Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1848-01-27

than they could have surrendered to such de
mand the entire State.
Al, then, that can be said is, that the title
OF Texas to this part Of her territory was oper
to dispute. Such dispute is to be settled
but'by two intensity negotiation or by force
Ii the negotiation was re(used---if Mexico eiec
ted the other alternative, (force,) can she com
plain five meet her with force? But suppose
her design was not actual force, but to get pos
session only Ut the disputed ground2 Had moi
the United States the same right to take pos
session, and hold whatever they possessed, I'M
til the question Of title WIS decided by negotia-
tion2 The very question Of title might have
been effected by the fact of possession. Mex
leo might have relied upoa it as conclusive Of
the inability of Texas, and the United States
as their successors, 10 prevent il; and as dem
onstratng that the original sovereignty had
not been lost Thy the revolution This the Uni
ted States had right to guard against. Their
own honor babe them guard against it. If ac-
tual possession by Mexico could weaken the ii
tie Texas,i it was their duty to strengthen it by
also taking possession. Pending question Of
disputed territory, not actually possessed by
ty of one e the parties to suffer the other to
sir; no lawyer would give such advice No
statesman would so act. Things should, in
such case, be suffered to remain in statu quo.
Neither should seek to get advantage Of the
other. III am right in this, and Mexico de-
signed taking possession, then she cannot com
plain if we also take possession; and especially
not, If she knew that notwithstanding such
possession, we were willing at any time to ne
gotlate on the question of title.
Sir, It has been said that to march into the
disputed territory is an act of hostility. con-
cede it! But then to threaten to. march-to
prepare to march-to muster an arr.y to
march. and with the avowed purpose Of taking
forclble possession and holding, is also an act
of hostility. This Mexico did first, and we
had then clear right to aEtcip pate her upon
every principle Of the national law, marching
ourselves and placing ourselves in condition
successfully to meet and repel her. Between
nations, as between individuals, aggression
may be met by aggresson-assault NAV be
met by battery. But, it is said, revolution
gives no title uhaccornpanied by actual and I'M
disturbed possession? Does it mean that the
revolutionary government is to have 4, soldier
on each foot of her asserted domain? Does it
mean that every inhabitant within her terrific
ny is to acknowledge and to submit to her SOW
erelgnty} OF does it not mean only that such
government is to have possession, claiming eX-
elusive title to the whole of her asserted
bounds, and possess the power and determine
ton to-make that title good by force, against
the original sovereignty? say it means This,
and nothing more.
See the result OF different doctrine. We
declared our independence in l776; the war
continued seven years. Suppose no treaty of
peace had been made recognizing our limits, but
England had simply retired from the contest,
in disgust with the struggle, as she might well
have done: would not our title at that moment
have been as good to every foot of our glorious
Thirteen as it was to the very battIe-ields Of
Saratoga and Yorktown. And yet how inconsid-
cradle part OF our country was ever trodden
By the American soldier, or within actual reach
of his arm And yet how many hearts thro'
out The contest beat high with true loyalty to
England, and were striking, or were burning
ostlon is not the, las it is sometimes understood.
ton good by force of arms. when the usnrper s
tile is by force ofarms assailed. Subject to
this test, who can doubt that Texas had the
ability to maintain her title to any part Of the
territory claimed by her between the Nueces
and the Rio Grande2 lie, the facts give the
answer. After her declaration Of independence,
and after she had, by force driven the Mexican
troops across the latter river, they afterwards
returned biit twice, and were each time driven
back; and from the period Of the last incnrsich
in 1913, no Mexican soldier ever crossed the
river, and no civil officer Of Mexico ever exer-
cised jurisdiction over it. IF these weie the
facts--and appeal to the honorable senator
from Texas for their truth-what doubt is
there, that to that part of her constitutional
limits she has perfect title? Sir, a word or
two more, and upon this point have DONE
What senator, what American, would be now
content to abandon the territory, make the Nue.
'ces the boundary, and fight only fot that boun-
Diary! For peace, to put an end to the war; to
spare the further effusion of blood, some might
be found who would, by negotiation, agree to
that limit Of Mexico would surrender all ii
tie to the rest of Texas. But who is there
who would now propose to fall back to the
Nneces, and abandon at oxce the intermediate
territory. the very fields of Palo Alto and Re
SAGA de la Palma, to Mexico, and fight her on
ly to The banks of the Eueces? | believe-I
hoee for the honor-o a common allegiance
that there is not one. have said thar
trusted, for the sake of our heretofore stainless
character, that the opinion have thus fully
endeavored to maintain, was correct-that the
war is, on our part, a just enc.
If not, sir, Why is it not2 1t is because,
without Justification, we invaded Mexican soil.
It because, without Justification, we caused
Mexican blood to be spilled ON Mexican ground
1t is because they were met at their own homes,
which we invaded; upon their own fields, dear
to them as love of country is dear--consecra-
ted to them by all the associations which bind
man to the soil of his birth, in the hottest of all
dulies-the defence CT home and country; and
have. without right, without excise, without
palIiation. given then, to the sword-slaught-
cred them BY hundreds and thousands, and
driven the survivors away. Sir, would moi
such tale of wrong, ofitself, cover our coun
try with ignomny? But it is not yet hall
told. What else have we done? We have
seized upon it asa pretext for other. and, i
possible, yet deeper enofmites. We have
published to the world flsehood. W.
have endeavored to conceal the true character
of our outrage. We have stated that the con
test was Of theif own seeking-not ours; ant
upon this degrading perversion have pnrsnet
them WITH stiIl more frightfnl outrage. w
at once called into the field $4,000 soldiers
placed the whole naval power IF the govern