JC7 
 
HOLUNGER 
 pH 8.3 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543 
 
E 4?I7 
 .J67 
 Copy 1 
 
 r 
 
 THE WAR WITH IVIEXICO, 
 • SPEECH 
 
 HON. H. V. JOHNSON, OF GEORGIA, 
 
 n 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH Ifi, 1848, 
 
 On the Bill reported from the Committee on Military Affairs to raise, for a limited tivie^ 
 
 an additional Military Force. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON said: 
 
 Mr. President: The embarrassment under which 
 I now labor, proceeds not only from the advanced 
 hour of the day, at which, I arise to address the 
 Senate, but also from the nature of the subject, and 
 its familiarity, in consequence of protracted discus- 
 sion, to the mind of every Senator. It has been 
 viewed in every hght of which it is capable. In- 
 deed, I should not ask the induls;cnce of the Senate 
 on this occasion, if I did not feel that my position, 
 representing in part the State of Georgia, devolves 
 upon me the duty of presenting my opinions in 
 relation to the war, its causes, and its prosecution. 
 I trust the Senate will be the more disposed to 
 pardon my intrusion at this time, when they re- 
 member, tiiat I took my seat in this Chamber, but 
 a few days prior to the time, when they became 
 continually engaged in Executive sessions; and 
 that previously, I had not an opportunity of ex- 
 pressing my views. The present moment, sur- 
 rounded as it is by obvious embarrassments, is the 
 first, of which, I could avail myself, to discuss the 
 important measure now upon your desk. 
 
 I have not been able, sir, to arrive at the con- 
 viction that, under existing circumstances, there is 
 any impropriety in examining the merits of the 
 Mexican v;ar. I do not conceive, that anything 
 ha.s transpired which should change the character 
 of the debate, or detract from its interest. It is not 
 my design, however, to enterupon adetailed state- 
 ment of the events connected with our entaiigle- 
 TTients with Mexico. All that I propose to do is, 
 'to glance, briefly, at the most prominent, with tiie 
 view of drawing such deductions as are natural 
 and legitimate. I am convinced that, after such a 
 review of the history of the origin of the war, there 
 will be little difficulty, in arriving at the conclusion, 
 that, from first to last, our country has been in the 
 right; and that, throughout the whole progress of 
 hostilities, we have conducted ourselves in such a 
 manner, as not to tarnish our reputation as a nation ; 
 but, on the contrary, to enhance it alike in a civil 
 and military point of view. 
 
 What has been our conduct towards Mexico? 
 From the usurpation of Napoleon, in 1808, down 
 to the commencement of hostilities, it has been 
 characterized by kindness and forbearance. Pend- 
 ing her struggle with Spain, the great Powers of 
 Europe combined to defeat the achievement of her 
 independence. On the 27th of January, 1823, we 
 recognized it; and Mr. Rush, our minister to the 
 Court of St. James, was instructed to ask the co- 
 
 operation of Great Britain with the United States, 
 in proclaiming the independence of the Spanish 
 American colonies. Upon her declining to do so, 
 Mr. Monroe, in behalf of our Government, de- 
 clared — 
 
 " Tliat lIiR American continents, by the free and inilepen- 
 deiit condition vvliich tlu-y have a.-sumf(l, and maintain, 
 were tlK^nceloitii not to be considered as sulyects for future 
 colonization by any European Power; and that we owe it 
 to candor, and to the ainicalile relations existini; between 
 the United States and othrr Powers, to declare that we 
 should consider any attempt, on their part, to extend their 
 (the European) sysleui to any portion of this hemisphere, 
 as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the Govern- 
 ments who have declared their independence, and main- 
 tained it, and whose independence we have, on sreat con- 
 sideratioii and on just principles, acknowledged, we should 
 not view any inierporiilion, for the purpose of oppressing 
 them, or controlling in any manner their destiny by any 
 European Power, in any other light than as the manifesta- 
 tion of an unfriendly disposition towards the L'nited States." 
 
 This announcement, proclaitned in a form so 
 soleiTin, and a tone so commanding, produced a 
 pause in the pragmatic machinations of the jealous 
 thrones of Europe, and Mexico Avas permitted to 
 prosecute her resistance to Spanish oppression, 
 v/ithout foreign molestation. Our recognition of 
 her independence was soon seconded by other lead- 
 ing Governments of Europe; and on the 4th of Oc- 
 tober, 1824, she succeeded in establishing a federal 
 government, similar, in its prominent features, to 
 that of the United States. We concluded with her 
 treaties of commerce and navigation and limits, by 
 which, we guarantied to her the same boundary 
 which existed between us and Spain, and which 
 augured friendly intercourse and due respect to our 
 muiual rights and interests. 
 
 But how has this treatment been requited by 
 Mexico? Has she appreciated our generosity.' 
 Has she exhibited her gratitude, by respecting our 
 rights and seeking to retain our friendship ? So far ' 
 from this, her conduct towards the United States, 
 almost from the very day of her revolt from Spain, 
 down to the inception of the present war, has been 
 characterized by every act of aggravated outrage, 
 which could define the most iinplacable enmity. 
 She insulted our flag, captured our sh'ps, impris- 
 oned our citizens and confiscated their property. 
 We remoiislrated, appealed from time to time to 
 her sense of honor, and invoked her fidelity to 
 treaty stipulations. But it was in vain; it all re- 
 sulted only in disgraceful equivocation, or prom- 
 ises of reparation, made only to be violated. 
 
 As early as 1837, General Jack.son communi- 
 cated to Congress a history of our grievances, ex- 
 
 Friiited at the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
 I Sy c 
 
J^-l 
 
 pressed the opii)inn that we would stand juslified, 
 in the eyes of ihe civilized world, in a resort to 
 arms, and even went so far, as to recommend repri- 
 sals. But ill the fullnesM of forhcuiancc, he advised, 
 that nnotiier appeal should be made to her sense of 
 
 wronss to be redressed, since the war docs exist. 
 War between nations is the necessary result of the 
 aliscnce of any eompiient triluinal, for a peaeeful 
 |stmcnt of their disputes. It is a substitute for a 
 it internation;il lii^^h court of chancery, and, like 
 
 justice, coupled with Ihedisiirictunderslandin^.liiatn.suc.h a tribunal, having once been bcEjun, it is its 
 if she still persisted in wiihlioldini; reparation, we lpt;itiniate jirovince, to settle every question of con- 
 should be determined and prepared to enforce am- troversy, and do ample justice between the parlies. 
 pie redress. This appeal was made, but, as on j Su<-h were the relations between the United States 
 former occasions, it resulted in nothing but hypo- and Mexico, when Congress passed the resolutions 
 critical professions and empty promises. for the annexation of Texas, in March, 1845. 
 
 In December, 1837, President Van Buren referred ] Theretofore Mexico had allc'^ed no just ground of 
 the subject again to Congress; but, still unwilling , complaint against this Government", nor had any 
 to have a rupture with a sister republic^ Congress \ American statesman suggested any for her. Al- 
 
 advised another etfort at negotiation. Joint com 
 missions were raised to audit and adjust the claims 
 of our citizens. After delays and hinderances 
 
 though, during the pendency of our diflcussions of 
 the question of annexation, she entered her remon- 
 strances and protests, and declared she wguld re- 
 
 of various kinds, originating in the tardy sense I gard it as a easus belli, y«l diplomatic intercourse 
 of justice on the part of Mexico, a portion of j still continued, until that measure wa.? determined 
 such claims was admitted and promised to be upon by the Congress of the United Suites. But 
 paid. When the day of payment arrived, longer at this point, she took occasion to dissolve friendly 
 indulgence was asked by Mexico and granted by : relations; and on the (jih of March, 1845, only 
 the United States. So that, at the suspension of] three days after the passage of the resolutions of 
 diplomatic relations between thetwo Governments, j annexation, Mr Almonte demanded his pasisport, 
 there not only remained several millions unad- 1 and said — 
 
 justed, but also several millions unpaid, in viola- 
 lion of treaty stipulation. 
 
 I do not allude to these things, Mr. President, 
 as the proximate cau-^es of the war with Mexico, 
 but to vindicate our Government from the charge 
 of being hard and overbearing towards a neigh- 
 boring republic; and for the further purpose, of 
 drviiig up the tears which bedew the cheeks of 
 Whigery in every section of the Union, so tiiat, 
 their sympathies being transformed into patriotic 
 indignation, truth, and the honor of their country, 
 may have more weight with the opponents of the 
 war, in their delilieraiions upon the great questions 
 wliich it involves. 
 
 How forbearing is the cour.se of our Govern- 
 ment, when compared with the conduct of other 
 nations.' So far from Mexico having any cause 
 of complaint, it is our own citizens who have the 
 right to complain, tliat their Government has been 
 so tardy in avenging their wrongs. When the 
 State of New York imprisoned McLeod, Great 
 Britain threatened instant war against the United 
 States. France assaulted Vera Cruz, and took 
 the castle of San Juan de Ulua, for violations of 
 the rights of her citizens infinitely less flagrant. In 
 the outrages committed at Ta'>asco, British and 
 American citizens endured similar injuries; and in 
 behalf of the former, Englntid demanded and ob- 
 tained immediate rcjiaration, while the latter have 
 gone, even to the present day, unredressed. When 
 General Arista, contrary to the authority of his 
 own Government, took $100,000 from a British 
 mining company, to distribute among his soldiery, 
 for mercenary military services, immediate pay- 
 
 " Tti.nt eomrnry to tii.-f hopes .ind his mostfincero prayers, 
 ho sees coiisinnmnti-d, on the part of the American Givcrn- 
 nnTit, an act of aeijression the most tinjust whicli can he 
 foand ri'cord'd in the nnnnls of inodrrn history — naiiifly, 
 that of dcspoilins nfcwidly nation, tike Mexico, of a consid- 
 erahle portion of her tcrrihry. « « » » 
 
 '• The iindcTsigncd, moreover, protests, in the name of his 
 GnvprnniKnt, that the said law (of annexation) can in nowise 
 invahdate the riahts on which Mexico riches to recover the 
 nhove mentioned province of Tcjus, of whicli she now sees htr 
 self unjustly despoiled; and that she vvill maintain and uphold 
 these rights at all times by every means which may be in tier 
 power." 
 
 This extract, from the valedictory coinmunica- 
 tion of the Mexican minister, exhibits clearly the 
 ground on which, slie predicated her assumption 
 of a hostile attituile towards the United Stales. 
 That ground is " tkat r>f desjwiling afiiendhj nation, 
 like Mexico, of a considerable portion oflier territory.'^ 
 It further declares " llint the said law (of annex- 
 ation) con in noicise invatidiite the righls on icliich 
 'Mexico relies, to 7-ecover Ike above-mentioned province 
 of Texas, of which she now sees herself unjustly 
 despoiled; and that slie tvill maintain and uphold 
 these rights at all limes, by ex-ery means ichich may be 
 in her power." Now, connect this with the decla- 
 ration wliich Mexico made long prior to annex- 
 ation, '^ that she icould look vpon such an act a^ a 
 Ciwiis fcc'.'/i," and what does it prove.' It [iroves 
 two propositions — first, that the measure of annex- 
 ation is the true and only ground of her complaint; 
 and, secondly, that she had deliberately determined 
 to assert her right to Texas by force of arms. 
 
 Was she justifiable in assuming such a position 
 towards the United States? If we had the right to 
 receive, and Texas had the right to incfirporate 
 
 ment was peremptorily demanded, and even time i herself into our Government, then Mexico was not 
 refused him to submit the matter to the considera- justifiable in placing herself in an altitude of hos- 
 tion of Congress. The truth is, sir, that Mexico tility to the United States. I maintain that, at the 
 had spit in the face and pulled the nose of this time of annexation, Texas was an independent 
 Government, until longer foriiearancc were a sac- sovereign State, and therefore, capable of disposing 
 
 rifice of national honor; and while I deeply deplore, 
 at all times, the evils of war, she merits at our 
 hands a severe castigation. It will humble her 
 arron-ance and vindicate our national dignity be- 
 fore the world. 
 
 of herself in any manner consistent with her views 
 of interest and policy. She could form alliances, 
 m;ike treaties, and do all other acts which free and 
 independent Slates may, of light, do. This will be 
 made manifest by a brief consideration of her prop- 
 
 Although these things are not the immediate : er relationship to the Republic of Mexico and the 
 xaueea of the war, yet they are portions of the ' events of her revolution. 
 
But before I proceed to these topics, I must pre- 
 mise one remark, suggested by the character of 
 the resohitions of annexation. Those resolutions, 
 it is well known, left the question of the western 
 boundary of Texas open, to be settled by negoti- 
 ation between the United States and Mexico, not 
 that we entertained doubt as to its location, but in 
 deference to the feelings of that Republic. This 
 must have been well known by Mr. Almonte when 
 he demanded his passport; and therefore, this step, 
 «n his part, was tantamount to a rejection in ad- 
 vance, by his Government, of this peaceful mode 
 of adjustment, to which she was bound to resort, 
 before she could be justified in appealing to arms. 
 Why was this course adopted? Had our Govern- 
 ment exhibited any unwillingness to negotiate? 
 On the contrary, did not the terms of the law of 
 annexation invite it? She was governed by the 
 determination, not to treat of the quest ion of bound- 
 ary, for the reason expressed in Mr. Almonte's 
 letter, that she regarded the '■^ province of Texas" 
 as a ^'considerable portion of her tcrrilorij.''' She 
 did not complain that we claimed more territory, 
 as embraced within the limits of Texas, than was 
 just and proper; but that Texas, the whole of 
 Texas, Texas as annexed, was a portion of her 
 territory; that we had unjustly despoiled her of it; 
 and that she would maintain her title to it by force 
 of arms. In this determination she persisted — 
 rejected peremptorily our offers of negotiation, as 
 I shall show in the progress of my remarks, and 
 voluntarily took the initiative in actual hostili- 
 ties. 
 
