{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5581, "word_count": 989, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9847999811172485], "ccnet_perplexity": [848.7000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 upon her original sovereignty, and she con uhued to maintain it. When she entered inc

 Mexican confederation, under the treaty of

 ioE4; no foreign State had any claim upon her; and when that confederation was dis solved she was remitted back to that soyer. elgnty she never had lost, and there she stood SoVerign State to this hour. We had given up our title by treaty; Spain had yielded hers py recognising Mexican independence, ineln- ding that of Texas. Mexico had mo claim upon her when she freely entered the con iederatlon; Coahuila had none Texas freely agreed to become one member in confeder- ation ot States like our own-a eonCedera- ton composed of distinct sovereionties. nee Slhg together to secure certain definite objects for the good of all. In 1884 the history of 'iiat country informed us that a military usnr- per dissolved the confederation by force.- aroVe the Congress from their hall by force oi arms, and violated and trampled upon the rights ot the States and thspeople by mil i!ary revolution, establishing upon their ru- ms central Government of the most des- potlc character What did Texas doo Ii had been said that Texas raised the rebellion With view to annexation; but history gave the iie to that charge. The people of Texas met and formed provisional Government under the banner of the Constitution of 1921. and she. sent forth invitations to the sister States, formerly associated with her under that Constitution, calling on them to re-estab- fish it.

 Her conduct, in this crisis of her affairs. dld not deserve the censures which had been cast upon 1t. It showed, plainly, that ii was not the revolutionary spirit of Texas which overturned the Constitution of 1921. but if was Mexican oppression and the armed hand oi tyrant. Finding that the States around her did not respond to her call-that there was not enough of the love of lbery in their hearts or councils to inspirit them to strike tor thelr freedom, the people of Texas took lie from our example; they went up at once to the tountain-head of liberty, and learned thelr right to absolve the bonds of govern meht that oppressed them. They felt that they were thrown back on their true orioinal sovereignty. The United States had no claim over them; Spain had no claim over them; and whence came any right in Mexico? It was not to be found in the law of nations. She had never taken possession of the country, either by diplomacy or by arms; she had right to treat. Sine had exhibited for eiqht years the spectacle of people free, acknoWl- edged to be sovereign, existing under Gov ernment oi their own choice, regularly and lawfully administered; electing her own off cers; enacting her own laws; forming trea- tles; and, as the highest of all acts of soYer- eingty, negotiating for boundaries She was now a soVefeign-a sovereign with power to make an alliance, and to make an alliance With us, unless this Government was estop- ped from such alliance by our treaty of ami ty and commerce with Mexico

 The inquiry, therefore, was, whether such an alliance would be an infringement of that treaty, and would interfere with state of amlty between the Mexican Government and our own? Mir. Y. held the negative, and for this reason; that Mexico had no title to Tex as. And the only contingency under which we were forbidden to enter into alliance with the latter was, the existence of law actually in progress. Mir. Y. confessed that Ragra1ie betfo we could make no such alliance. But was there such a war? Could 1t be main taned that war was now in progress be- tween these two Powers? He maintained that no military invasion or other act of ac- knowledged hostility had been authorised by the Government of Mexico since the ever memorable battle of San Jacinto. True. there had been some forays, some predatoy. incursions, but did gentlemen mean to call that war Was that war in which no Mexi- can soldier had ever seen or dared to look upon Texan banner, or the gleam of one Texan bayonet? It was not war There had been no regular invasion so much as attempt ed. Why, Mexico, so far from being in a condition to achieve a conquest over the An glo-SaXon race, was not able to keep her own subjects in peace. To carry on war with foreign power, country must be at peace at home. She must have control over her own subjects, and the means of sustaining them in their attacks upon the enemy. But Mexico had neither. She was rent and torn within her own bowels; and that very morning in- telligence had been received since the House was in session, that Santa Anna had been de- posed and banished from the Mexican soil That was the present condition of Mexico. Was she in a condition to make war upon Texas She had not the means to do it. She was deficient in that which the chairman of the committee on foreign affairs (Mr c. J. Ingersoll) had very justly denominated the best and chielest sinew of war-he meant money. Of this, Mexico had none It was only paper war, and was Texas an independ. ent, sovereign state, which had maintained her independence, and whom Mexico could not conquer, to pause in securing great na- tional good, because Mexico continued to prosecute war on paper against her A pa per war was no more to be regarded than a paper blockade. It would not be pretended by any gentleman acquainted with the sub ject, that mere declaration on paper, that certain port was blockaded, unsupported by any military or naval force, was of binding force upon any body. Tie law of nations, and the common sense of mankind alike, re- quire that there should be means of enfor-