The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-22

marched an army into the disputed territory,
to settle the question by force Of arms.
The Congress Of the United States, in con-
sequence of certain occurrences on the banks
of the lower Rio Grande, proceeded to de-
clare war against Mexico. We proclaimed
that Mexico had brought on that war,
and recognised the allegation of this President,
that american blood had been shed upon
american soil. Now, / desire to ask by
what right did we occupy the country be-
tween the Nueces and the Rio Grande, if it
was not part Of the State Of Texas' The
United States never pretended to claim the
country between the Nueces and the Rio
Grande. 1t was the claim of Texas which
we asserted; and it w, American ground,
in the view Of this Government, because, and
only because, it was part of The State of
Ieras, one of TIE States of this Union. /
repeat, that, when the power which we had
| reserved to ourselves to settle this boundary
by negotiation had failed, this Government re-
cognising its obligations to Texas as one of
the States of tbs Union--ts constitutional
| obligation to defend her-proceeded to settle
it by force, by the immediate occupation Of
a portion of the territory which was in con-
test, and by declaration of war against
Mexico for acts of aggression upon tina. terri
tory, alleging it to be American soil. The
war was entered into, then, in afhrmance of
the rights of Texas. The United States
made no claim to the possession of that ter
ritory, except in her right. For its main
tenance the war was entered upon, and pro-
secuted to successful result by our arms, in
struggle in which Texas bore her share as
one of the United States.
BY the incorporation of Texas into the
Union we had deprived her of the means Of
asserting her own rights, and had ourselves
undertaken to assert and to maintain them.
1t was the constitutional duty which we
| owed to her as one Of the States Of this
Union. And now can it be, when we have
thus Invested her Of the sword and of the
privilege of negotiation when we have
assumed them both to ourselves when we
have exercised them both in the assertion Of
her rights-at the termination of such con-
test, can we look the civilized world in the
face, and claim for ourselves that which we
have been battling for as the right of one of
the States of the Union' put this ques-
ton to the consideration of gentlemen who
deny the right of Texas. Suppose Mr.. Sill
dell had been received, and had negotiated
a treaty by which Texas had been limited to
the Neuces: if ratified by US, Texas would
have been bound by it, for she had author
lied this Government to settle her boundaries
by negotiation with Mexico. Suppose, now,
that he had negotiated treaty by which it
had been declared that the Rio Grande,
from its mouth to its source, was the boun-
Diary of the United States; to whose benefit
would the territory thus acquired have en-
ured Certainly the United States, acting
in virtue of the power which was reserved
to them to settle the boundaries of Texas by
negotiation with Mexico, when they had in
the course Of that negotiation acquired the
territory which Texas had claimed, could
have had no pretence whatever to claim for
themselves the territory thus acquired.
If the treaty had circumscribed the boun-
Diary of Texas, she would have been forced
to submit to it. Surely, when territory was
obtained coeriensiue With her claim, she
was entitled to the benent of it. 1t seems
t. me, sir, that this is proposition which
been acquired by a negotiation between Mr..
Slidell and the Mexican government anterior
to the war, as that negotiation was entered
upon in virtue of the power reserved to the
United States in the articles Of annexation
to settle the boundaries of Texas-it seems
| to me unquestionable that whatever territory
was so acquired would have been acquired
as part OF the territory of that State.
Otherwise, Texas was liable to lose, but
could by no possibility gain anything. If
her claim was yielded to Mexico she would
lose it; if it was yielded by Mexico, the
United States, not Texas, would gain it. |
thin then, it will not be denied that if Mr..
Slidell had succeeded in negotiating a treaty
by which the boundary of the United States
had been extended to the Rio Grande, the
territory acquired would have enured to the
benefit CT Texas and if this be admitted,
| advance one step further, and ask in what
consists the difference between the acqulsi-
ton of territory made in pursuance of the
power reserved by the articles of annexation,
and territory acquired at the termination of
war entered into in the assertion of the
rights of Texas The United States,
repeat, had no claim to the territory of Mexi-
CO they made none, except as they were
the representatives of the State of Texas.
They determined tosettle the question which
Mexico refused to adjust by negotiation, and
to settle it by force, They occupied the dis
puted territory they invaded Mexico; they
compelled her to concede not only the terri
tory which was claimed by Texas, but a
large additional extent. Can this vary t .e
rights Of the parties.
advance, then, another step in this in
quiry. If this territory, having been acquired
by treaty anterior to the war, would have
enured to the benefit Of Texas, which must
be admitted if there is 10 difference be-
tween territory SO acquired by treaty, and
territory acquired by treaty at the terminal
ton of a war prosecuted in afirmance of her
fights, which it will be difficult to deny, then
| ..l a tb,t uupStion can he IN the SLIGHTEST