 The question recurs. Was she justifiable in such 
 conduct? I confidently maintain that she was not; 
 for the reason, that Texas was a free and inde- 
 pendent State, possessing all the rights and powers 
 appertaining to such a condition. 
 
 What was the relation which Texas sustained 
 to Mexico at the outbreak of her revolt against the 
 military usurpation of Santa Anna? Was it ?i«- 
 lional or federal ? Was her connection such as 
 results from being an integral part of a great con- 
 solidation, or such as springs from compact? 
 
 On the 4th of October, 1824, after many years of 
 bloody contest with Spain, Mexico adopted a con- 
 stitution for her government, similar in its leading 
 features to our own — republican, representative, 
 federal — as is fully shown by the following extract 
 from it: 
 
 " Article 4. The Mexican nation adopts for its govern- 
 ment tliL' I'oriii of rpputdican, rt'prcsPiitativp, popiil:ir, federal. 
 
 "Articles. Tkc iiarls of this Federation are the Stales 
 and Territories. 
 
 " Article 171. The articles of this constitution, and the 
 constitutional act which establishes the liberty and independ- 
 ence of the Mexican nation, its religion, form of Govern- 
 ment, lilierty of the press, and dicision of the sujtrewe poicers 
 of the Federation and the States, can never be reformed.^' 
 
 It is evident, therefore, from the very terms em- 
 
 Rloyed in this instrument, that each State of the 
 lexican Union sustained to the Government a 
 federal relationship — a relationship springing from 
 compacl; and that each State, so far from constitu- 
 ting an integral part of Mexico, as a consolidated 
 Hrt/ton, retained its sovereignty over its soil, and its 
 separate identity and independence, except so far 
 as these were qualified or limited by the nature and 
 provisions of the constitution. This is emphati- 
 cally true in reference to Texas; for her constitution 
 was not adopted until the 11th of March, 1827 — 
 more than two years after the formation of tJie 
 
 Confederacy of 1824; and its 2d Article was as 
 follows: 
 
 "Article 2. It is free and independent of the other 
 United Mexican Slates, and of every otlier foreisrn Power 
 and dominion." Passed March lltli, 1827, and accepted by 
 Mexico." 
 
 With this constitution, Texas was received into 
 the Mexican Union; and, therefore, the Federal 
 Government accepted and recognized her in the 
 character therein designated. 
 
 In 1835, Santa Anna, at the head of a large mer- 
 cenary army, overturned the Confederacy of J824, 
 and on its ruins established, in fact, a military des- 
 potism. He dispersed the State Legislatures, and 
 threatened indiscriminate death to all who should 
 oppose his desolating march. Texas alone, of all 
 the States, refused submission; but did that con- 
 stitute her a rebel against the rightful authority 
 of the Government? She was not resisting, but 
 seeking to sustain the constitution of the Mexican 
 Union. In proof of this, I refer to the following 
 extract fronri the capitulation of General Cos, en- 
 tered into on the llih of March, 1835: 
 
 "That General Cos and his officers retire, with their arms 
 and private property, into the interior of the Repulilic, under 
 pirole of honor, that rhey will not, in any way. oppose the 
 reestablishmcnt of the federal constitution of 1824." 
 
 I refer, also, to the following extract from the 
 manifesto which Texas promulgated on the 7th of 
 November, 1835: 
 
 " Whereas General Antonio Lopez, de Santa Anna, and 
 other military chieftains, have, by force of arms, over- 
 thrown the I'eiieral constitution of' .Mexico, and dissolved the 
 social compact which existed between Texas and the other 
 m(!mbers of the Confederacy; now the good people of Texas, 
 availing themselves of their natural right, solemnly declare — 
 
 " That they have taken up arms in defence of their rights 
 and liberties, which were threatened by encroachments of 
 military despots, and in defence of the republican principles 
 of the federal constitution of Mexico, of 1824." 
 
 These evidences of the intentions and motives of 
 Texas clearly show, that she was not disloyal to 
 the Confederacy, but was animated by a patriotic 
 desire to maintain its integrity. And the recitals 
 in her declaration of the 2d of March, 1836, prove 
 to the world that she never resolved upon separa- 
 tion from_, and independence of, the General Gov- 
 ernment, "until all hope of preserving the constitu- 
 tion of 1824 was at an end. 
 
 Now, what was the effect of this military usurp- 
 ation by Santa Anna and his overthrow of the 
 Confederacy ? We have seen, that Texas never 
 constituted an integral part of Mexico as a consol- 
 idated National Government, but that her relation- 
 ship was one of compact. Therefore, when the 
 constitution, which contained the terms of that 
 compact, was destroyed, and an absolute despotism 
 sought to be enforced upon the people, Texas was 
 released from her bond of union, and was remitted 
 back to that condition of separate independence 
 and sovereignty, in which she was, before she as- 
 sumed her fed 'ral relationship to the Mexican 
 Republic. Vattel says, it is a truth " acknowl- 
 ' edged by every sensible writer whose pen is not 
 ' enslaved by fear or sold for hire," that " as soon 
 ' as a prince attacks the constitution of the State, 
 ' he breaks the contract which bound the people to 
 ' him; the people become free by the act of the 
 ' sovereign, and can no longer view him but as an 
 ' usurper who would load them with oppression.'' 
 Hence, Texas, by the military usurpation of Santa 
 Anna, became free, sovereign, and independent; 
 and, aside from the subsequent events of her rev- 
 
olutionnry striijsjgle, confirmntory of her independ- 
 ence, she wns coni[)Ctent to have annexed herself 
 to the United States, without ^ivin;^ any just cause 
 of offence to any Tower in Christcnclom. If, at 
 that moment, we had received her into our Union, 
 it would have afforded no ground fur Mexico to 
 have dissolved diplomatic rrhitions with tlie United 
 Stales, much less, to have ap(ic:iled to arms. 
 
 Take an illustration from our own Government. 
 Ours, like that of Mexico, is u confederated repub- 
 lic. E^ch State is sovereign and independent, ex- 
 cept so far as these attributes are qualified and 
 limited by the Constitution. Now, suppose some 
 military cliieft;\in, in the hour of successful tri- 
 umph, and in the full tide of popular enthusiasm, 
 should assume the reins of Government, trample 
 upon the Constitution, and overrun the States, 
 disperse their Legislatures, and threaten indiscrim- 
 inate death to all who should offer re.sistance to 
 his usurpation: would not this, ipso facto, remit 
 every State, which should oppose a despotism so 
 absolute and iniquitous, back to its original sov- 
 ereignly.' If Virginia, or New Vork, or Georgia, 
 should be the resisting State, would it ever be con- 
 tended fora moment that she was a rebel, a revolted 
 province? Who would deny that she had the per- 
 fect right, from the very moment of the destruc- 
 tion of the Federal Constitution, to form any al- 
 liance with any other Power, which she might 
 deem necessary for her security and safety? Where 
 would be found the right of the usurpers to com- 
 plain or wage war against the Government thus 
 contracting with such a State? Is not the case of 
 Texas exactly parallel? 
 
 But, at the time of annexation, Texas was inde- 
 pendent, not only dc jure, but de facto. On the 
 21st of April, 1836, she vindicated her independ- 
 ence, by her valor and her arms, on the plains of 
 San Jacinto. She captured Santa Anna and his 
 army, amounting to four thousand men, prisoners 
 of war; and on the 26th, entered into a solemn 
 convention, in which Mexico acknowledged the 
 independence of Texas, and fixed the Rio Grande 
 as her western boundary.. I am aware that the 
 validity of this treaty is denied; that it was, very 
 soon after its conclusion, repudiated by Mexico 
 herself. But, as I shall have occasion to meet the 
 objections urged against it in another brattch of 
 this subject, let it su/Tlce here to remark, that from 
 that time, down to the day of annexation, she suc- 
 cessfully resisted every effort, on the part of Mex- 
 ico, at reconquest, and expelled her forces beyond 
 the Rio Grande; that the United States acknowl- 
 edged her independence in 1837; and Enj;land, 
 J'rance, and other European Powers, in quick suc- 
 cession, imitated our example. The honorable 
 Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Websteii,] I 
 then Secretary of State, in a despatch to our min- ; 
 ialer in Mexico, dated July 8, 184-iJ, said: 
 
 « From the liiiio of tin- l)attlo of Sail lacinto, in April, 
 1836, to the |)ro>eiit inomciil, Trxas lias rxlilliiti'il llin saiuf 
 extermi siiin of national in'li'|>ori(lRfici! as Mnxic-o herself, j 
 end with qnite as much stability of sovernnitnt. Practically \ 
 free and imlependcnt, acknovvlcdncd as a political sover- 
 eignty hy thi^ princip'il I'liwcrs of the world, no hostile foot I 
 findiniirfist in her ti-rritory f>rsi\: or seven years, and Mex- ! 
 ico herself refrainini, ("or all that period, from any fuither | 
 attempt to rcestalilish her own authority over that trrriiory, it 
 cannot but be surprisini; to riii.l Mr. di; Bocnnegrii (the Mexi- 
 can Secretary of Foreign Aft.iirs) complaining, that for that 
 whole period, riiiz'ns of the United States, or its G )vern- 
 menthave been favoring the rebels of Texas, and snpplyin.' 
 them with vessels, annnunitinn, and money, as if the war 
 for the reduction of the province of Texas Had been con- ■ 
 
 slantly prosecuted liy Mexico, and her s^Icce^.g prevented y 
 tliesc inriiicnces from abroad." 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that no candid mind 
 cai^jesist the conclusion, from this evidence, that 
 at^rtime of annexation, Texas whs de jure and 
 de facto an independent, sovereign State; that she 
 had a perfect right to enter, and we to receive her, 
 into this Union. Mexico, therefore, was wholly 
 unjustifidble in suspending diplomatic relations nnd 
 assuming an attitude of hostility towards the Uni- 
 ted States in consequence of annexation. This 
 was her first step towards war with this republic; 
 it was taken voluntarily by her, and without just 
 provocation. 
 
 Now, was it in the power of the United States 
 to settle the inalters of misunderstanding with 
 Mexico, by peaceful ne<;oiialion? 1 think not. On 
 the 13th of October, 184.''>, Mr. Black, consul of 
 the United States in Mexico, in pursuance of in- 
 structions from the President, addressed to Mr. 
 Pefid y Peiia, then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, a 
 note, in which, in behalf of his Governn>ent, he 
 made the following proposition to Mexico, viz: 
 
 " At the time of the suspension of the diplomatic relations 
 between the two countries, General Almonte was assured 
 of the desir.; felt by the President, to adjust amicably, every 
 causer of complaint between the Governments, and to culti- 
 vate the kindest nnd most friendly relations between the 
 sister republics. He still continues to be animated by the 
 same sentiments. He desires that all ex'sting dilferenceg 
 should be terminated amicably, by negotiation, and not by 
 tlie sword. 
 
 " ,\ctuated by these sentiments, the President has directed 
 ine to instru t you, in the absence of any diplomatic agent 
 in Mexico, to ascertain from the Mexican Government, 
 whether they would receive an envoy from llie United 
 States, intrusted with full power to adjust all the qnestionj 
 in dispute between the two Governments. Should the 
 answer he in the affirmative, such an envoy will be imme- 
 diately despatched to Mexico." 
 
 On the 15ih of October, 1845, Mr. PeiHa y PeiTa, 
 in behalf of the Mexican Government, made the 
 following reply: 
 
 " In answer, I have to say to you, that althonsli the Mex- 
 ican nation is deeply injured by the United States, through 
 the acts committed by them in the department of Texas, 
 which belongs to this nation, my Government is disposed to 
 receive the commissioner of the United States who may 
 come to this capital, with full power from his Government 
 to settle the present dispute in a peaceful, reasonable, and 
 honorable manner." 
 
 " What my Ooverninont requires above all things is, that 
 the mission of the commissioner of the United gtati-s, and 
 his reception by tis, should appear to be always absolutely 
 frank, and free from every Mgn of menace or coercion. And 
 thus, Mr. Gonsnl, while making known tn your Government 
 th(! dispo-ition on the part of that of iMexico to receive the 
 commi-sioner, you should impress upon it. as indispensable, 
 the previous recall of the whole naval force now lying in 
 si'.'lit of our port of Vrra Ouz. Its presence would degrade 
 Mexico, while she is receiving the com mi sionrr, and would 
 justly subject the United States to the imputation ofcontra- 
 dietins, by acts, tlie vehement de-ire of conciliation, peace, 
 and friendship, which is piotessed and asserted by woids." 
 
 In pursuance of this suggestion, the President 
 withdrew our naval force from the port, and sent 
 Mr. Siidell to Mexico, with "fall power to adjust 
 all the questions in rffspii/e;" and on the 8th of 
 December, ]84ri, he adilressed a note to Mr. Peiia 
 y Perla, advising him of his arrival, and the object 
 of his mission. But, stran<;e to say, the Mexicait 
 Government refused to receive him. 
 
