The North-Carolina standard., 1848-01-26

negotiations, agree upon the terms of said adms
sion and cession either by treaty to be submitted
the Senate or by articles tobe submitted to the two
houses of Congress, as the President may direct.
Immediately upon the annexation, the minister of
Mexico, General Almonte, demanded his passports,
upon the ground that the annexation itself a
state of hostility to Mexico; and from that period to
the march of Gen. Taylor from Corpus Christi to the
Rio Grande, the frequent efforts of the American
government to terminate the controversy by negotla-
tion failed; and before the march, the Mexican gov
eminent were collecting their forces upon the Rio
Grande, with the avowed design, not of taking pos
session only of the territory between the Nueces and
the Rio Grande, and concedng to the United States
that portion of Texas which lies west of the Nueces
but of disputing with the United States the title
the whole of the country between the Rio Grande
and the Sabine, and upon the ground that the whole
and every part of that territory still portion of
Mexico by virtue of her original and paramount title
Now the proposition which seek to maintain is
this that as between the government of the United
States and the government of Mexico, the former
had In this condition of things perfect right and the
same right for the purpose of repelng the threaten
ed invasion, to march her troops the territory be-
tween the Nueces and the Rio Grande, in any ter
ritory situated between the Sabine and the Nueces
The question is not whether such movement of the
troops was, under all the circumstances, judlclOus
and prudent. 1t is not whether by different course
an actual conflict might not have been avoided; but
whether as matter of right-as matter of self-de-
fence-the United States had not, under the laws of
nations, full and perfect authority and justification to
make such movement.
Now, what the clear and indisputable facts
The United States had received the republic of Tex
as into the Union, without antecedently defining her
boundaries, and under constitution which reiterated
what had been, as far back as 1889, a part of her
original constitution Independent republic
that the Rio Grande, from its to its mouth,
was her southwestern boundary. The United States
extended all her laws the State of Texas,
admitted. They had assumed actual jurisdiction at
Corpus Christi. They knew that there citizens
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande who claim
ed to be citizens of the State of Texas admitted.
They knew that for nine years the State of Texas
had existed Independent nation.
Who proposed Withdrawing Taylor on the 18th of
May. Who denied then that we had good right to
repel the Mexcans and to invade for the purpose of
avenging the outrages any and every part of Mexi-
CO! She had refused to negotiate; she had consider
ed annexation war; she had terminated all dplo-
matte relations she had refused to receive min
lister, upon mere bubble of the then President be-
cause he afraid of his own power, threatened
with downfall, because it believed he will
ing to negotiate at ALL She had mustered an army
the Rio Grande, with the declared object of invad
ing all Texas, and recovering the whole of her own
sovereignty. Her then government owed its exist
ence to this very determination. She had never
maintained any peculiar title to what is called
the disputed territory What in this state, the
United States to do. Were they bound to remain
still and await the invasion they not autho
rZed to meet the threatened invasion upon the
admitted territory of the invader! Who doubts that
with nations with individuals, the right of selde
fence gives the right to strike the first blow To
prevent injury is easier than to repair it. Sir,
where is the writer the law of nations who holds
a different opinions There some propositions so
plain that they admit of iustration-they furnish
their best illustration-and this is of them
We had clear, undeniable right to meet Mexico at
the very outnos limits Of Texas and repel her there
or, if we deemed it advisable, equally clear and
undeniable right to anticipate her, by striking the
first blow on her own admitted territory. But it is
said that the place of conflict Mexican terri
tory. If it was, tho argument incur behalf would
he fbol hlod hoxr iptop
ing to go further; she there to drive army
back to the Sabine; she there, to reconquer Tex
as-the whole and every part of Texas-and not to
retain portion only, upon the ground that such Por-
ton was not Texas.
But even the fact is not alleged; whether this
portion of the territory was was not rightfuy
part of Texas, was, at least, matter of dispute.
Texas claimed it. Texas, portion of it, exer
cised jurisdiction. Citizens residing on it, claimed
to be citizens of that government. Mexico had In
vain attempted to recover it. The constitution of
Texas included it. The United States had exercised
after the admission of Texas into the Union, sover
eighty part of 1.-THE highest act of sovereign
ty, the taxing power. She had received Texas
into the Union without any other definition of boun-
dary reservng the right only as between themselves,
Texas, and any other power who might question the
justice of the boundary, to settle it by negotiation
Without breach of honor to Texas, the United
States could more have surrendered, without in
quiry and negotiation, to absolute and armed de-
mand this portion, of the territory than they could
have surrendered to such demand the entire State
ALL then, that be said that the title of Texas
to this part OF her territory open to dispute.
Such dispute is to be settled but by two means
by negotiation by force If the negotiation was
Mexico elected the other alternative,
(force,) she complain if meet her with force
But suppose her design was not actual force but to
get possession only Of the disputed ground Had
not the United States the right to take posses
sion, and hold whatever they possessed, until the
question of title was decided by negotiation! The
very question of title might have been affected by
the fact of possession. Mexico might have relied
upon it conclusive of the inability of Texas, and
the United States as their SUCCESSORS to prevent it,
and as demonstrating that the original sovereignty
had not been lost by the revolution This the Unl-
ted States had right to guard against. Their own
honor bade them guard against it. If actual posses
sion by Mexico could weaken the title of Texas, 1t
their duty to strengthen it by also taking pos
session. Pending question of disputed territory,
not actually possessed by either who ever contended
that it the duty of of the parties to suffer
the other to take possession, and then try the title
No, sir; no lawyer would give such advice No
statesman would so act. Things should, in such a.
case, be suffered to remain in statu quo. Neither
should seek to get advantage of the other. If am
right in this and Mexico designed taking possession
then she cannot complain if we also take possession;
and especially not, if she knew that, notwithstand-
ing such possession, willing at any time to
negotiate on the question of title.
Sir it has been said that to march into the dsput-
ed territory is act of hostility. concede it. But
then to threaten to march-to prepare to march-to
muster an army to march, and with the avowed pur-
pose of taking torcible possession and holding is
also an act of hostility. This Mexico did first and
we had a clear right to anticipate her upon every
principle of international law, by marching ourselves
and placing ourselves in condition successfully to
meet and repel her. Between nations, as between