In the contest which ensued between these belligerents, Mexico put forth her whole strength—she entered Texas with a powerful army, commanded by her Chief Magistrate in person, who was at the same time her most distinguished military leader—a leader, who had put down the constitution of 1824, and concentrated the whole power of the State in his own person, and in the person of his own military subordinates. The invasion was followed by the signal defeat at San Jacinto, by General Houston, and a treaty, _acknowledging the independence of Texas, and recognizing the Rio Grande as the Southern boundary_. I do not mean to discuss the diplomatic question involved in this treaty, my object being in this place, merely to state facts.[6] Subsequently, with the exception of some inroads on either side, the war ceased—the cause of Mexico became hopeless—the independence of Texas was not only recognized by us, but also by other neutral nations. Her inability to re-conquer Texas, was confessed by Mexico herself; she was even willing to acknowledge her independence on the condition that Texas would not unite herself to the United States—condition which no nation in our place would fail to regard as offensive. Next follows the act on our part in which was merged all other offences, and was, before-hand, declared by Mexico, not only as a cause of war, but equivalent to a declaration of war—the annexation of Texas with its consent. The act has been generally condemned by the whig press, and yet, it is sustained by very high authority: Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, holds this language: “Mexico may have chosen to consider Texas as having been at all times since 1835, and still continuing, a rebellious province, but the world has been obliged to take a different view of the matter. From the time of the battle of San Jacinto to the present moment, Texas has continued to exhibit the same internal signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite as much stability of government.” Again he repeats, “since 1837, the United States have regarded Texas as an independent sovereignty as much as Mexico.” He says further, “the constitution, public treaties, and laws, oblige the President to regard Texas as an independent State, _and its territory no part of the territory of Mexico_.” In a late public speech at Springfield, Mr. Webster uses the following language, “I do not admit that it was a just ground of complaint on the part of Mexico, that the United States annexed Texas to themselves.” From my own unassisted reasoning, I had arrived at the same conclusion with Mr. Webster. The ground taken by the great statesman against the war, was not on account of the annexation of Texas, but of the march of Gen. Taylor, by the order, or sanction of Mr. Polk, whose practical result was