 At this period, .Mexico was on the eve of one of 
 her frequent revolutions. General Ilerrera was 
 President, but in a few days he was forced to sur- 
 render the helm of Government to Paredes. Mr. 
 Slidell, in due time, offered himself to the new ad- 
 
 \ 
 
ininisfrnlion, hoping that a chan<re of rulers might 
 produce a change of policj'. But he was ag:ain 
 rejected, and our Government accused by IVIr. Cas- 
 tillo, the new Secretary of Foreign Affairs, of 
 infidelity — of outrage upon and conttinpt of the Gov- 
 ernmenl of Mexico — of despoiling her of her territory, 
 by the " reprobated means of violence and 
 rRADD." And the only pretext whicli her Secre- 
 tary of Foreign Relations urged in defence of the 
 perfidy of his Government, was the miserable dis- 
 tinction which he drew between "« resident min- 
 ts(er," and " a comndssioner to settle the quedion of 
 boundary." But could she justify herself by re- 
 sorting to so despicable a suliterfuge ? Our prop- 
 osition to her was, " to receive an envoy from the 
 United States, intrusted ivith full pmver to settle all 
 the questions in dispute between the two Governments." 
 Her reply was, that she was disposed " to receive 
 the commissioner of the United States who may come 
 to this capital (Me.vico) tcithfull power from his Gov- 
 ei-nment to settle the present dispute, in a peaceful, 
 reasonable, and honorable manner." I have read of 
 governmenis taking exception to the representative 
 of another, because he came in a lower capacity 
 than she expected, or considered his rank unworthy 
 her own dignity in the scale of nations. But this 
 is the first instance I have ever known of a repre- 
 sentative being rejected, because his grade was too 
 high. According to all fair interpretation of lan- 
 guage, our proposition was accepted in the sense 
 in which it was made; and if the terms were ob- 
 jectionable — clothed Mr. Siidell with more power 
 than was agreeable to her — she should have made 
 it known at the time. Not having done so, she 
 cannot hope to escape the condemnation of man- 
 kind. 
 
 Here then, was a distinct and deliberate refusal 
 by Mexico, to settle by negotiation, the matters in 
 ■dispute betv/een the two Governments; and she 
 accompanied that rejection, with the unequivocal 
 avowal, that " the Supreme Government of Mex- 
 ico had, beforehand, declared, that it would look 
 upon such an act (annexation) as a casus belli; 
 and, as a consequence of this declaration, negotia- 
 tion icas by its very nature at an end, aiul war icas the 
 only recourse of the Mexican Government." War, 
 therefore, being the premeditated choice of Mexi- 
 co, it was impossible for our Government to adjust 
 the questions in dispute by negotiation. Hostili- 
 ties soon commenced. But who struck the first 
 blow? Who spilled the first blood — the United 
 States or Mexico? Let the attack on Captain 
 Thornton's company of dragoons, and Captain 
 Walker's Texas rangers, on the 25th and 28ih of 
 April, 1845, respectively, and let the glorious battles 
 of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, answer this 
 question. In all these engagemems, which trans- 
 pired east of the Rio Grande, and upon our own 
 soil, Mexico struck the first blow — made the at- 
 tack with three times our own number of men. 
 
 We find ourselves, therefore, embroiled in war 
 with Mexico, without any just ftrovocation on our 
 part; our kindness, for a series of years, forgotten 
 and disregarded; her solemn treaties of amiiy and 
 intercourse set at naught; her promises of indem- 
 nity to our citizens, for her outrageous aggressions 
 upon tlieir persons and property, vidhited; and our 
 urgent and friendly offer of negotiation, insultingly 
 and haughtily rejected. Is it not passing strange 
 then, that we find in this country a great, intelli- 
 gentj and patriotic party, almost unanimously op- 
 
 posing the prosecution of the war, sympathizing 
 with the enemy, and heaping unmeasured abuse 
 upon the Administi-ation ? la it not strange, that 
 there is any division amongst us; that we should 
 not all be thoroughly united in the policy and pro- 
 priety of prosecuting the war, until our enemy shall 
 be forced to do us aiTiple justice, and conclude a 
 treaty which shall secure permanent peace for the 
 future ? But it is even so, much to the "comfort" 
 of Mexico, and to the gratification of the jealous 
 thrones of Europe. 
 
 What are the grounds on which this opposition 
 to the war is based? It is said, that the war was 
 provoked by the unnecessary and unconstitutional 
 order of the President, directing General Taylor to 
 advance the "army of occupation," from Corpus 
 Christi, to some suitable point on or quite near the 
 Rio Grande. 
 
 This assertion involves those who make it, in a 
 most unenviable inconsistency. It is well known, 
 that, as early as the 4ih of October, 1845, General 
 Taylor, in a communication to the Secretary of* 
 War, advised that movement. He said: 
 
 " It is with deference that I make any suggestions on topics 
 which may become matter of flehcate negotiation ; but if 
 our Gnvf'nnnent.in settling the question of boundary, makes 
 the line of tlie Rio Grande an ultimatum, I cannot douht, 
 that the settlement will be greatly facilitated and hastened, 
 hy oiFT taking possession, at once, of one or two suitable 
 piiints on or quite near that river. Our strength and state 
 of preparation should be displayed in a manner, not to be 
 mistaken. However salutary may be the efi'ect produced 
 upon the border people, by our presence here, we are too far 
 from the frontier, toinipress the Government ofMcxico with 
 our readiness to vindicate, by f<irce of arms, if necessary, 
 our title to the country as far as the Rio Grande. The ' army 
 of occupation' will, in a few days, be concentrated at this 
 point, in condition for vigorous and etlicicnt service. Mexi- 
 co liaving as yet made no positive declaration of war, or 
 committed any overt act of ho--tilitios,I do not feel at liberty, 
 under my instructions, particularly those of July the 8th, to 
 make a forward ninvennjiit to the Rio Grande, without au- 
 thority from the War Department." 
 
 Such was the advice of General Taylor to the 
 War Department, two months and a half before he 
 was ordered to advance. This advice was quali- 
 fied by a single contingency; and that is, " if oiir 
 Government, in settling the question of boundary, 
 makes the Rio Grande an ultimatum." Now, was 
 it not univtrsally the determination of the people 
 and leading statesmen of this country, as well as 
 the Government, to insist upon the Rio Grande as 
 our western boundary? Had not the President 
 the right to infer this, from the legislation of Con- 
 gress, by which the jurisdiction of the United 
 States had been extended to that river, and a col- 
 lection district established in the territory beyond 
 the Nueces? And, sir, v hat was the object of the 
 advice of General Taylor? Was it to provoke 
 hostilities, to embroil the two Governmenis in 
 war? By no means; but "to facilitate and hasten 
 the settlement," by the " display of our strength 
 and preparations, in a manner, not to be mis- 
 taken." 
 
 It is said, however, that General Taylor modi- 
 fied this advice, in a subsequent despatch, dated 
 November 7, 1845. His language is as follows: 
 
 ■' The intplligenee from Mexico, however, tends to mod- 
 ify, in some dcree, the views expressed in that c(.mmnni- 
 calion. I'lie position, now occupied by the troops may, 
 perhaps, lie the best, while negotiations are pendinj;. or at 
 any rate, uniil a disposition shall be manifested by Mexico 
 to protract tlieui unreasonably." 
 
 So far from this being a modification, it is rather 
 a repetition of his advice of the 4th of October. 
 
At nil events, it mndifies it so far only, as to express 
 the opinion, iIku the position whidi lie then occu- 
 pied (Corpus Clirisli) was "pcrl);\ps the l>est while 
 ' nei;oti;ini>ns are peiulitii;:, or at any rate, until a 
 ' disposition shall he maniCcsied hy Mexico to pro- 
 ' tract iheni ui)reasonni)ly." Is it not evident, 
 from this language, that he still adhered to the 
 
 Rolicy of takin^j a position on the Rio Grande, if 
 lexico should refuse or unrcasonal)ly protract 
 negotiation? Sir, the conduct of the President 
 accorded strictly with the views of General Taylor, 
 as shadowed forth in his despatch of the 7th of 
 Novemlier. He did not issue the order to advance 
 to the Rio Grande, in the first instance, in accoid- 
 ani-e with the suggestions of the commanding gen- 
 eral, hecause there was every reason to believe, 
 that the negotiation about then to be entered upon, 
 would be successful. Does this exhibit a desire, 
 on the part of the Executive, to plunge the coun- 
 try in war? Or docs it not rather show a most 
 anxious solicitude to avoid the arbilremcntofarins ? 
 *But when negotiation was rejected, and all hope 
 of amicable adjustment wa« at an end, the Presi- 
 dent then thought the contingency had arrived, on 
 which General Taylor had suggested the policy 
 of advancing to the Rio Grande. He therefore 
 gave the order. The opinion of General Taylor 
 was doubtless given in good faith, with the design 
 of preventing war. It is equally certain, that the 
 President adopted that opinion in good f;\ilh, and 
 in a similar spirit. But because war has unfortu- 
 nately ensued. General Taylor is lauded to the 
 skies, but the President is overwhelmed with dire 
 execrations. 
 
 But it is at variance with the well known facts, 
 to asscit, that ihe march to the Rio Grande caused 
 the war. Mexico had protested against annexa- 
 tion during the pendency of its discussion, and 
 declared she would regard its consummation as an 
 act of war. Upon the passage of the resolutions 
 for that object, she dissolved diplomatic intercourse 
 with the United States. In July thereafter, Garcia 
 Condt, the Mexican Secretary of War, issued the 
 following circulars, requiring the officers of the 
 army to raise the requisite number of troops to 
 wage war against the United States: 
 
 "OrFifF. OF War and Marine, ) 
 " Section of Opcnilions. 5 
 
 " The United States liave con^■Ulmllat'•d tlie perfniy asi.iiiiiit 
 Mexico t)y sanetioning tl'.e decree wliicli declvres tlie an- 
 neTalioii of tiled •pirtiiient oCTexas to that KepiiMie. The 
 injM<liee of that usurpation is apparent, and .Mexico eaniiot 
 tolerate t^wch n arave injury without making au effort to 
 prove 10 the United States tie pisilillity of her ahility to 
 caii-p h'-r riiihts to he respected. With this ohjeot, llie Su- 
 proinc Government has resolved upon a deel iralion of war 
 a;;arnt that Power, serin-; that our forhenraiice, instead of 
 being receivi^d as a proof of our fri.-ndly dispo.~itioii, has 
 been interpreted into an aeknowledgi d impossibility on our 
 part to carry on a siicces-ful war. 
 
 " Sueli an error, on the part of the Ignited States, will be 
 advanla<!eous to iilexieo, because, sudd -nly nhaiidouing its 
 paeifi • attitude, it ivill tomorrow communicate to Cnnnress 
 t le d cliration of war, and excite the patriiili-m "C its citi- 
 zen<: to sustain the dignity of the nation ami the inlegriiy of 
 its territory, now treaeheronOy attacked, in utter di.-regard 
 of all suaranteos r"co:iiized in this enlightened age. 
 
 •' V'oii will readily appreciate tlie iinporlance of this sub- 
 jec", nnfl Ihe necessity of preparing the troops iiiid.r yoiir 
 command to march fiwards any point which may require 
 protection asaitisi these- nio-^t mju t aggressions. I nrn 
 directcil hv the Provisional Pr<:sidcMt to enjoin yon, as gen- 
 eral-in chi 'f of your division, and as a citizen of tlii< Ile- 
 pul)lie. to hold yonrsi'lf in readiness to rep I tliose who seek 
 the ruin of Mexico. The Governnie t is occupied in cover- 
 ing the deficient points on the frontiers, and in collecting 
 the njCL'Scury means, so that nothing may be wanting to 
 
 thos," whose glory it will be to defend the sacred rights of 
 their country. 
 
 ave tiie honor lo rommunicute for your intelligence, 
 
 ilircct vmr conduct. 
 
 d and liberty! GARCIA CONDE. 
 
 "iMtxico, Ju/y 12, 1845." 
 
 " This cirailiir ti the authorit'cs suliordinntc to this offic. 
 
 "Most excki.i.knt Sknor: As my notes of the yillh of 
 M irh and 7lli of .April of this year, cojicernrng the deserters 
 a id recruits for the army, have not produced elTerts which 
 his Kxcellency the I'rcsidi nt ail interim ili?sired,as the Gov- 
 ernois have not been able to gatliera number of men by any 
 means adequate to the wants of the army, his Kxcellency has 
 ordered your excellency to provide the materi;il to enable 
 the dilferen t departments to 111 rnisli their quota, and complete 
 tlie contingent of troop- rcqulreil by thed.'crees of the :&th of 
 December, 1 W:!, and M July. 18U :" for .altlnmgli the Supreme 
 (loveriinient has not exacted, with (Hinctuality, the c-oin- 
 pli'iiicnt from the departments, she now set^s lier.-elf undei 
 the ncces^ily of doing so, for the war which she wageg 
 against the United States, the perfidy and treachery of whiclr 
 Power put her in possession of a part of this K<'pnl>lie. 
 
 " liis Excellency the President ud interim requires that 
 your excellency inform the Governors of the nece.-.«ity which 
 exists of deiailiiig the number of men, so highly neco-sary 
 to fill the ranks of llie army, and to excite the zeal and pa- 
 triotism of the authoiilies, that their preparations shall be 
 so effectual as to fulfill the desires of the Government, and 
 prevent the dignity of the nation from being in any measure 
 compromised. 
 
 " I have the honor to communicaie to your excellency the 
 follovviii.;, to bi! used as occa^ion may require. 
 
 " G id and liberlv ! ' GAKUIA CONDE. 
 
 "July 16, IMo." 
 
 " MoH excel' cnl Sin r, Wniiter of Foreign Rchilions nrui of 
 
 Police. Transmit lo the authorities dej.ending up^in your 
 
 dcp^irtment. 
 
