they could be dealt with according to their deserts.”  Patriots might differ as to the expediency of entering upon war; but duty and honor forbade divided counsels after American blood had been shed on American soil.  Had he foreseen the extraordinary turn of the discussion, he assured his auditors, he could have presented “a catalogue of aggressions and insults; of outrages on our national flag—­on persons and property of our citizens; of the violation of treaty stipulations, and the murder, robbery, and imprisonment of our countrymen.”  These were all anterior to the annexation of Texas, and perhaps alone would have justified a declaration of war; but “magnanimity and forbearance toward a weak and imbecile neighbor” prevented hostilities.  The recent outrages left the country no choice but war.  The invasion of the country was the last of the cumulative causes for war.

But was the invaded territory properly “our country”?  This was the crux of the whole matter.  On this point Douglas was equally confident and explicit.  Waiving the claims which the treaty of San Ildefonso may have given to the boundary of the Rio Grande, he rested the whole case upon “an immutable principle”—­the Republic of Texas held the country on the left bank of that river by virtue of a successful revolution.  The United States had received Texas as a State with all her territory, and had no right to surrender any portion of it.[224]

The evidence which Douglas presented to confirm these claims is highly interesting.  The right of Texas to have and to hold the territory from the Nueces to the Rio Grande was, in his opinion, based incontrovertibly on the treaty made by Santa Anna after the battle of San Jacinto, which acknowledged the independence of Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as its boundary.  To an inquiry whether the treaty was ever ratified by the government of Mexico, Douglas replied that he was not aware that it had been ratified by anyone except Santa Anna, for the very good reason that he was the government at the time.  “Has not that treaty with Santa Anna been since discarded by the Mexican government?” asked the venerable J.Q.  Adams.  “I presume it has,” replied Douglas, “for I am not aware of any treaty or compact which that government ever entered into that has not either been violated or repudiated by them afterwards.”  But Santa Anna, as recognized dictator, was the de facto government, and the acts of a de facto government were binding on the nation as against foreign nations.  “It is immaterial, therefore, whether Mexico has or has not since repudiated Santa Anna’s treaty with Texas.  It was executed at the time by competent authority.  She availed herself of all its benefits.”  Forthwith Texas established counties beyond the Nueces, even to the Rio Grande, and extended her jurisdiction over that region, while in a later armistice Mexico recognized the Rio Grande as the boundary.  It was in the clear light of these facts that Congress had passed an act extending the revenue laws of the United States over the country between the Rio Grande and the Nueces—­the very country in which American soldiers had been slain by an invading force.