The Daily Union

The Mexican Whigs.
"Aid and comfort to the enemy."
It is idle to conceal the fact any longer. The whig leaders in the United States are responsible for the prolongation of the war; and if the treaty be not ratified, they will be responsible before their country for its rejection. If any impartial man still resists the accumulated evidence we have already produced from so many sources—from officers of the American army, who went out whigs, and have become disgusted and indignant at the treachery of their former associates—we furnish the following evidence, which carries with it irresistible weight. It is from a Mexican journal, which is published at the seat of the Congress of Queretaro, and under the auspices of the war party in Mexico. Our readers will see their calculations. They will see how much the Mexicans have been cheered by the opposition of the whig leaders to the war, to their supplies of men, and how seriously they calculate upon getting the best terms from the United States, in consequence of the expectation that a whig President will be elected in November next. We have heard hundreds say that this is the very calculation which the war men in Mexico would make, founded upon the course of the whigs; and here is the evidence of the fact. We copy the article from the last New Orleans Crescent:

The War Party in Mexico on the Peace Party in the United States.
The following article, which we translate from the Queretaro Progreso of the 27th ult., is of peculiar interest as being an exposition of the views of the war party in Mexico, and the effect which our politics have had in producing or modifying those views. It must be remarked, that the notes, as well as the body of the article, are translated from the Progreso:

Reflections upon the evils which would result from ratifying the Treaty of Peace concluded on the 2d of February, at the city of Guadalupe; which treaty cedes to the United States the province of Texas, that of New Mexico, Upper California, half of Sonora, and parts of Coahuila and Tamaulipas-in all. half of the republic

The circular dated the 9th of February last, which the most excellent Minister of Relations addressed to the governors of the States, informing them that on the 2d of the same month a treaty of peace had been signed with the commissioner of the United States, ought to cause little surprise to the Mexicans after the supreme government had repeatedly refused to confess frankly that it had entered into negotiations with the enemy. But if this circumstance has filled with fear those who had given the supreme government credit for good faith, it has still more astonished them when they recollected the solemn assurance it gave that the enemy had demanded no condition which would be ignominious to the republic. Heaven grant that it may be so, and that what the press has revealed concerning the treaty may be false! According to them, the dividing line will commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land; it will follow the middle of the Rio Grande until it arrives at the southern frontier of New Mexico, thence north until it meets the first arm of the Rio Gila, thence down the middle of said branch to the Rio Colorado; thence it will follow the dividing line of Upper and Lower California, touching the Pacific a league south of San Diego. Thus the United States will remain master of Texas, Upper California, New Mexico, half of Sonora, part of Chihuahua, part of Coahuila, and almost half of Tamaulipas; giving in consideration fifteen millions of dollars, payable in four years.

It results, from what has been stated, that should the treaty be ratified, we would sacrifice even more than Mr. Trist claimed, as may be seen by referring to his communications inserted in No. 1040 of the Monitor Republicano of the 16th of February, which shows officially that the American commissioner agreed that the dividing line should commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, at a point opposite the centre of the most southern mouth of the bay of Corpus Christi, and which should follow the Nueces river. (This refers to the negotiations at Tacubaya last August -Editors Crescent.] We may inquire if there would be any ignominy in the ratification of this treaty? We omit to inquire whether there was any on the part of our government in permitting it to be signed by the Mexican plenipotentiaries.

For ourselves, we have no doubt that the treaty is ignominious; as the republic, still having means to prolong the war to a period when we might obtain a peace truly honorable and less ruinous, (as we will show further on,)humiliates herself before an enemy who has only partially triumphed,by ceding for fifteen million dollars an immense territory worth more than five hundred millions, as Texas alone contains more than ninety million acres of land, and in the United States each acre is worth $1 25 to $1 50. Such a treaty is in itself sufficiently shameful, because we bind ourselves to take fifteen millions for what is worth five hundred millions; as also, because the enemy has menaced us with the destruction of our nationality, when all those who know the United States are very well aware that its political organization does not permit it to carry out such fanfaronade, which could intimidate cowardly spirits alone, or those who only know that republic from the exaggerated accounts of travelling romance writers. How, then, can it be pretended that the treaty is not ignominious? To demand of a nation the pecuniary sacrifices which are demanded of ours-to oblige it, moreover, to abandon its rights, and the justice to which it is entitled, and which it is in a position to extort-is not this to humiliate it ?-is not this to crush it ?-is it not to ridicule it, and to make us pass among all Mexicans for Hottentots or imbeciles ? Is it not evident that, in agreeing to such pretensions of the enemy, we would pass for the vilest of the earth ? Would we not give all civilized nations reason to doubt the justice of our cause, which, even in the United States itself, has been justified by the most eminent men of the country? We must be very ignorant of politics, or very much possessed by the spirit of party, not to see the sad consequences which would result from the ratification of this treaty, by which, in imitation of the Chinese in the last war with the English, our high functionaries are intimidated into sacrificing the dearest interests of the country, and its future welfare, rather than suffer, for a short time, some privations, which would soon furnish us an opportunity of adjusting an honorable peace. And how, in any other manner, can we preserve the sympathy which we have elicited in the United States and other parts of the civilized world ? What will the peace party (1) in the States themselves say of us—they who have been encouraging us to sustain ourselves until we could obtain with them a satisfactory arrangement of our difficulties as soon as they should come into power, which they are almost certain to obtain at the next presidential election ? Is it possible that, when all the news we have from the north confirms us in the idea that Mr. Polk is every day becoming more unpopular. and that he cannot obtain from Congress the resources which he solicits (2) for the continuation of the war, our representatives will bind themselves to accept a peace, in every view so opprobrious? Can it be possible that, when the troops of the enemy are about to evacuate our territory, our government can be so ignorant as to save them from the perilous situation in which they are placed, by agreeing to an iniquitous treaty?