 " Most EXOELi.ENT Senor: It being necessary that the 
 troops of the line should cover the fronliers of the republic, 
 and mirch towards Texas, to conq-ierlhatdcputiii-nt, now 
 usurped by the United States, his Exci'llency the Pre;ident 
 ad interim has cominaiided me to transmit you this note, to 
 excite the zc:al and pitriotism of the Governors, that they 
 pl;ice under arms, In their respective di-tricis, all the force 
 which can be collected in defence of the law, to be ready to 
 serve as asafeyuaidof the respective departments, according 
 to the decree of the 4lh of June of this year, and the regula- 
 tion of ihe7ili in.-lant. 
 
 " Your excellency will ronimnnicate to the Governors this 
 supreme resolution, and will inlorm them of the obliiialions 
 und -r which the citiz^ns are to contribute to the defence of 
 tlnir connlr>,an(l to >u -tain rights violated by a nation which 
 refuse-, to acknowledge them, and obliges Mexico to main- 
 lain them by force — which it iiKist und lubiedly will, or fall 
 in the struggle. Sbi! will not consent te give up one-hair of 
 her territorv, from the base fear of losing the oilier. Moping 
 your exe> lli^ncy will furnish nie with informiition as to the 
 number of men which can he devoted to this inipnrtant ob- 
 ject, your excellency will please to accept my most higU 
 consid ration. 
 
 "G.I and lib >rtv ! GARCIA CONDE. 
 
 " Mexico, July IR, I?45. 
 "Toth™ most excetlent Senor, Minister of Foreign Relations 
 
 and Police." 
 
 duick upon the heel of these circulars, followed 
 orders of her commanding generals. On the I2th 
 of August, IS-IS, Arista thus addressed his troops: 
 
 " Comrades : The Supreme Executive has s."nt 10 me, by 
 express, the news that the United Slates, in pnr-uince «f 
 their ambitious views, harinz takefi po^sr^fion of the depart- 
 ment of Tc-xas, he had demanded a declaration "of war from 
 CoMcress against that unjust nation. 
 
 "The time 10 fight is come. We must prepare with the 
 ardor in-pin-d by duly and patriotism, when an attack is 
 iiride upon the soil, the honor, and Ihe pride of Ibr na'ion. 
 
 " Arms are the. only arguments to iisp again<t hnnditti and 
 ra^n without eood faith. I,pi 11s hope for that in tice which 
 is invoked hy all society, and the decision of the civi.ized 
 world. 
 
 " Our lot wilt be cnviorl hy the rest of Ihe army — we are 
 npari->t lo the theatre of war; we are the fir t to avenge the 
 oitrajes on our country, and to ravish from the «urpi-rs tJie 
 ohe t of their rapines. 
 
 " L irge hodi-s o*" troops are on their march ; they will soon 
 be here, to share our dangers and n-pulsc the enemy." 
 
 And on the 27th of August, 1845, General Pa- 
 
redes, in n similar strain, appeals to the national 
 pride and eiunity of the Mexican army. Said he: 
 
 " Siililiers ! A rapacious and cramping race have thrown 
 tliein-elves upon our territory, and dare to fl ittrr themselves 
 that we will not defend tlie patrimony which our forel'athers 
 conquered with their blood. Tiiey deceive themselves : 
 we will fly to snatch from them the spoils, the possession of 
 which they are iiripudeiitly enjoyinz; and they shalJ learn, 
 by di'arly-hnuu'lit experience, that they are not contending; 
 with tlie undisciplined trihcs of Indians whom they rolihed 
 fif tlieir land, their heaven, and their country; and that the 
 Mexicans will ardently co nbat the soldii;rs of a nation which 
 has sanctioned hy its laws the most degrading slavery." 
 
 Such were the avowed feelings of IVIexico to- 
 v/ards tlie United States; su'^h were the warHke 
 preparations wiiich she made, long prior to the 
 order to General Taylor to advance to the Rio 
 Grande. These uneqiiivocal demonstrations of 
 hostility were made in July and Auijust, 1845; 
 and the order was not given until the 13th of Jan- 
 uary, nor reciivtd by General Taylor until the 4th 
 of February, 1846. 
 
 Nor is this all that occurred, demonstrative of 
 the warlike determination of Mexico, previous to 
 the President's order to General Taylor. On the 
 8th of December, 1845, Mr. Slidell offered himself 
 as the envoy of the United States to the Republic 
 of Mexico. On the 12tli, after the interchange of 
 several dilatory notes between him and Mr. Pena 
 y Pefi-i, his mission was rejected. As soon, more- 
 over, as it was noised among the populace, that Her- 
 rera was inclined to enter upon negotiations with 
 the United Stales, the fury of civil revolution drove 
 him from power, and placed Paredes at the helm 
 of stale. This popular convulsion received its firs' 
 impulse in the depLU'tmenl of San Luis Poiosi; and 
 the army of reserve, on the 14th December, 1845, 
 promulgated a manifesto against the Government 
 of Herrera, upon the ground that it — 
 
 " Had re peatecJly thwarted the purpose of thft army to 
 move upon Texas; and at the same time allowed the army 
 to be vilified for its inaction by otlicial journals ; that it hail 
 admi v.d acommis.-ioiier, [mi^aninfrMr. Slidell,] with whom 
 it wa- endeaVoring to arrange for the loss of the integrity of 
 tlie republic; that it had reduced the country almot to a 
 state o;' aaarrhy, in the niirlst of wliich it existed, without 
 revenue, without p )wer. ajul almo^t without will ; that these 
 evils demanded an immediate remedy, and that the Admin 
 istration confi;sseri its total incompetency and pnvveile-sness; 
 that it had lo-t all respectability, so necessary to a Govern- 
 ment, and had allowed a plenipotentiary of the United Slates 
 to sot fofit in the country, and reside in the capital, with a 
 view to barjain for the independence and nationality of the 
 country, for which have been made so many sacrifices." 
 
 I ask the special attention of every candid man 
 to the closing sentence of this precious extract. 
 The head an<l front of Herrera 's offending was, 
 that he *' had allowed a plenipolentiary of the United 
 
 * States to set foot in the country, and reside in the 
 ' capital, until the view to bargain for the independince 
 
 * and nationality of the country, for which have been 
 ' made so many sacrifices." Let it be remembered, 
 also, that all these hostile demonstrations were 
 made one and two months previous to the order 
 for General Taylor to advance to the Rio Grande. 
 Can it be possible that, in the face of these facts, 
 candid and patriotic Senators will still argue that 
 this order produced the war ? Do they believe that 
 Mexico was insincere in all this .'' That cannot be. 
 These were not empty threats; for, on the 18th 
 of April, 1846, doubtless in allusion to these occur- 
 rences, Paredes wrote to Ampudia that it was in- 
 dispensable for hostilities to commence. He said: 
 
 « At the present dav. I suppose you at the head of that 
 valiant army, cilhv fi^'hting already, or are preparing for 
 
 the operations of a campiign. Iti= indispensable hostilities 
 be cunrmenced, yourself taking the initiative against the 
 enemy." 
 
 In the execution of these hostile resolves, Am- 
 pudia was neither disobedient ncir inactive. When 
 General Taylor reached the Rio Grande on tlie28ih 
 of March, 1846, he found him on the opposite bank, 
 at the head of an organized army of six thousand 
 troops: and, faithful to the order of Paredes, he did 
 take " the initiative" in hostilities against the Uni- 
 ted States. All the events, from the withdrawal of 
 Almonte to the commencement of hostilities, show- 
 that Mexico had inflexibly determined on war with 
 the United States; that this determination wa3 
 wholly independent of I he order foi- General Taylor 
 to occupy the left bank of the Rio Grande, and was 
 conceived for the vain purpose of regaining the 
 territory of Texas. 
 
 While this view of the subject proves conclu- 
 sively, that the war wiis not caused by the forward 
 march of our army to the Rio Grande, it also fully 
 justifies the policy and propriety of the order, by 
 which that movement was made. Suppose General 
 Taylor had remained at Corpus Cliristi: is it not 
 morally certain, that General Arista, who assumed 
 the chief coinmand of the Mexican forces on the 
 24th April, would have overrun the whole of that 
 portion of Texas, laying waste the country in his 
 march, and perhaps putting to the sword its de- 
 fenceless inhabitants.' What would have prevent- 
 ed him ? Would he have encamped at Matamoros.' 
 For what purpose .' Do not the facts show, that it 
 was his order to march upon the United States for 
 the reconquest of Texas.' What! retake Texas 
 by reposing perpetually on the bank of the Rio 
 Grande ? The idea is too absurd to be maintained. 
 He came for war; he came to maintain the alleged 
 right of Mexico to the province tif Texas, and 
 redeem the swollen gasconade of that vain and 
 foolish Government. If General Taylor had not 
 been there to drive him back, he would have pen- 
 etrated far into the country. The President's order, 
 then, was well timed and wise. If he had not i;iveii 
 it, the very party that now abuse and traduce him, 
 would have been even louder in their denuncia- 
 tions, for failing to protect our soil, from hostile 
 invasion. 
 
 But it is said that the country between the Nue- 
 ces and the R'o Grande is " disputed territory," 
 and therefore the President had no right to take 
 possession of it with an armed force. 
 
 But what if it is disputed territory — territory 
 claimed by both governme)its? In that state of 
 things, the parties not being able to agree by nego- 
 tiation, either had a perfect right to take posses- 
 sion. Is the United States to be held up to the 
 world, as a trespasser upon the soil of Mexico, be- 
 cause she first got possession .' No, sir. The old 
 adage that " possession is nine points of the law," 
 is eminently applicable to this case. The utmost, 
 therefore, that could be said is, that our armed oc- 
 cupation of the country placed us in the defensive 
 attitude, and entitled us to its advantages. 
 
 But it is said, that tlie Government of the Uni- 
 ted States might have ordered General Taylor to 
 occupy the disputed territory, but that the President 
 had no right to do it. It is true, the President is 
 not the government. But the President of the Uni- 
 ted States is sworn to see that the laws are faith- 
 fully executed. Wherever, therefore, theGovern- 
 ernment extends its laws, he is, ex officio, clothed 
 
a 
 
 will) the aullioriiy to employ the necessary means 
 for lliiil purpose. Well, Texas had liceii ajiiicxed, 
 Cotiirress h;iii exicrided liie laws of the United 
 Stales over it, had established a cu.stoni-hoiise, and 
 by and with the advice and consent of tlie Senate, 
 appointed for it a collector, and laiil out post routes 
 in the lenitory heyond the Nences; and in this 
 way, so far as iheir action could determine it, had 
 declared to the world thai, that terri^iry belonged 
 to the United Stales. Iiuleid, il iviis lanlaiiwunt to 
 takini:; pnssession rf it by Ike Government. lie had 
 authority, therefore, fiorn Congress, to order the 
 army there, to protect Texas against invasion; and 
 wiih all the evidence before hiin, t<) which I have 
 referred, of the avowed determination of Mexico, 
 to attempt such invasion, it was his solemn duly to 
 do it. 
 
 Bui il is not disputed territory, in any sense 
 which involves well-founded doubt of title. The 
 Rio Grande is the proper boundary of Texas. 
 
 If the authority of great names is worth any- 
 tliing, in the determination of this question, I might 
 array liie opinions of our ablest statesmen in fnvor 
 of the Rio Grande. I might adduce the tesiimony 
 of Messrs. Benton, Clay, JelTerson, Madison, 
 Monroe, Pinckney, and Adams, to show that Tex- 
 as was oriijinally a part of Louisiana, and .extend- 
 ed to that river. Mr. Clav, in his letter of tiie 17ih 
 of April, 1844, said: 
 
 " The (Jiiitctl State-- afquired title to Tox-as, extendine, as 
 1 believe, to the Rin d.-l None (or Rio Giaiidi;) liy the Irnaty 
 of Loui>iaii I. They oed ?d and r.lliiqiii-lit-d th:it titlff t(» 
 Spain hv IIk; treaty ofl8l9, hy which tin; S.ihirie wassnb.-ti- 
 tuted for the Uio del Norte, as our wo>teni boundary." 
 
 But the Rio Grande was defined and treated as 
 the western boimdary of Texas, by the joint acts 
 of Texas and Mexico, during the revolution. This 
 is clearly shovwi by the capitulation of General 
 Cos, to which I have before alluded, entered into 
 on the llih of December, 18.35, by wliich he stipu- 
 lated, that " he and his officers retire, with their 
 
 * arms and private property, into the interior of the 
 ' Repul)lie, (of course west of the Rio Grande,) un- 
 
 * der parole of honor." 
 
 On the 14th of May, 1836, only a few days after 
 the brilliant victory of San Jacinto, in which the 
 Mexiean cointnander-in chief and his army, to- 
 gether with other distinguished ofTicers, were taken 
 prisoners by theTexans, Santa Anna, " convinced 
 that it was useless for Mexico to continue the 
 war," and " that it was proper to terminate it by 
 political negotiation, and to ol)tain his release, ar: 
 well as all those of his countrymen who were in cap- 
 tivity," offered lo treat with Texas on the terms of 
 peace. Whereupon, a solemn and formal treaty 
 was conchideil, siijncd by " David G. niirnet, Pres- 
 ident of the Republic of Texas," of the one part, 
 and of the oilier part, by " Dm Antonio Lopez de 
 Santa Anna, in li'ts official capacily as Ch'uf of the 
 ■Mexican Government, and the Generals Don Vin- 
 cente Filisola, Don Jose Urea, Don Joaquim Ra- 
 mires y Sesma, and Don Antonio Gaona, as chiefs 
 of urmirs." 
 
 The ■Itli article " polemnly arkunwledees. snnctiona, nnd 
 ratifies, the full, entire, and perfect inilepnidence of TfXJi«. 
 leifh such h yimrf.iricj «s urc herci flcr sctforlk ami agreed U})on 
 ty <4esi'»nc." 
 
