against the military
usurpaton of Santa Anna Was IT national or tederGi
Was her connexion such as results from being an nte
grail part of great consolidation, such springs from
compact!
On the 4h of October 1924 after many years of bloody
contest with Spain, Mexico adopted constitution for her
government similar in its leading features to own
republican, representative ederalas fully shown by
the following extract from 1t
ARTICLE 4 The Mexican nation adopts for its govern
men the form OF republican, representative, POPULAR fad
"AErcLE The parts Of this federation the States and
Territories
constitutional which establishes the liberty and inde
pendence OF tue Mexican nation Its religion form OF gov
eminent liberty OF the press and d,Dtston OF he supreme
formed"
1t is evident therefore, from the very terms employed
in this instrument, that each State of the Mexican Union
sustained 10 the government federal relationship
relationship sprnging from compact and that each State,
SO far from constituting an integral part OF Mexico, as a
consolidated nation retained its sovereignty its soil
and its separate identity and Independence except far
these qualified limited by the nature and pro-
visions of the constitution This is emphaticay true in
reference to Texas for her constitution was not adopted
until the lth of March, lS27nore than two years after
the formation of the Coniederacy OF 1924 and It's ID
article was as follows:
"ARrIcLE g 1t is free and independent of the other
United Mexican States and OF every other foreign power
and dominion" Passed March lin, 1927, and accepted
| by Mexico"
| With this constitution Texas received into the
Mexican Unon and therefore, the federal government
accepted and recognised her the character therein de-
signated.
In 1885, Santa Anna, at the head of large mercenary
army, overturned the Confederacy of 1924, and on its
ruins established, in fact, military desposm. lie dis
peIsed the State legislatures, and threatened IndscrmI-
death to all who should oppose his desolang march
Texas alone of all the States, refused submission; but
did that constitute her rebel against the rghtfu author
" of the government she not resisting, but seek
ing 10 sustain the constitution OF the MEXICAN Union,
In proof of this refer TO the following extract from the
capiuaton of General Cos, entered into on the nth OF
March, 1885
That General Cos and his officers retire, with their
private property the interior of the republic under
parole of honor that they w not IN any way oppose the
a shu,ent the federal constitution OF 1874
REFER Also to the following extract from the mani
esto which Texas promulgated on the 9TH Of November,
1885,
'Whereas General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, and
other military neains, have force OF arms ovenhrown
federal of Mexico, and dissolved the social
compact which existed between Texas and the other
bes of the coniederacy now the good people OF leAas,
awaiting themselves OF their natora right solenny de-
clare
THAT they have taken UP in defence of their rights
and liberties threatened by cncToachmens OF
military desp)s and defence the republican princl-
pies OF the federal constitution OF Mexico OF 1924"
These evidences OF the intentions and motives OF Texas
clearly show that she dsoya TO the conederacy
but animated by patriotic desire main lis m
egny And the ecltals in her declaration OF the 81 OF
March, 1886, prove 10 the world that she resolved
separation IRON, and Independence Of the general
government, until all hope OF preserving the constitution
| of 1924 at an end
! Now what the effect of this military usurpaon
by Santa Anna and his overthrow of the Confederacy
We have seen, that Texas never constituted integral
part OF Mexico consolidated national government,
nut that her relationship was one OF compact There
tore when the constitution, which contained the terms
hiatt