The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-02-04
Br.,i.h Opinion ou lhe War.


ness towards this country, YET in good degree,
free from the rank abuse OF and which has
heretofore characterized OF the editorial comments
of the London press In publishing the article,
TONED that the paper containing it had been oblgngly
sent to by the American minister at London There
upon the National Integencer doubtless unwilling that
foreigners should be regarded having been reluctantly
compelled by the force of TRUTH approve the
The policy OF our government against enemya cause
which the ntegencer itself has slandeed without ceas-
g) proceeded TO make itself ridiculous by asserting that
the article in the London journal cas from the pen % mr.
Bancroft himself! The evidence of this udicrous alega
uon was found the fact that the article referred to the war
as issue the coming presidential contest and spoke
Of Mr. Cays Lexington Platform" as having been for
time in degree objected to by some OF the wing
journals These facts says the lntellgencer, might have
been known the American minister on the 7th OF De-
cember when the article OF the News appeared in Lon
dom but could not then hare been known 10 us editor!
As all the British journals had not, from the first
rarded the war as an issue before the people in the
presidential canvass and if Mr. Cays Lexington res
outions, having been reported by telegraph the 18th
Of November with sketch OF his speech had not been
commented upon by the wing journals for week
her!
The idea that minister wrote the article, or had
ANYTHING to do with its publication not only utterly
absurd on its face, only reued by the whole spirit
and style OF the paper ITSELF but it is put beyond all pos
sbty of belief by the in of the following
thoroughly British passage, which plainly enough no
American pen patriotic than the Integencer's
| could have written;
"That the victories gained by the Americans in Mexico
will be of advantage their republic may be
questioned. it is than doubtful whether they will be
able elnqush their hold of any part of the Mexican
roy and if they cannot, Mexico is likely prove their
Iceland. But they have gone too far to recede without,
however, having done anything justify that virtuous in
dgnation which would write the annals of the Mexican
war like a romance, with the American Union for the I'M
mgated villain of the story and the Mexican republic
the suffering saint
Let us add, that acquainted with the name of
the gentleman who wrote the article; but, if we are not
mistaken we mentioned il at the time published it in
the Union He is not an American, but an Englishman,
without any connexon with the American legation
We have not however referred to this matter in order
10 prove-what TO any of sense needs proo-hat
the American minister in London has not betaken himself
the task of writing editorial articles for the daily press
there but we deem proper to hold up the Indignation
OF the American people the and foolish malignity
with which the wing organ fit to Willy the historical
hbors of illustrous American author, whose noble
and classical history Of country reflects in the udg
of all intelligent and candid of all parties both
at home and abroad the highest honor upon American
letters and upon the American name.
Here is specimen of the vulgar and impudent non
sense in which the Integencers article shows at once
the unwllingness and the inability of its writer even in
Il Al IL.
written to illustrate and opreserve the true spirit and the
nobest features of American history for the admiration
OF pos,erty and of the world:
In this closing phrase, which strives shuttle pas, the
solemn questions by persfIge, there is sort
Of rack-brained philosophy and dcmagogue a,dacity
which strongly suggest accidental identity Equally
shallow and shameless other things dropped into the
discourse, as if pet sentences Of historical ape of Glib
ton, For example:
"The Americans--conquerors in regular WARFARE bu
al the iams Of Groiins, entitled dictate the OF
peace"
And again:
"The Mexcans have their want of prudence and
energy thank for the scrape they have got into That the
Taiiy"
There is touch about these sententious splendors-a
tmy ofiinessa hashy falsehoodan ambitious absurdi-
N va precipancy Of paradox-a pert of sublime
which quite glorious and peculiar to be mista-
KEN and render much transparent the trick of their
H. foreign publication
Feeren, the renowned patriarch OF Philosophical His
tory in Germany, had other views than these of Mr.
Bancrois history when, in his review published in the
leading periodical of that country of the German trans
aion of those Volumes he pronounced them to be- be-
yond question, of the most splendid contributions to
historical literature and philosophy which our age-so
nch IN that department OF authorship-has produced.
On this side OF the Atlantic, also Edward Everett did
aspire the dignity and the sense of stgmatsing the
historian of our country an historical ape of Glib
bon when he wrote in the North American Review that
Mr. Bancroft, should he finish his work as he has COM
menced it, will have achieved the glorious distinction of
having presented the history of the United States in the
shape in which will be wanted and will be generally
studied for generations to come But is needless to
criticism Of the lnielgencer, for Hesren really kneu
something of the work he descrbed-had at least read II
before he pretended to state his views of it and Everett
though opposed to Mr. Bancroft in politics. yet had the
write like scholar and gentleman
Turning away therefore, in disgust and contempt from
the feeble scury and the ignorant spite of the above
paragraph OF the Integencers article present to that
Journal another English comment upon Mexican
policy, as stated in the message of the President We
copy this article from the London Mercury of January
9Th; and while we by no fully endorse all its
statements will say, for the Inteligencers particular
r. Al + a 4