 TUe ."ilh artirle fixes the western bound iry of Texan ''at 
 the Ri> Gnin/le, from ih m)iilh to its source, Ihence lo the 
 42d device of mrth liUitutle,^' \c. 
 
 Other ariicles provide for the return of Santa 
 Anna nnd the prisoners of war lo Mexico. 
 
 But it ia said tliis treaty was not valid and bind- 
 ing (111 Mexico. Let us examine this point for a 
 £|gpm(mienls. 
 
 ^Wow, a treaty is slrictly a contract between na- 
 tions, and like that between individuals, must com- 
 bine three requisites lo render il valid, viz: 1st, a 
 siilTicient consideration; 2d, the parlies must be 
 alile to contract; and 3d, they must actually con- 
 tract. 
 
 That the third of these requisites happened, 
 there is no question; it-is matter of history that 
 the treaty was signed by both Mexico and Texas. 
 They did actually contract. 
 
 Then was it founded on a sufficient considera- 
 tion? The consideration was mutual. That moving- 
 towards Mexico, was the release of Santa Anna, 
 the President and ohief of the Government, of va- 
 rious distinguished officers and prisoners, and the 
 saving of Filisola's army of 4,000 men; and that 
 moving towards Texas, was the acknowledgment 
 of licr independence, and the definition and settle- 
 ment of her boundaries. The consideration, there- 
 fore, was one of vast national importance to both 
 the high contracting parties, and one which is re- 
 cognized by all writers on national law, as fully 
 sutTicient to support the treaty. 
 
 Were tlie parties to tlie treaty under consider- 
 ation, capable of coiitraclinir ? That David G. Hur- 
 net was, on the part of Texas, has never been 
 denied, either by the opponents of her independ- 
 ence, or by her own Government. 
 
 Was Santa Anna capable of contracting in be- 
 half of Mexico? Vaitel says: 
 
 "The same power who has tlie right of mak ins war, of 
 doterniininj! on it. of diclaritia it, and ofihrectin!; its opera- 
 tion--, has naturally that likewise of niakiiigaud coacludiiig 
 a treaty of peace." — Pa;:e 432. 
 
 Now, it is notorious that Santa Anna was, to all 
 intents and purposes, Dictator of M(!xico; that he 
 had concentrated all the [wwers of government in 
 his own hands; and that whatever may have been 
 its oru:anic form, he had converted it into a mili- 
 tary despotism. Moreover, he professed to have 
 the power, and il was not inciimlient on Texas to 
 look behind the fact of his possession of it. He 
 signed the treaty ojjficiully, " as Chief of the jMexi- 
 can Government." 
 
 But it may be said that Santa Anna was an 
 iwi»7)er, and did not rightfully possess the power of 
 declaring war or making peace. The authority, 
 however, is equally conclusive upon this point. 
 Havin*; become [)ossesspd of all the powers of 
 government, the people havins: submitted to hi."} 
 authority, and acknowledged him as their chief, 
 were bound by his acts. 
 
 " other States," (Texas, for example,) " as havins no ri!?ht 
 to interfere vvilh the domestic eoiioenis of that natien," 
 (iMexieo,) '-or to interfure in her !;overnment, are hound to 
 abide by lier doei-^ion, aniMo look no further ihan the cir- 
 eunis|aiiees of a'-tnat possession. Then mny, thcrefjre, 
 hroach unit cjnclade a treaty of peace with the usur/icr." — J'at- 
 tct, pits,e 43o. 
 
 Thf)se who deny the validity of this treaty, on 
 the ffround of Santa Annans incapacity to contract, 
 invoke to their aid another rule of national law, 
 which, in this case, there is no teniplation or de- 
 sire to evade. It is this: 
 
 '■Every inipedinient by which the prince i.i disabled from 
 administerinK ihi; alf.iirs of (jovernuii'iit, undoubtedly de- 
 prives liim of llie power lo make peace." 
 
 " Every legitimate envernmeiit, whatever it he, is estab- 
 lished solely for the good and welfare of the Slate. Tiiis 
 iucoute:?table principle being once laid down, Ujc making of 
 
9 
 
 peace is no longer the pepuliar province oT the Kin?; it he- 
 \cin<is to tlie rmtion. Now, it is certain tlir.t a cuj iirc prince 
 cannot :\d:!iinister the government, or att mkI to llie manage- 
 ment of public affairs." — Vattel, 434 aiid 435. 
 
 In tlic ca.se under consideration, it is alleged 
 that Santa Anna, llie President of iVlexico, its iiigh- 
 est executive officer, was in captivity as a prisoner 
 of war, deprived of the power to " udinini'iter the 
 government, or attend to Ike management of public 
 affairs," and that, therefore, according to the au- 
 thority, he could not make a valid treaty. 
 
 This objection seems to involve the idea that 
 more or less duress and inlimidcition always ac- 
 company captivity. That they sometiines do, there 
 can be no question. But in this case, there is the 
 clearest evidence that Santa Anna acted voluntarily, 
 freely, and fur the good of the country. In his de- 
 spatch to the Government ac/in<e?-M/i, dated June 10, 
 1836, General Filisola, who was never a prisoner, 
 says: 
 
 " His Excellency (Santa Anna) in my humhle opinion, in 
 the treaties asrreed upon, and thit I had the honor to send 
 to your Excellency, acted with entire liherjy, and had noth- 
 ing more in view than the interest of his country." 
 
 In his letter of July 4, 1836, Santa Anna himself 
 says: 
 
 " When I offered to treat with this government (Texas) I 
 was convinced tliat it was useless for Mexico to continue 
 the war. I have acquired exact infonnalion resp;;cting the 
 country, which I did not possess four months ago. I have 
 too much ze:il for the interests of my country to wish for 
 anything which is not compatihle with them. Being always 
 ready to sacrifice myself for its glory and adi'aiitage, I never 
 would have hesitated to subject myselfto torments or death, 
 rather than consent to any compromise, if Mexico could 
 thereby obtain the slightest benefit. lam firmly convinced 
 that it is proper to terminate thii question by political nego- 
 tiation." 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that Santa Anna acted 
 "with entire liberty,'^ in making the treaty. And 
 it is also true, that during the absence of Santa 
 Anna from the seat of Government, in command 
 of tho national army, the Executive authority, ac- 
 cording to the forms of the Constitution, was vest- 
 ed in the hands of the Vice President: that he re- 
 ceived despatches tVom tiie commander-in-chief, 
 and issued in.structions as to the conduct of the 
 war, and especially in relation to the release of 
 those in captivity. Whilst, therefore, it is true 
 that the President of Mexico was a prisoner of war, 
 it is also true that his place was supplied by an 
 officer clothed with the power ^' to administer the 
 Government and to attend lo the management of pub- 
 lic affairs." 
 
 But all doubts are put to flight by the subsequent 
 ratification of the treaty. The rule of national law 
 on the subject is this: 
 
 "The captive sovereign may himself negitiate the peace, 
 aniJpromisj wiiat personally depends on him; but the treaty 
 does not become obligatory on ttie nation till ratified by her- 
 self, or by those who are invested v/ith the public aiitisoiity 
 during the prince's captivitv. or, finally, by the sovereign 
 himself after his release."— ruHci, 436. 
 
 How, then, was this treaty ratified? In reply it 
 might be strongly argued, that it was ratified by 
 long acquiesceiice in its provisions by Mexico. 
 For though there were many and boisterous threats 
 to renew the war, yet for eight years, Texas en- 
 joyed repose from any formal or systematic inva- 
 sion by Mexico. But it was conclusively ratified 
 by the Government, in its acceptance and enjoy- 
 ment of the benefits of the treaty. She obtained 
 the life and liberty of her captive President, the 
 release of many officers and prisoners, the saving 
 
 of Filisola's army of 4,000 men, and the honor of 
 Mexico. If she did not intend to abide by the 
 treaty, she had no right to receive its benefits; and 
 the only way of avoiding, was to disavow it. 
 This is as obviously a rule of common sense and 
 common honesty, as of national law. An agent 
 may transcend his authority in the sale of his prin- 
 cipal's property; but if the principal afterwards 
 receive the money — accept the benefit of the con- 
 tract made by his agent, he will not be permitted 
 to deny the contract — he has ratified it — it is as 
 binding upon him as if originally made within the 
 scope of the agent's authority. But is it not per- 
 fectly analogous to the case of the treaty under 
 consideration? — Vattel, 436. 
 
 In every point of view, therefore, the treaty of 
 the 14th May, 1836, between Mexico and Texas, 
 which acknowledges the independence of the latter, 
 and fixes her western boundary at the Rio Grande, 
 is valid and binding. And however Mexico, 
 through treachery, may seek to avoid it, she ia 
 estopped by her acquiescence in it for eight years 
 prior to annexation and by her reception of its 
 benefits. Having ratified, she cannot disavow 
 it. 
 
 This was the second instance in which, by the 
 acts of both parties, the Rio Grande was treated as 
 the western boundary of Texas; and here I might 
 rest the question with perfect safety. But I desire 
 to settle it beyond all cavil. 
 
 Mexico, by her own act, so treated it. 
 
 As before remarked, this treaty was repudiated 
 by Mexico, and a renewal of hostilities declared; 
 but, with the exception of two occasions, on which 
 the Mexicans crossed the Rio Grande, as far as 
 San Antonio, and were instantly repulsed, the war 
 existed only on paper — in loud-sounding gasco- 
 nade, and vaporing proclamations.* Hovv/ever, on 
 the 15th February, 1844, Mexico and Texas en- 
 tered into an armistice, v/hich was terminated on 
 the 20th of June, 1844, by the proclamation of 
 General Woll, which concludes with the following 
 language: 
 
 "3d. Every individual who shall be found at the distance 
 of one leazue from the left bank of the Rio Bravo will be 
 regarded as a favorer and arcomplieeof the usurpers of that 
 part of the national territory, and as a traitor to his country; 
 and, after a summary military trial, sliall be punished as 
 such." 
 
 Why declare all those " traitors" who should be 
 found within one league of its left bank, if she did 
 not regard the Rio Grande as the boundary of 
 Texas? 
 
 Texas, by her acts also, prior to annexation, 
 treated that river as her western boundary, and 
 exercised jurisdiction up to its verge. 
 
 By an act of Congress, approved December 19, 
 1836, she defined her limits. I read from the "Laws 
 of the Republic of Texas," vol. 1, p. 133: , 
 "AN ACT to define the boundaries of the Republic of Texas. 
 
 ''■ Sec. I. Beit enacted tni the Senate and Hoit^e of Repre<:ent- 
 nfivesoftlie RepuhlU: of Texits, in dngress nsxeinhled, That, 
 from and after the passage of this act, the civil and political 
 jurisdiction of this Republic be, and is hereby, declared to 
 extend to the following boundaries, to wit: beginning at the 
 mouth of the Sabine river, and running west alona tiie Gulf 
 of Mexico, three leasnes from land, to the mouth of the Kio 
 Grande; tlience up the principal stream of said river to its 
 source, thence due north to the forty-second degree of north 
 latitude, thence alonir tln^ bf)undary line, as defined in the 
 treaty between the t'nited States and Spam, to the begin- 
 nin;;: and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized 
 to ojien a negotiation with the Givernment of the United 
 States of Am'jrtcaj so soon as, in liia opinion, the public in- 
 
10 
 
 trrest rrqiiirrs it, to r.-^cortnin and dcfinr the honnrlnrv line 
 aa agrffd upon iii s;\icl tnaly. lUA IXGIiAM, 
 
 " Sj)caJ;er of flic Jimsc of Rrnrcsmt^.tives. 
 "KKMIAUD KLLtS, 
 " PresidciU of the Senate y.ri tcm. 
 "Approve.!, Dec. 19, ia;W. SAM HOUSTON." 
 
 By a j<»int irsolulion, nppinved on tlie 24ili of 
 May, 1838, the Coiinrc.ss of Texas defiiiet] the line 
 between the counties of Bexar and San Pnlricio. 
 I read froni the " Law.s of tlie Republic of Texas," 
 volume 3, and page 36: 
 
 "JOINT Itr.^dl.irnoN fixing tlip dividins line between 
 tile counties ot ISexar and San ratrieiii. 
 " Be it rcfolecd liy the Senate and House of Reprcscnlnlivcs 
 of the Kc/iuhtic of Tciiis in ('on^rcs as'rtnhlc-l, Thnt a iliri'ct 
 line riiiiniiis from tlie junclion ottlie Cilioloor .San Bart'do 
 creei\ to the Rio Frio, at a point tliirly iiiiies al)Ove it- junc- 
 tion witli tli(! Niiree.s, tlienee in a direct line, to the town 
 ofLoredo, .'^hall I).; considered llie dividiiii! line between the 
 countie.< «C San Patricio and Bexar, and shall he re.-ipeeted 
 as such hy the sill vevors of the respeelive coiiniies: Pro- 
 fi-lel, Tliat this act shill notaO'ect riclits prevloti-ly acquired 
 by surveys I -cally iiiade hy tli(^ surveyors of llie'eouiity of 
 San Patricio hi-low tlie old road fiuiii San Antonio to "tlie 
 Presidio of the Rio Grande. 
 
 " JOSEPH ROU'K, 
 " S/icuker of the Uou^ie of Ilcprc^cntntives. 
 "IVllRABCAU H. LAMAR, 
 
 " Prcside<it oftke Senate. 
 " Approved, May 24, 1838. ' SAM HOUS'J'ON." 
 
