Ir has been the fortune of this country, perhaps its misfortune, to have become involved in hostilities with a neighboring republic. Such a state of things was contemplated many years ago however, as possible, by our leading statesmen, to whom no intentions of precipitate action, nor any ambitious designs, were ever attributed. Indeed, we may safely aver, that if hostilities had been commenced against Mexico long before the annexation of Texas, the people of this country would have been ready to sustain such a measure, and have given it their hearty approval.

The subsequent causes which have arisen for the attitude we have assumed, resulting from the addition of Texas to the Union, would in all probability have never been questioned, if an internal discord of opinion had not prevailed among ourselves, on the subject of slavery. This has led to opposition in certain quarters, to the measures of the Government, and has drawn public attention too much from the consideration of the war as a national measure of public justice, as well as from its origin, conduct, and real character.

These are questions which belong to history, which other nations will regard with interest, and in that view they should be treated. The theory of our domestic institutions, the provisions of our constitution, and the conflicting opinions of politicians on slavery, have nothing, or should have nothing to do with the broad question of our relations with Mexico. This is an independent topic, and should be treated as such. We are not willing that the judgment of the age should be warped by irrelative issues. To contribute our humble share, therefore, to a right exposition of the case, we shall proceed briefly to examine the origin and conduct of the war.

We may start with the proposition, then, that our relations with Mexico for twenty years past have been of an offensive and threatening character. The attention of Congress has again and again been attracted to their condition, not only by the communications of successive Presidents, but by the earnest petitions of our citizens, asking for redress and indemnity for unprovoked and eminently unjust aggressions on our commerce. No nation on earth would have so long refrained from exacting justice from Mexico by force of arms as we have done. We have borne our wrongs from her with patience, until patience has ceased to be a virtue.) In our negotiations

with France for redress of similar wrongs, the language of President Jackson, bold and even denunciatory, was applauded by the people. And during our difficulties with England in relation to the North-western boundary and the territory of Oregon, not a lisp of censure was heard from those lips now pouring forth their imprecations on the war with Mexico. We heard only of aspirations for the continuance of honorable peace. But now an element of mischief is at work. Wrongs committed by Mexico, in the opinion of some writers, are no wrongs, because slavery has not been exterminated in Texas. Improper and ill-timed issues have been made, and “all seems yellow to the jaundiced eye."

After years of negotiation, our Government succeeded in arranging a Convention for the adjustment and settlement of our claims, pursuant to a treaty made and ratified by both countries. Any nation pretending to respectability of character, would have sought to carry out the provisions of such a treaty. But what was the result in the case of Mexico? A gross violation of the stipulated conditions of the payment of our claims occurred before one third of the debt had been liquidated; and during the sessions of the convention itself, the most frivolous, unjust, and deceptive means were resorted to, to prevent a full acknowledgment and recognition of those claims.

Even Mr. Webster has admitted, what every honest American must admit, that the United States had well founded claims against Mexico, and that Mexico has behaved most wrongfully towards us.) Indeed, to assert the contrary, would be to falsify the history of our country, and discredit its official documents. The abrupt termination of this convention, after a studied delay on the part of the Mexican Commissioners, left a large majority of our American claims unsettled; those which were allowed were never fully satisfied, and those which should have been so, were thrown aside, and the applicants for indemnity were left to bear up against the loss of their property and the ruin of their hopes as best they could. The idea that the commerce of this country can be preyed upon for years, and that our merchants and shippers may be ruined by every association of plunderers who can get our property into their power, is an absurdity too gross to need exposure. This Union was formed for high and useful purposes, and not the least of these, was the protection of the life, liberty and property of American citizens.

(The annexation of Texas is considered as one of the causes of the war, and so it has been treated both in the newspapers and on the floor of Congress. That it has to do with the war we will not deny; but if it has been inade a cause of difficulty, Mexico alone is responsible for the consequences. This distinction should be kept up in the minds of all reflecting persons. The annexation of Texas was not an act of War on our part. That was a Republic which had taken its place among the nations of the earth. Its freedom was recognised officially by the most powerful of the European Governments, and diplomatic intercourse, according to the laws of nations, had grown up between Texas and its new found friends. The recognition of its independence being thus general, and fully established, left it the power to seek the alliance of France or England, or more wisely, to become a member of a confederacy, where the Ægis of liberty could be held up for its protection, and where it could affiliate with kindred interests, hopes and destinies.)

Even Mexico had admitted this independent position of Texas, by a proposition and an effort to negotiate. There was no doubt then, and there can be no doubt, that the annexation of Texas was no just cause of offence to Mexico. Indeed, after all the angry correspondence between the Mexican

Secretary of State and our former minister at the capital, a new negotiation was agreed upon, and might have terminated honorably and peacefully to both parties, but for the fresh misconduct of the Mexican Government. Our minister, sent out in good faith and under a pledge that he should be received and accredited-our squadron withdrawn from the Mexican coasts, and our earnest proffers of amity, were only made the bases of new insults, and the commission of an act of inhospitality and bad faith towards that minister, whose life indeed was scarcely safe in the hands of a perfidious people. The treatment of Mr. Slidell was of itself cause of war, as well for its injurious effects upon the national honor and character, as because it was an act jeoparding those high and lofty principles, which, by recognising a solemn embassy, permit Governments to arrange their difficulties through their diplomatic agents, and give assurance that the good faith of nations is yet a guarantee for the preservation of their commercial and political relations.