But it is said, "the American government has treated with that of Mexico, as independent governments always treat." (It is clear that in this, and in no other manner, could it legalize its unheard-of usurpation. For how otherwise could it enter into pacific possession of the usurped territory, if it were not by treaty with an apparently independent government?' What other course has the American government taken with the Indian tribes in the United States? Has it not caused the Choctaws, the Creeks, the Cherokees, the Seminoles, and other tribes, to believe that they were independent nations? But has it on this account hesitated to appropriate their most valuable lands, and expel them from the homes of their fathers? This is not the question: it is, has that government observed towards Mexico the same consideration which it would have shown to every other nation of the civilized world? We believe not, but that it has treated us like despicable beings, who know neither the value of their independence, nor the consequences of the voluntary loss of an immense territory. If it were not so, it would not insult us by offering fifteen millions of dollars for territory worth more than five hundred millions ; nor would it outrage, in this manner, the good sense of thinking men. If this be not an atrocious joke, we know not by what name to call it; nor can we conceive how Mexicans can be found who are not filled with indignation at the manner in which it is attempted to deceive us.

If the usurpation of Texas was, as it is notorious, the cause of the war, why should we not limit our cession of territory to that province, receiving in exchange suitable compensation, instead of giving what is asked of us, only to gratify the passions of a party on the eve of a presidential election? (3Mr. Polk, in order to become President, offered to complete the annexation of Texas, and other considerable portions of our territory; and he will, in order to be re-elected, there is no doubt, promise that before the conclusion of his second term, the rest of the Mexican republic shall form an integral part of the United States of America. And we, knowing all this, shall we contribute to the ambitious and iniquitous views of such a wretch, and to our own proper ruin ? It is necessary to see, in order to believe it, for it is not easy to imagine such a depth of ignominy.

The organ of the central government, in a circular to the governors of the States, on the 17th of January last, said: Without doubt the demands of the United States will render great sacrifices necessary in order to make a peace ; but never, never, the sacrifice of the national honor; nor will the losses of Mexico, in any case, remain without corresponding compensation." Well, now, is it no sacrifice of national honor to consent to the loss of an immense territory, and submit to the humiliation of forming an alliance with the enemy, to complete the arrangement, as it is agreed in the 16th article of the truce concluded on the 29th of February last ? And fifteen millions of dollars payable in four years- is this, perchance, "corresponding compensation" for the territory in question, forming as it does half of the republic ?

If, then, the treaty of peace is ignominious in every point of view, why did the government consent to its formation? Did it not inform us in its circular of the 19th of February, that "it well knew how to continue the war if the invader, insisting on ignominious conditions, should exasperate the republic, and place it under the necessity of fighting to the death, or to extermination." Did he not tell us that then there would be no medium between death and infamy, and that even the coldest bosoms would feel themselves warmed with valor to combat heroically; that, in short, the government had neither to calculate nor force, but that it would only sound the cry of alarm, appeal to the most noble sentiments of the heart, and call upon the nations which have seen Mexico so long struggling with unequal forces, in a contest just and holy for us, and worthy the support of all nations ? Has he forgotten these promises so quickly ? Or does he expect to have them realized by an offer of fifteen millions for the rest of the republic, that we may be blotted out at once from the catalogue of civilized nations?

(1.) Mr. Webster, on the 17th of last March, said in the Senate, speaking of the treaty of peace, "that if such conditions had been required of the United States as were demanded of Mexico, they would have been rejected with indignation."

(2.) After having written these reflections, news has been received that the House of Representatives of the United States had authorized Mr. Polk to raise a loan of sixteen millions of dollars, on condition of not paying more than 6 per cent. per annum. and that the bonds should not be issued at less than par. Such an authority. even should it be agreed to by the Senate, which is doubtful, amounts to nothing; for such is the scarcity of money in the United States and Europe, that it will not be possible to sell the bonds of this new loan at par. The members of the party in the House opposed to Mr. Polk foresaw this, and for this reason consented to the loan. As to the ten regiments, the Arco Iris, of Vera Cruz, says: "The ten regiment bill has been passed by the democratic majority of the Senate of the United States, but it is generally believed will be defeated in the House. This has tended to make ridiculous the vain ostentation of the American democracy in the Senate in passing the bill, which had no other object than to frighten Mexico."

(3. The election for President will take place on the first Monday of November, instead of in October, as heretofore.