 To appreciate the force of thi.s resolution, it iv.ust 
 be borne in tnind that the counties of Bexar and 
 San Pairicio are situated between the Nueces and 
 the Rio Grinde; and that the town ofLoredo, de- 
 signated as the western terminus of the dividing 
 line, is situated upon the left bank of the Rio 
 Grande. » | 
 
 In 1842 and 1844 the Congress of Texas pa.ssed 
 laws fixing the time of holding courts in the county 
 of San Patricio. On the IBih January, 1845, they 
 passed an act niaking Corpus Ciirisii the county 
 seat of .San Patricio, and provided for the appoint- 
 ment of a judge for the county court. On the 1st 
 of February, 1845, they also passed "An act for 
 ' the .survey of all the lands in the counties of San 
 ' Patric io and Refugio, the title of which was de- 
 • rived from Mexico, or from the State of Coahuila 
 'and Texas, to be surveyed and returned to the 
 'General Land Office of Texas." These counties 
 were represented in the convention which ratified 
 the resolutions passed by the Congress of the Uni- 
 ted Stales proposing her annexation to this Con- 
 federacy, and which formed the State constitiiiion 
 of Texas. By that constitution, the county of San 
 Patricio is declared to be entitled to one, and the 
 county of Bexar to two representatives. The 
 county of Bexar is also constituted the 18th, and 
 the counties of Goliad, Refugio, and San Pairicio, 
 the 19ih Senatorial district, and each district enti- 
 tled to one Senator. It is also ordained by the 3J 
 section of the 13ih article of the constitution which 
 was formed by that convention, that " all laws and 
 'pans of laws now in force in the Republic, of 
 ' Texas, which are not repugnant to the Constiiu- 
 ' tion of the United Slates, the joint resolutions for 
 ' annexing Texas to the United States, or to the 
 ' provisions of this constitution, shall continue and 
 ' remain in force as the laws of this State, until 
 ' lliey expire by their own limitation, or shall l>e 
 'altered or repealed by the Legislature thereof." 
 
 Hence, the laws which I have cited — that defi- 
 ning the boundaries of Texas, defining the liouiid- 
 ary litic between the counties of Bexar and San 
 Pairicio; the law providing for the survey of lands; 
 the law declaiing Corpus Christi to be the seat of 
 
 I justice for the county of San Patricio — were all 
 dedcired to be and continued in force when Texas 
 (j^kme a sovereign Slate of this Union. By the 
 act of annexation, therefore, Texas became enti- 
 tled to the protection of the Federal Government 
 of the United Slates, in their full execution and 
 ' the enjoyment of her rights under them, against 
 ! any power that miirht attempt the invasion of the 
 territory over which they extended. 
 
 This ri;rht the Congress of the United States 
 fully recognized, in the several acts which they 
 passed relating >othe Slate of Texas after annexa- 
 tion. On the '27th of December, 1845, Congress 
 passed an act " to extend the laws of the United 
 Stales over Texas," and on the 29ih of ilie same 
 month, an act " to establish a collection district in 
 the State of Texas," which declares Galveston to 
 be a port of entry, to which are annexed Sibine, 
 Velasco, Matftgorda, Cavallo, La Vavea,and Cor- 
 pus Christi, as ports of delivery. The territory 
 beyond the Nueces is also a part of a Congression- 
 al district, whose representative, from the time of 
 annexation, took and now occu|)ies a seat in the 
 popular branch of our National Legislature. 
 
 Here, then, we have thejoint acts of Mexico and 
 Texas during the revohiiioi, their separate acts 
 prior to annexation, and the acts of the Con- 
 gress of the United Slates, subsequent to annexa- 
 tion, all recognizing and treating the Rio Grande 
 as the western boundary of Texas. If all these 
 do not establi.sh it lieyond controversy, I am at a 
 loss to imagine what would. Sir, I will hazard the 
 assertion, that the history of the world does not 
 furnish an instance, in which a disputed line can be 
 determined by evidence so satisfactory and con- 
 clusive. If the Rio Grande be not the true bound- 
 ary, I would be glad for honorable Senai<irs, on 
 the other side, to designate where it runs. Is it 
 the river Nueces? Where is the evidence of it.' 
 Where will you find a sinaric act or word of Mex- 
 ico or Texas, or of this Government, which looks 
 to that as the line ? Mexico has never asserted it, 
 never dreamed of it, until it was suggested by her 
 friends in the United States. She has not coinfilain- 
 ed that our " army of occupation" passed the Nue- 
 cs. The burden of her alleged grievances is, not 
 that we have taken the territory between tliat stream 
 and the Rio Grande, but that we have taken Texas, 
 the whole of Texas. She asserts her title to the 
 entire State, and, to recover it, she rcsorteil to arms. 
 If the country west of the Nueces is "disputed 
 territory," because she claims it, for the same 
 reason, the whole Stale is " disputed territory;" 
 and if she has a good title to any pari, she has to 
 the whole. 
 
 In this connection, sir, I will ask, where was this 
 vigilant regard for the " disputed" rights of Mexi- 
 co, when Congress extended the laws of the Uni- 
 ted States over the territory beyond the Nueces 
 in 1845, established a collection disiiict, and when 
 the President, by and with the advice and con- 
 sent of the Senate, appointed a collector for the 
 same? 
 
 In his message of December, 1845, the Presi- 
 dent informed Congress, that 
 
 "The jllri^dietion of ihe United States, which, atthnforni- 
 aiion of the Federal Constitution, was hmiMded by Ihe St. 
 M.iry's, on thi- Alfuilie, has pas<eil the Cap-s of Floiida, 
 and been peacefully extended to Ike Del Norte." 
 
 Why was not this declaration, that " the juris- 
 diction of the United Stales extended to the Del 
 
11 
 
 Norte," denied then? Why was not the country 
 informed by their trusted reprcsentaiives, that the 
 assertion of the President was false — that the ter- 
 ritory on tiiat river beloni^ed to Mexico? 
 
 In the same message, he communicated to Con 
 gress the fact, that 
 
 "Oiirarmy was ordered to takp position in the country 
 between the Nueo's and the Del Mortc, ami to rfpel anyin- 
 Tasloti of the Texan territory which nii^ht he attempted by 
 the M 'xican forces. Our squadron in tlie Gulf was ordered 
 to cooperate with the army." 
 
 Why sUimhered the watchful guardians of the 
 Constitution, when thePresidentmadethisastound- 
 ing announcement? Why was the tongue of con- 
 demnation silent, when he thus confessed an act on 
 his part which, according to Wliig interpretation, 
 •was an outrageous and palpable violation of this 
 sacred charter of our liberties? Why was it not 
 discovered then, that our army encamped upon dis- 
 puted soil? 
 
 On the 11th of May, 1846, the President com- 
 municated to Congress the state of things between 
 the United States and Mexico, and the circum- 
 stances by which General Taylor was stn-rounded. 
 That message was accompanied by a despatch of 
 General Taylor, dated April 26, 184C, from which 
 1 read the following extract: 
 
 " Hostilities may now bp considered as commenced ; and 
 ( have this day defined it neci^ssary to call upon thy Gov- 
 ernor of Ti^xas for four regiments of voUuit -ers, two to be 
 mounted and two to serve on foot. A-i some delay must 
 occur in coliecling those tro.ip.?, I have also desired the Gov- 
 ernor of ljc)uisian I to send out fi)ur regiments of infantry as 
 soon as practicable. This will constitiUe an aiixiliary force 
 of nearly tive thousand men, which « ill be required to pros- 
 ecute the war vdlli eiieny, <md criri'iiif, as it should be, 
 INTO THE enemy's cou.ntry. I trust Ih" department vviil 
 approve my course in this matter, aid will give the neces- 
 sary orders to the stafl" departments for the supply of this 
 large additiomil force." 
 
 General Taylor, then, had not only theretofore, 
 advised the march to the Rio Grande, but, having 
 arrived there, and hostilities having commenced, 
 he .said the war " should be carried into the enemy's 
 cott7i/r;/,"an(l asked the means to be furnished him 
 for this purpose. As yet, it had not occurred to 
 the minds of honorable geiillemen, that such a war 
 would be "ag-gre6sh"e,"and "imcons(i/i«/t(;nrt/,"and 
 "unholy," and "odious." But witU the iitm<ist 
 promptitude, and with a unanimity unparalleled in 
 the annals of our legislation. Congress recognized 
 the existenee of the war, and placed ten millions of 
 dollars and fifty thousand volunteers at the dispo- 
 sal of the President; and for what? For the rescue 
 of General Taylor and his gallant little army from 
 immediale danger ? By no rneans; for it must have 
 been obvious to every sensible man, that it would 
 rec|uire weeks, to organize and put forward a for- 
 midable force upon the far distant banks of the 
 Rio Grande. But it was, as the bill declared, to 
 prosecute the war to a "speedy and successful ter- 
 mination" — to push it, as General Taylor said " it 
 should be, into the enemy's country." 
 
 Sir, at that time patriotism rose above party 
 considerations. The blood of Colonel Cross and 
 of Thornton's brave dragoons cried fnj venseance; 
 and the heart of every American throbbed respon- 
 sive to the ra'l. 1 repe.it it, sir, all this clamor 
 about "disputed territory " and the order for Gen- 
 eral Taylor to advance to the Rio Grande being 
 unconsiitiitinnal and the cause of the war, is an 
 afiertliought, originating with desperate politicians, 
 and is kept up, not by honorable Senators, but by 
 
 party scavengers throughout the country, for the 
 purpose of prostrating this Administration. 
 
 We find ourselves thus engaged in a war with 
 Mexico. If I have been so fortunate as to make 
 myself intelligible to the Senate, I think I have 
 shown, that the war exists by the act of that Re- 
 public; that she, without just cause, dissolved 
 friendly relations with theltnited States, in conse- 
 quence of the annexation of Texas, when, by the 
 very terms of that measure, we opened the door 
 for amicable adjustment; that she obstinately and 
 perfidiously rejected our friendly offer of negotia- 
 tion, twice made, upon the faith of her promise to 
 receive our envoy for that purpose, and proclaimed 
 that "tear icas the only recourse of the Mrxican Gov- 
 ernment;'" that the order for General Taylor to 
 march to the Rio Grande was not the cause of the 
 war, was, under the circumstances, prudent and 
 wise, was advised by General Taylor, and his ad- 
 vice followed by the President for the purpose, for 
 which it was given — '^ to fiicililale and hasten the set- 
 tlement;" ihtxt Mexico actually took the initiative 
 in hostilities, by the murder of Colonel Cross, the 
 attack upon Thornton's dragoons, and Walker's 
 Texas rat)gers, and the glorious bat ties of the 8i hand 
 9th of May; that the territory between the Nueces 
 and the Rio Grande is not "disputed territory" in 
 any sense, involvitiga rensonabledoubt of title; that 
 the Rio Grande is the proper arid true boundary 
 between Texas and Mexico, and, having been so 
 treated by the legislation of Congress in extending 
 the laws of the United States over it, the President 
 had the right — aye, was bound — to place such a 
 force there as would protect it against the threat- 
 ened invasion of Mexico. 
 
 How has this war been conducted on our part? 
 Up to tlie 19th of October last, our forces had 
 been engaged in not less than fourteen regular bat- 
 tles and as many affair.s, and in every instance 
 proved victorious against the enemy, with from 
 two to eight times our numerical strength. When 
 tlie future historian shall record the battles of Palo 
 Alto, Resaca de la Palma, Monterey, Buena Vis- 
 ta, Vera Cruz, Cerro Gordo, Contreras, Churu- 
 busco, Molino del Rey, and Chapultepec, he will 
 contribute a chapter unsurpassed in thrilling inter- 
 est and the glory of military achievment, in the 
 annals of the world. California, New Mexico, 
 Chihuahua, Coahuila, New Leon, Tamaulipas, 
 and other States, together with the capital of the 
 Republic, are in our possession. It is true, these 
 great achievements have cost the lives of many gal- 
 lant men; but, bavins: fillen in the cause of their 
 country, we wreathe their names with garlands, 
 v/hile we plant the cypress upon their hallowed 
 graves. Nor, in themidst of ihesescenesof carnage, 
 has a single act of cruelty or injustice tarnished our 
 military escutcheon. Property, religion, and female 
 innocence, have been protected and sacredly guard- 
 ed by our gallant and victorious commanders. The 
 emidem of peace has accompanied the gleaming 
 sword, and on more than one occasion has our proud 
 eagle ptust d in his flight of victory, and dropped 
 his half-closed wings, as if to cover the thunder 
 which he bore in his talons, whilst, with extended 
 beak, he tendered the olive branch. The nations 
 of Europe look on with amazement; and wlH they 
 may: for all has lieen achieved by citizen-S'diliers, 
 drawn from the walks of domestic life and airricul- 
 tur^l pursuits, in response to their country's call; 
 and it gives demonstration, astounding as it is true, 
 
12 
 
 to the inncdulous tlimncs of (lie OIJ Worlil, that a 
 repiil lictiii Government, without llie aid of costly 
 staiuliiig nrniics, cultivates in the hreasis of her 
 people, not only the spiiit of freedom, but the chiv- 
 alry that is ever itady to defend it. 
 