Texas becoming an integral portion of the United States, was immediately entitled to the protection afforded to the other members of the confederacy. The boundary of the new state, as claimed by it, was recognised by the nations of the earth when they recognised its independence. Mr. Clay, however much he may have opposed the measures of the present administration, has distinctly asserted, that by the treaty of Louisiana, the boundary, as claimed by Texas, was fully established. In 1836, the Congress of Texas declared the Rio del Norte to be the boundary of the Republic; it had "exercised and extended its jurisdiction" beyond the Nueces; that portion of territory south of the Rio had been represented in the Congress of Texas; and finally, in 1845, our own Congress. had included it within the circle of our revenue system, placing officers to reside there for the very purpose of supervising and sustaining it. Thus this country in each particular committed itself on this boundary question; and as the representatives of all parties in Congress assented to it, it became indisputably a settled question, "odorous with nationality."

Other measures became unavoidable, from the very nature of things, and Texas was as much entitled to our sympathy and protection, as any portion of the confederacy. That protection was needed, is a matter of history. A Mexican force threatened a fresh attack, and Texas, worn out with its long and bloody struggle for freedom, required, as it had a right to do, our prompt assistance. Thus we perceive there was an imperious necessity for action on our part; the collection of the revenue, important enough even in times of peace, to make the employment of a fleet of armed cutters indispensable, and the defence of our territory, demanded the presence of an American force in the quarter threatened. The manner in which this was done, was marked with as much judgroent as delicacy.

The President, through his Secretary of War, placed a small force under the command of Col. Taylor, Brevet Brigadier General, an experienced and brave officer, and by no means a senior of his grade. The propriety of this first movement is highly worthy of commendation. There was no display of any of the pomp and circumstance of war-no great military effort-no thrusting forward of superior general officers, as if some grand design was intended; it was the mere disposition of a command, in the manner constantly practised by our Government, to protect a distant post, and as has for years been usual upon the rivers and prairies of the far west. (Still further to determine the character of this movement, we have only to look at the instructions given by the Secretary of War to General Taylor, which were, to abstain from all aggressive conduct towards Mexico and the Mexicans, and to commit no act of hostility unless in self-defence.)

In the selection of General Taylor, the War Department displayed great

sagacity and good sense; and in relieving him from the control of his superior officers in the southern military department, it left him free to act according to the dictates of his own excellent judgment. His former services had established his reputation, and his conduct confirmed the good opinion entertained of him at Washington. And it is evident, upon the perusal of the recently published correspondence, that his opinions were frankly sought, and generally as frankly adopted.

It is also evident that the whole procedure of Gen. Taylor was in contemplation of a pacific mission. In a letter to Gen. Worth, he declared he apprehended no collision; and that General Worth entertained the same opinion, is evident from his returning to the United States and desiring to throw up his commission. (Those who would charge the Government with a desire to commence war, must, therefore shut their eyes to the instructions of the President to Gen. Taylor, as well as to the recorded opinions of that discreet officer, that there would be no collision, opinions of which he made no secret whatever.) (The Mexicans took the initiative, with their usual craftiness and love of blood) The massacre of Col. Cross and of Lieutenant Porter, and the unprovoked attack upon the command of Captains Thornton and Hardie, were demonstrations of hostility, worthy only of barbarians and murderers, and these were upon territory not only known as a portion of Texas, but admitted to be such in an official proclamation by Gen. Woll, one of the officers of Mexico herself! The American Government was at all times willing to treat with Mexico. (It was Mexico, unwilling to receive the olive branch, that must fairly be charged with a premeditated design to make

war.

And here we may pause for a moment to contemplate the character of the instructions given to the American commander by the Secretary of War. In the letter of July 9, 1846, a spirit of forbearance and magnanimity breathes in every line, humanity influences every dictate, and the pacific intentions of the Government are everywhere apparent. In the appeal made to the Mexicans themselves, through an official proclamation prepared at Washington, the people of Mexico are alluded to with kindness far greater than they deserved; and only against their betrayers and oppressors, the real causes of their misery, were its denunciations uttered.

War then existed by the acts of Mexico herself; and our own Congress, unable to shut its eyes to the fact, officially recognized its existence. The battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, the siege of Fort Brown, the capture of Matamoras, and the advance upon and storming of Monterey, followed in brilliant succession. They are events too well known to need our eulogy; they are such, to use the language of the Secretary of War, as entitle them to be considered everywhere "examples of courage and of skill, scarcely excelled in the history of military operations." They have been followed up by a disposition of our forces, which cannot fail to close the war with immortal honor to the American arms.

The plans upon which the war has been conducted, have been the subject of much discussion. And by many a caviller

Studiously keeping out of view the chief and controlling principles which have all along governed the action of the President and the War Department, such persons have been as unfair in their criticisms, as they have been unsound in their opinions. At one time the administration was charged with sending a small army to be cut off, thus abandoning the idea of its being adequate to a war of conquest, and at others, with the intention of destroy