Now, that great statesman, Mr. Webster, has proved on various occasions, and especially in his Philadelphia speech, that annexation of Texas to the United States was no cause of war, because Texas was as much an independent State as Mexico. The act was no more a cause of war on the part of Mexico, than her annexation to the United States would have been a cause of war on the part of Texas. If Mr. Webster be correct, and I think his argument unanswerable, was Mexico justifiable in the course pursued by her towards us on account of that act? Was she justifiable in withdrawing her minister, and ordering away the minister of the United States? These were very high handed and insulting measures, and attended, necessarily, with the serious consequence of putting an end to all peaceful modes of adjusting differences, and leaving the only alternatives of, submission, or war, on our part. But, under the circumstances in which Mexico was placed towards us, it was an act of gross injustice, as well as insult. _She had a treaty obligation to fulfil, in the payment of several millions, as the indemnity for wrongs done to American citizens, and demands had been made upon her for several millions more, which remained unadjusted._ There was, also, a question of boundary to settle—all these matters must be settled either peaceably, or by war—if peaceably, the continuance, or re-establishment of diplomatic intercourse, was indispensable. Her conduct was like that of the debtor who cuts the acquaintance of his creditor, and thinks by that means, to avoid fulfilling his obligations. Let me ask, what would have been the course pursued, (if placed in our situation,) by England or France, or any other high minded Government? I ask any candid man to say, whether they would have borne it as patiently as we have done? I would ask whether there was as much forbearance shown by us with Louis Philippe, on the subject of the French indemnity, or with England in the Northern boundary, and Oregon question? That nation assumes an awful responsibility, which, like Mexico, puts an end to the peaceable ways of diplomacy, leaving no alternative but horrid war, or base submission. Mexico should have paid her debt before she put an end to peaceful intercourse, and she could not do it without injustice, while there were claims still depending. All arguments drawn from considerations of forbearance, humanity, generosity, expediency, are for ourselves—Mexico is entitled to no part in them. In my estimation, the great _error_ of Mexico, if so mild a term can be applied, consists in her having terminated all peaceful modes of settling differences; for, as there is no common arbiter between independent nations, their differences in that case, must be settled by war, or not at all.