 Now, sir, the hill upon your desk brings up the 
 quesiton wliethor, in the event of tl>e failure of 
 pendins; negotiations, the war siiall be abandoned 
 or prosei'uied. ' 
 
 Honorable Senators think it inexpedient and 
 improper to press the passage of this bill, until the 
 fate of the treaty shall be decided. My opinion 
 on this jioiiit is simply this : If the treaty should 
 be ratified by Mexico, and peace thus obtained, 
 then the passas^e of this measure can do no possi- 
 ble harm. BuLaf the treaty should be rejected, it 
 is liii;hly important tint we be |irepared for a vigor- 
 ous prosecution of the war. I trust the treaty will 
 be ratified; but if not, it will show that Mexico is 
 playing the same farce upon us, whicli she perform- 
 ed before ilie gates of her capital — using tiie sem- 
 blance of negotiation, to gain lime to reorganize and 
 rally. We should be prepared for vigorous and 
 Bpeedy operations. When a small boy, at school, 
 I read of an old man, who went out one morning 
 into his orchard and fmind a l.id up one of his 
 trees stealing apples. He requested iiiin to come 
 down; but this only excited his laugiiler and im- 
 pudence. He then began to pelt him with tufts of 
 grass; but this mode of warfare proved equally 
 ineflectual. "Then," said the old man, "since 
 ' neither words nor turfs nf grass will do, I will try 
 ' what viriue there is in stones." These soon 
 brought the "young sauce-box" to the ground, 
 with hearty promises not to be guilty of the like 
 again. This simple fable, Mr. President, indicates 
 exactly tiie fiolicy which I would hcni eforth adopt 
 towards Mexico, in (he event of her rejection of 
 the treaty. We shall have tried words and turfs 
 of grass long enough; it will then lie hii^h time to 
 see what virtue there is in stones. As yet, Mexico 
 has experienced comparatively few of the evils and 
 calamities of war. These she must feel, if she re- 
 fuses the measure of peace now ofTcred, and feel 
 sorely, in all her national interests. 
 
 But, it is said, the passage of this bill will tend 
 to prevcict her ratification of the treaty, liecausc 
 she will regaril it as an act of menace and intimi- 
 dation, luMnilialing to her national pride. Not so, 
 sir. It has not been her national pride, but liope, 
 that has prompted her to protract the war thus 
 long. She has calculated upon our divisions at 
 home. Seeing a lari^e and intelligent party in the 
 United States opposed to the war, denouncing the 
 Administration, and defirecating our demand for 
 indemnity, she has deceived hciself wiih the vain 
 hope, that lapse of time might bring a chantre nf 
 policy, and secure to her that al)andonmenl of the 
 contest, on our part, which would be synonymous, 
 ■with victiry,on her part. So far from the passage 
 of this bill lending to defeat the lieaty, I believe if 
 it were to lie passed promptly throu;;h both Mouses 
 of Congress, by an un.inimous vote, it would ren- 
 der its ratification al>solutely certain. "^I'he moral 
 effect of such unanimity would be the exiiniifuish- 
 ment of all her hopes grounded on our divisions, 
 and the conviction, that her wisest policy consists, 
 in the speedy acceptance of our offer of peace. 
 
 The honoralde Senatorfrom South Carnlina [Mr. 
 Cai.houv] olije<t3 to the passage <->C this bill, l)e- 
 cause, he tays, it will incur an additional and use- 
 
 less expenditure of at least three million of dollars, 
 ^Mkjncrease the patronage of the Executive. It is 
 H^edingly desirable to avoid both of these evils, 
 if it were possible; and if the treaty be ratified, 
 nei her will arise. But if it be rejected by Mexico, 
 we must cither submit to them, or do what is 
 worse, abandon the prosecution of the war. Who, 
 sir, is prepared for this alternative? Who is will- 
 ing to surrender the fruits of our brilliant triumphs, 
 for considerations like these ? 
 
 But it seems to be the opinion of the honorable 
 Senator, that, whether the treaty be or be not rati- 
 fied, this same result of evils will follow. That 
 gentleman is not the only Senator who, I believe, 
 is resting under an erroneous opinion on the sub- 
 ject. That erroneous impression is, that the Pres- 
 ident would proceed forthwith to the organization 
 of the ten regiments contemplated to be raised by 
 the bill, without any regard to the result of pending 
 negotiations. As a matter of course, 1 have no 
 knowledge of whatihe President would do, whether 
 he would await the action of Mexico upon the 
 treaty, or immediately raise the regiments. But, 
 sir, this bill does not bectmie a law until it shall 
 pass the other branch of Congress. This should 
 relieve the mind of every gentleman of any appre- 
 hension, that the Executive will anticipate the ac- 
 tion upon the treaty, and hastily organize the regi- 
 ments before that action shall be ascertained. He 
 cannot do so if he were disposed. In all probability, 
 this bill will undergo protracted discussion in the 
 Representative branch, and will not re<-eive their 
 decision until the course of Mexico, in relation to 
 the treaty, shall be known. In view of this pre- 
 sumption, it is important that the Senate pass this 
 bill without delay, so that it may be carried to the 
 other House in time, for it to delilierate on it fully, 
 while the negotiations are in progress. If peace 
 should be concluded, the legislation will do no 
 harm; but if it should not. then this bill ought to be 
 passed, by the time that fact shall be known, so 
 that we may be delayed as little as possible in a 
 viijorous prosecution of the war. 
 
 But if the treaty should not lie ratified, and this bill 
 should be passed, the honorable Senator from South 
 Carolina, slill contends that we must incur this use- 
 less expenditure of three millionsof dollars, and the 
 evils of Executive patronage. For, he says, " there 
 ' \\ill be nodifhculty in getting officers and men; 
 ' they will have no apprehensions of going to Mex- 
 ' ico, or fighting future battles; the enlistment will 
 ' turn out to be a money speculation." I am really 
 at a loss to know how the honorable Senator ar- 
 rives at these conclusions. If the officers and men 
 be raised, why will they not iro to Mexico? Why 
 will they not fight iiattles? Will the war \>e at an 
 end, in the face of the fact of a recent rejection of a 
 treaty of peace? And if it be nfit at an end, and 
 the regiments should be organized, who ,has the 
 right to a.«sert that " the enlistment will turn out to 
 be a money speculation?" I can only understand 
 these asseriions of the lionoral)le Senator l)V refer- 
 ence to another portion of his remarks. He says 
 " the sentiment of the whole coiuitry is changed 
 in reference to the war" since he made his speech 
 in favor of a defensive line. That, it seems, o, encd 
 their eyes to the consequences, and " they diew 
 back and put their seal of disapprobation ujion it;" 
 and that it would, therefore, "be an idle dream to 
 suppose that, in the event of ihe failure of the trea- 
 ty, this war would ever be renewed to be carried on 
 
13 
 
 vigorously." It must be to this, then, that the 
 honorable Senator alludes when he says " the en- 
 listment will turn out to be a money speculation." 
 But where is the evidence of this great ciiange of 
 public sentiment? Where are to be found the in- 
 dications of "this strong disapprobation" on the 
 part of the people to this war? It is true, the coun- 
 try are in favor of peace — anxious for the conclu- 
 sion of tiie treaty, by the two Governments. But 
 this by no means proves the war to have become un- 
 
 Eopular, or that the regiments proposed to be raised 
 y this bill, will not be vigorously employed, in the 
 prosecution of the war. It is siill their country's 
 war; and much as they desire its honorable ter- 
 mination, it is a reflection upon their patriotism to 
 suppose, that the people prefer its abandonment, be- 
 fore the great object for which it has been waged, 
 shall have been accomplished. 
 
 The war having thus become unpopular in the 
 estimation of the honorable Senator, he says " only 
 one thing can be done:" Take the defensive line — 
 " fall back and take the line of the treaty" — " tell 
 the Mexican people that we intend to hold it — that 
 we are satisfied, if they are." Not being a mili- 
 tary man, it would be rather presumptuous in me 
 to attempt to argue this policy. It is a military 
 question, and can be properly decided only by men 
 skilled in the science of war. But I will venture 
 the opinion, that the adoption of this policy will 
 neither hasten peace, nor, in the end, prove less 
 expensive of life and treasure, than a vigorous pros- 
 ecution of the war, as recommended by the Ex- 
 ecutive. The Mexicans are an obstinate people. 
 This is the character which history awards to them; 
 and they fully exemplified it in their contest with 
 Texas. This is known to none, better than to the 
 honorable Senator. Indeed, on another occasion, 
 he dwelt upon it with emphasis. This not only 
 proves, to my mind, the importance of concentra- 
 ting upon them an overwhelming force, in order to 
 convince them of the necessity of yielding to rea- 
 sonable terms of peace, but that the adoption of a 
 defensive line postpones peace indefinitely. They 
 are nov/ disorganized and dismayed; but, with- 
 draw our army to a defensive line, and you allow 
 them the opportunity to rally and unite, and to 
 choose their own time and place of attack. I have 
 no doubt that we are capable of defending such a 
 line, and repulsing them at every assault, though 
 I am far from believing the force suggested by the 
 honorable gentleman would be sufficient for that 
 purpose. But having repulsed them, what shall 
 we have gained? Nothing but respite, until the 
 enemy should think pro]ier to make another and 
 another attack. Thus we should go on, from year 
 to year — perhaps for twenty years — engaged in the 
 small business of repelling petty assaults of the 
 Mexicans — bound by a policy which excludes the 
 pursuit of them into their own country, for the 
 purpose of chastisement. V/hen would this bring 
 peace ? Where would be the inducement for Mex- 
 ico to enter into a treaty? 
 
 Another strong objection to this policy presents 
 itself to my mind. It is the difficulty of furnishing 
 supplies to the military stations posted along this 
 defensive line. It must be remembered that the line 
 proposed thus to be occupied is, perhaps, fifteen 
 hundred miles in length — that it stretches through 
 an uncultivated wilderness, with the iNIexicans on 
 one side, and no less hostile tribes of Indians on 
 the other; so that the supplies, of all kinds, must 
 
 come from the States. The expense, hazard, and 
 delay, which must attend transportation trains 
 must, therefore, be apparent to all, ui>on the least 
 reflection. In view of these considerations, who 
 can predict the loss of life and treasure wliicli mufet 
 ultimately accrue? and who can tell when it will 
 terminate by a treaty of peace? 
 
 Another weighty objection v.ith me, is, that we 
 acquire no title to the territory thus defended, at 
 such expense. Territory thus held, is held only 
 by conquest; and the writers on international law 
 say, that conquest gives only an inchoate title, 
 which is not perfected, except by a treaty of peace. 
 Impressed with these views, I cannot approve the 
 policy advocated by the honorable Senator from 
 South Carolina. It will neither hasten peace, nor, 
 in the end, prove less expensive; and, after a lapse 
 of years, 'we might find it absolutely necessary to 
 begin — what the President now advises — a more 
 vigorous prosecution of the war. But, while I do 
 not agree with the Senator, that the annexation of 
 all Mexico would prove fatal to our institutions, 
 yet, if I were convinced that that is the only alter- 
 native, (if his policy is rejected,) I would go with 
 him in the support of a defensive line. Under all 
 the circumstances, I believe a vigorous prosecution 
 of the war, in the event of the failure of the treaty, 
 is the surest method of bringing it to a speedy and 
 satisfactory lerm.ination. That seems to be the 
 course, most strongly indicated by all tlie lights to 
 be gathered from the existing state of things. 
 
 The honorable Senator is further opposed to this 
 bill, because its passage will be a pledge to the Pres- 
 ident for a vigorous prosecution of the war. Sir, 
 I wish much, to give such a pledge to the President. 
 I wish more — to give such a pledge to the coun- 
 try; and, most of all, I wish to give such a pledge 
 to Mexico. This consideration operates power- 
 fully with me, in favor of the passage of the meas- 
 ure under consideration. 
 
 The honorable Senator " detests above all things 
 a system of menace or bravado, in the manage- 
 ment of our negotiations. " This sentiment, doubt- 
 less, springs from a lofty virtue which all must 
 admjre. But this system has always existed and 
 will exist, until men shall beat their swords into 
 pruninghooks and learn war no more. I think, 
 however, the Senator is mistaken in saying "it 
 ' was resorted to in our negotiations with Mexico, 
 ' and the march of the army under General Taylor 
 ' to the Rio Grande was but intended to sustain 
 ' it." It must be fresh in the recollection of every 
 Senator, that, at the suggestion of Mexico, our 
 squadron, which lay off Vera Cruz, was with- 
 drawn, in advance of Mr. Slidell's presenting his 
 credentials as our envoy, to negotiate the terms of 
 settlement; and also, that General Taylor was not 
 ordered to the Rio Grande, until the negotiation 
 had failed. How, then, could he have been or- 
 dered there, to sustain the system of menace, which 
 the Senator so much detests? 
 
 I beg leave to notice one other remark of the 
 hononible Senator from South Carolina, lie says, 
 " the President has no right whatever to impose 
 ' taxes, internal or external, on the people of Mex- 
 ' ico. It is an act without the authority of the 
 ' Constitution or law, and eminently dangerous to 
 ' the count'-y." Tliis isa grave and serious charge 
 against the Executive. But is it well founded? I 
 presume it will not be denied, that our Govern- 
 ment has the same belligerent rights, in reference 
 
to a cnnf|nercil enemy, ihil belong to oilier Pow- 
 ers, ai'ciirdin^ lo the laws of nations. Can it Le 
 possible, that oi r |ieculJar/</rm of ijiivcrnmenl has 
 nbrid^^cd our rij^lits in this respeci? Surely not. 
 ^Vh>lt, then, are the rights of a nation in war? 
 Valid say.s, "She Jins a right to weaken lier cnc- 
 
 • my, in order to render him incapaljle of support- 
 
 • ing his unjust violence — a rii;ht to deprive him 
 •of ihc moans of resistance." Affain: He says, 
 •'Since the object of a judi war is to repress in- 
 •jusiice and violence, and forcibly compel him, 
 
 • who is deaf to the voice of jusiice, we have a 
 
 • ri^ht lo put in practice against the enemy eveiij 
 ' mea'iuie that is necessary, in order to weaken him, 
 ' and di.>able him from resisting us and supporiinp; 
 
 • his injustice; and wc may ciioose such methods 
 ' as are most ciTicacious and best calculated to at- 
 
 • tain ilie end in view, provided ihey be not of an 
 
 • odious kind, nor unjuslifiuble in iliem.selves, and 
 ' prohibited by tli6 law of nature." This author- 
 ity (^ives very lar^e powers loa nation at war — the 
 rijL^ht to do evenjlhivg, and choose such modes as arc 
 most ffficHcious. Now, what is more efficacious to 
 weaken an enemy, than to cut tlie " sinews of 
 war," by takiiis: possession of his revenues.' This 
 is all that has been done by the President, although 
 the honoralde Senator thinks proper lo character- 
 ize it as a system of taxation imposed on Mexico. 
 But Vaitel a.sserts broadly ihe doctrine of the right 
 to levy contributions. " Whoever carries on a 
 just war," says the author, " has a right to make 
 ' the enemy's country contribute to the support of 
 •his army, and towards defraying all the charges 
 •of the war." Now, can the taxes and imposts 
 collei'teil from Mexico, by order of the President, 
 be viewed in any otiier lii;lu, than as contriiiu- 
 tions.' The principle is the same, no matter by 
 what name you characterize the act. 
 
 But while our belligerent rights are not denied, 
 it is contended, tiiat they cannot be exercised by 
 the President without authority from Congress. 
 It is not necessary to deny this proposition, if 1 
 were disposed to do so. To all intents and pur- 
 poses. Congress has given the power to the Presi- 
 dent. On the 1.3lh May, 1846, Coii$rress recognized 
 the existence of war between the United States 
 and the Republic of Mexico. The first section of 
 that act declares, "That for the purpose of cna- 
 ' bling the Government of the United States to 
 
 • prosecute said war to a speedy and successful ler- 
 'minalion, the President be, and he is hereby, au- 
 ' thorizcd to employ the militia, naval and military 
 •forces of the United States," &,c. By this act, 
 the war became national, and the President, as 
 comnvuuler-in-chief, became the representative of 
 the Government, for all war purposes. Any other 
 construction would lead to constant and ever recur- 
 ring difficulty. Here is the commander-in-chief 
 three thousand miles from the scene of action. 
 The war is prosecuted in the enemy's country. 
 Active and Sjiccdy measures are to be adopted to 
 ■weaken the enemy, and cut off his supplies. All 
 these are powers, as [ have just shown, incident to 
 a state of war, agreeably to the law of nations. Is it 
 possible, under these circumstances, that the Chief 
 Magistrate must consult Congress, and olitain au- 
 thority, for every movement of the army, and every 
 operaii'in which the success of the military service 
 may demand? Must lie submit his plans, thus 
 expo.sc ihem to the enemy, and run the hazard of 
 having them defeated al last, after a protracted dis- 
 
 cussion in Congress? What is to become of the army 
 during all this time? Sir, Congress is too large a 
 body to constitute a safe council of war. It takes 
 iheni too long to decide questions, and their de- 
 cisions are too much under ihc control of partisan 
 C^^ng. They therefore acted wisely in confiding 
 ^r conduct of the war to the li^xecuiive. I do not 
 deny that Congress may at any time instruct the 
 President as lo the management of the war — may 
 enlarge or restrict his powers. But in the absence 
 of such instructions by Congress, and when, by 
 the law recognizing the existence of the war, it is 
 expressly declared, that in order " to prosecute it 
 to a speedy and successful termination, he is auiho- 
 rized to employ the miliiia, naval and military forces 
 of the United States," is it not evident, ihat Con- 
 gress intended to vest him with a sound discretion, 
 to be exercised according to the established rules 
 appertaining to a state of war? I have no doubt 
 of it. I have no doubt tiiat, under this act, the 
 President is clothed with power, and was intended 
 to be clothed with the power, to do everything 
 necessary to prosecute the war to a speedy and 
 successful termination, which Congress itself could 
 do. The evidence, that I am right in this construc- 
 tion, is conclusive. The war has now existed nearly 
 two years. The President, at proper intervals, 
 during that time, has informed Congress of the 
 mode and success of its prosecution; twice have 
 they voted men and money, and placed them at the 
 disposal of the President, in order still to carry it 
 on, and have given no expression of opinion, that 
 he had abused his powers, or exercised any, not 
 intended to be conferred by the act recognizing the 
 existence of the war. Does not this show, that 
 Congress intended to confide to him the whole 
 management of the war? If, however, they think 
 he has aliused that confidence, or are unwilling 
 longer to extend it, it is perfectly competent for 
 them to withdraw or limit it. But until this is 
 done, all the power of this Government which is 
 incident to a state of war, under tiie law of nations, 
 is vested in him, by virtue of the law of Congress 
 which recognized its existence, and placed at his 
 disposal, without instruction, the means for its 
 prosecution. The Executive, therefure, is not 
 guilty of tiiose gross violations of the Constitution 
 and law, which are alleged against him by the hon- 
 oraliie Senator from South Carolina. 
 
 The honoraljle Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. 
 Ealuvvim,] in his remarks yesterday, opposed the 
 passage of tiiis bill, and, indeed, the furlher pros- 
 ecution of the war, because it looked to the acqui- 
 sition of territory; and he is unfavoralde to the 
 acquisition of territory, because it will bring an 
 addition of slave Slates into the Union. Sir, when 
 was the political school, to which that gentleman 
 belongs, ever fiiendly lo the extension of the limits 
 of our Republic? Did they not oppose the acqui- 
 sition of Louisiana, and Florida, and Texas? But, 
 drspite their opposition, all these Slates have been 
 added to our Confederacy: and who will say our 
 country is less prosjierous, or our institutions less 
 stal)le,in consequence of such accessions? South- 
 ern Whig Senators are opposed to the extension of 
 territory, for the fear that it will result in the addi- 
 tion office States to the Union. With great respect, 
 sir, I venture the opinion, that this is not the true 
 position for Southern statesmen to occupy. It is 
 an admission of our weakness, in the councils of 
 the Government, before our strength is tested. It 
 
15 
 
 is retreaiiiis: before we are attacked. But these 
 views, hetei-dgeneous as tliey are, bring to2;elher 
 these two classes of statesmen, and associate them 
 in united o[iposition to a vigorous prosecution of 
 the war. It presents a singular phenomenon in 
 politics — an alliance between New England anti- 
 slavery and Southern Whigery — a mechanical 
 mixture, without, I tru.'5t, the least piissible chem- 
 ical affinity. But I think it is wrong, because it 
 implies a distrust, each, of the fidelity of the other, 
 to the Constitution. In the deliberations of this 
 body, the question of slavery should never be 
 tou('hed. By the Constitution, Congress has no 
 jurisdiction whatever over the suliject. If all par- 
 ties would stand upon that platform, no note of 
 discord, in relation to this delicate question, would 
 ever disturb the harmony of our deliberations. It 
 belongs to liie people of the territory which may 
 be acquired. By the right of self government — 
 which is dear to every American — they -should be 
 permitted to determine for themselves, in their po- 
 litical organization, whether or not they will toler- 
 ate involuntary servitude. Are not our Northern 
 brethren content to rest this subject here ? Are they 
 unwilling to trust the people with the privilege of 
 jud;ringfor themselves, and forming theirown laws 
 and municipal regulations? Then, all they have 
 todo, is, to stand by the Constitution — abstain from 
 what it prohibits, and do nothing but what it per- 
 mits. On this srnund, all parlies at the South, so 
 far as I am informed, are willing to meet them — 
 they will meet them upon no other. Here, and 
 here alone, is safety for the Republic; and here, if 
 tiiey will stand, the increase of our territory pre- 
 sents no just cause of alarm, so far as slavery is 
 concerned. Those whose business it svill become, 
 will settle it for themselves; and however they may 
 settle it, it should be a source of grievance to none. 
 These same ariruments were used against the pur- 
 chase of Louisiana, and have been revived, at all 
 times, when territory was about to be acquired. 
 If they are sound now, they were sound then; and 
 if fraught with the mischief predicted, an impas- 
 sable wall should, long since, have been erected 
 around the confines of the Republic. 
 
 But, sir, 1 have no fear that the acquisition of 
 territory will weaken our institutions. Surh an 
 idea is forbidden by the history of the past. What 
 Mr. IVIonroe said, in his message of 1823, I still 
 believe to be true: "That this expansion of pop- 
 ' ulation and accession of new States to our Union 
 'have had the happiest etTect on all its great in- 
 ' terests. Tiiat it has eminently augmented our 
 • resources, and added to our strength and respect- 
 ' ability as a Power, is admitted by all." There is 
 nothing in the form or nature of our Government 
 unfavorable to its extension over a wide territory. 
 Indeed, I believe it the best adapted of any other, to 
 such expansion. The nice adjustment between 
 the powers and relations of the Federal and State 
 governments; the limitation of the former to the 
 objects of foreign relations and commerce, and the 
 unabated sovereignty of the latter, except for these 
 purposes, secure the strength of a monarchy, on 
 the one hand, for protection and defence, and the 
 freedom of distinct republics, on the oilier, for mu- 
 nicipal and domestic regulations. Indeed, I am 
 disposed seriously to doubt, whether our Republic 
 would have stood thus long, if its limits had been 
 confined to the original thirteen States. Suppose 
 
 the present population of the United States were 
 covvded within their borders, hiw dense a mass 
 of human beings! Who does not know how rest- 
 1 .ss, intlamniable, and uncontrollable are men, un- 
 less highly intelligent and virtuous, when thrown 
 togelheriiigrealnumbers? Their interestsand pur- 
 suits conflict, and collisiousare generated which lead 
 to convulsions and bloodshed. But our increase of 
 territory has diluted our population. It has cheap- 
 ened the price of land; this has invited to the pur- 
 suits of agriculture; and, in all ages, agriculture 
 has been friendly to the promotion of peace, fru- 
 gality, and virtue. Hence, we have escaped the 
 popular convulsions which so often scourge the 
 nations of the Eastern World; and our Govern- 
 ment has flourished in the greenness of youth, with 
 but few exhibitions of riot, and not one of civil 
 revolution. 
 
 These views gather strength, when we contem- 
 plate the vast and ever-increasing stream of immi- 
 gration which is flowing into our coifntry, from 
 every transatlantic nation. The Old World swarms 
 with a population, restless under the yoke of civil 
 op]iression, and millions of whom are enduring 
 the ills and horrors of hunger and starvation. To 
 them, ours is the proinised land. Its tree institu- 
 tions pledge them liberty, and its teeming fertility 
 promises them food. Hither they will come, and 
 who would close our doors against them ? We 
 have bread enough, and to spare; and the unfelled 
 wilderness, which stretches to the far-distant shores 
 of the Pacific, invites them to occupy, and obey the 
 first great law of civilization, by cultivating its 
 soil. Sheltered under the broad a;gis of our Gov- 
 ernment, they will flourish in the enjoyment of 
 freedom; and in the pursuits of agriculture, they 
 will be elevated to the dignity of virtue and refine- 
 ment. Vast as is the area of our surplus territory at 
 present, few years will elapse, before we shall find 
 more, not only to be convenient, but necessary. 
 
 In the progress of the discussions on the topics 
 connected with the war, a good deal has been said 
 in ridicule, of what is called, " manifest destiny." 
 Now, sir, I am a believer in this doctrine; but I 
 would not employ precisely these woids to express 
 my opinion. I would say, that 1 believe it to be 
 the manifest design of Providence, either that the 
 whole of North America should be embraced with- 
 in our Republic, or that, through the influence of 
 our institutions, it is tu become the theatre of the 
 highest civilization and freedom. Yet, sir, I am 
 no propagandist. I would not force the adoption 
 of our form of Government upon any people, by 
 the sword. But if war is forced upon us, as this 
 has been, and the increase of our territory, and 
 consequently the extension of the area of human 
 liberty and happiness, shall be one of the incidents 
 of such a contest, I believe we should be recreant 
 to our noble mission, if we refused acquiescence in 
 the high purposes of a wise Providence. War has 
 its evils. In all ages it has been the minister of 
 wholesale death and appalling desolation; but how- 
 ever inscrutable to us, it has also been made, by 
 the Allwise Dispenser of events, the instrument- 
 ality of accomplishing the great end of human ele- 
 vation and human happiness. Civilization, like 
 her heaven-born pioneer mother, Christianity, has 
 been compelled to firce on her steady march, for 
 more than eighteen hundred years, amidst the rev- 
 olutions of empires, which have stained with blood 
 
16 
 
 her robe of whiteness. But, converting every ob- 
 stacle to her progress into a weapon of victory, she 
 shall cncinciiire the globe with her girdle of light 
 It is in this view, that I subscribe to the doctrine of^ 
 •' manifest destiny." It is in this view, that I b( ^ 
 iievc the whole of North America is consecrated to" 
 freedom. Neither legislation nor treaties can set 
 bounds to the triumphant spirit of the age, which 
 threatens thrones and dyna.stic?, and augurs an en- 
 tire remodeliuK and renovation of the social and 
 
 political condition of the world. The resuUs of 
 war and the developments of science are but the 
 echoes of the voice of prophecy. The one opens 
 iio door for civilization, and the other sends its 
 PRinisters by the power of steam, and speeds them 
 upon the wing of the "seraphic lightning." 
 
 I will not detain the Senate longer. I thank them 
 for their kind indulgence towards me, wliile oficr- 
 ing these desultory remarks. I shall vole for the 
 passage of this bill. 
 
 LIBRPRV OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 446 854 fi