.'i^^i^^i'.jvi;'": '^livA ^aif^v. >;,;...; 
 
 
 ;i^i|:?:;:;.-:;]i';::::,'::;:;ir 
 
 ■■wr.v^i.r;.';i^iv';. .0."' •: 
 
 
 'lV)M'/ii-|ft,ri: 
 
 !<^-'f',i:H -. •:• ', .,■; , :<k i|vii ,'ii?' ' 'i'", i'>i.. ' ill-' 
 


 ^^-V.. 
 
 
 '^\^<'. 
 
 
 V^ t**- ♦ 
 
 
 
 
 V^!^-\/^ "V^V' \"'"*^'*/' -^ 
 
 
 U-o^ 
 
 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. R. JOHNSON, OF MARYLAND, 
 
 ON TEE 
 
 TEN REGIMENT BILL. 
 
 Delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 10 and 11, 1848. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, said : My purpose, Mr. President, in now ad- 
 dressing the Senate, is to give my opinion upon certain points connected with 
 the present war, which it seems to be conceded may be properly discussed upon 
 the present bill. 
 
 They are these — 
 
 First. Is the war a just and honorable one, or is it unjust and dishonorable. 
 
 Second. Has it been heretofore properly prosecuted. 
 
 Third. How should it hereafter be prosecuted. 
 
 Fourth. What end, consistently with the good name of the nation, should be 
 attained by it. 
 
 Mr. President — Upon each of these propositions I propose to present my 
 views with the frankness and freedom which become a Senator, and at the same 
 time with the deference which i sincerely feel for the opinions of those upon 
 both sides of the chamber with whom I shall be found to differ. 
 
 Nothing, sir, is more annoying to me than to refer at any time to any thing 
 personal to myself, and it is especially so, to do it in the presence in which I 
 stand. But there may be circumstances which render it a duty. I feel myself 
 in that condition, and I therefore ask the kind indulgence of yourself and the 
 Senate to say a word or two of a personal character. 
 
 To those who know me, Mr. President, it is, I am sure, unnecessary to dis- 
 claim that I am actuated on this occasion, neither in what I shall say or do, by 
 any other motive than the single motive of duty to my country. If I could be 
 mad enough to desire any other political post of honor than the one which I now 
 hold (sufficient one would think, to satisfy the cravings of any ambition,) I hope 
 I know myself well enough to be able to say with truth, that I should scorn to 
 obtain it by pandering to popular passion or olticial power. But, sir, I am proud 
 to state, that I have no such desire — that there is no ollice in the gift of the pre- 
 sent Executive which I would accept, and none in the power of the people to. 
 give that I would take. In the school of political ethics iu which I have been 
 taught, I have imbibed as my first and last lesson, the duty to do what you believe 
 to be right, and confidently abide the result. Be it the approbation of your fellow 
 men, or not, you have then the approbation of your own conscience, transcend- 
 ing, iniinitely transcending in true value, any reward that can flow from human 
 source. 
 
 As to popularity, sir, I estimate it as nothing, if it is sought after. Its real 
 worth is when it follows good ends, accomplished by good means. It becomes 
 disgrace when catered for. 
 
 I would not avow any political opinion, which I did not sincerely entertain, 
 nor conceal one which I did entertain, to win any honor which my countrymen 
 could bestow. Honor so won, if I was capable of so winning it, would be to 
 1^'^ but hourly abasement. 
 
 ^X I need not say that I came into this body differing with the administration 
 upon S>iriost every subject of our public civil policy. This difference, decided 
 as it was '^ the beginning, so far from having been diminished, has been but more 
 Towers, printo-, corner of D and 7th streets, opposite National Intelligencer. 
 
b^ .2 
 
 a!5'l morf» stvengtlipned anr! ror!fi)""nor). I Ijpjievo thry inis<\p;;rehend the true' 
 policy of tho, countiy, atiO Hva laiiuntrtily err iijx-ri greai: ;i,nd vifal points of con- 
 « itutiorsal powo". 1 may bt misLt^keii, i.ut 1 believe as sinrerely as I believe 
 in my own existence, that ihe day will con;e, an! is ih}>idjy coming, when this 
 will bo seen to be the general oijinion of the people, and that uistil then .the 
 <'nuntrv v/ill be deprived of many a blessing which the constitution was intend. 
 <'d to besiovv. But, sir, new questions Intve arisen, and are now ugit.iting tho 
 jiation. Wo are at war, and upon o'le of tSic questiour; growing cut of it, I find 
 mvse'f diffninij; pcrhaos with m )s^ of the SLMiator? on this side of tiie chamber,, 
 (not I hope with ill.) with whoiii if is my rt'ide and pleasure generally to agree.. 
 J, need not say, Mr. l-'vesidcnt. to you or to them, that this diftiiience exists, if it 
 lines exist, becau.^e I am unable Ironi a pet;se of duly to have it otherwise. 
 Party ties, party piepossessions, party nssociarions, strong as they ever are and 
 should be., can neve?' be suificicatly strong to make an honorable man violate 
 -'viicil he r.'e!s lo be his du?y to hi.s country : and whe!i in that duty is involved 
 his country's reputation, tijey should be and are weaker than the spider's web. 
 Nov upon this occasion do I feel any other con-^er:! than ll^at which the mere 
 fact of dilFerenec crea'4\«!, bcc.iuse T j'.iiow so wall the Senators who are around' 
 me, that w'latever regcot they may fee! that our opinions are Hot upon all points 
 identical, I sliould cease to have, what I am sure ! now have, their respect and 
 esteem, if i suncnde.red m3'ovv-n judgment, and paltered with my own conscience 
 upon a measur'i vital i.i that judgmeDl to the true fame of our common country.. 
 We difierj si", but we diff.n- as friends. . We differ, sir, but we diiTer as patriots, 
 .We have alike the true honor o? the ccuntry at heart — we are only not agreed! 
 perhaps as to what that tru.o honor demands. 
 
 Sir, he libel? thera, and libels me, wiiodiubts cur high and patriotic purposes.. 
 He violates ti'.e decorum of prirate lile, and the decencies of official relation,, 
 where it exidLs, v/!io intimites tbat we are capable, under any state of things, 
 or for any purpose;;, of taidng sides v/ith the enemies of our country. We aim* 
 alike at her honor — we disagree, if we do disagree, as to the true mode of vin- 
 dicating and maintaining it. Mr. President, all of the good and liberal of my 
 countrymen will, I have no doubt, when they shall have seen what I am aboulr 
 to say, do me the justice to believe that my motives are pure and patriotic. There 
 may be, and perhaps are, mere followers of the party camp, whose hope it is ta 
 feed on the spoils of the contest, who may profess to doubt it ; but none such, 
 do I drop a syllable to satisfy. Bred in the corruption of the motto of the politi- 
 cal free-booter, that the spoils belong to the victor — fighting not for principle, butr 
 for plunder, they are as feculant as their motto, and beneath the notice of honest? 
 men. Only, indeed, to be shunned as you would shun any loathsome toad that 
 mif^ht be in your pathway. I proceed now with the discussion. 
 Is the war just and honorable or not ? 
 
 I think it is just and honorable, and I hope for the good name of my country, that 
 such will be the judgment of Christendom. Sir, I wish to be understood. I am not lib 
 this place inquiring into the conduct of the Executive, into its prudence, or its con- 
 stitutionality. My single proposition now is, that as bettveen the United States, 
 and Mexico, the former had just cause of war on the 13th May, 1846, when the 
 war act of that date was passed, and that on that day wai'' in fact existed by, 
 means of the unjust and illegal act of Mexico. Sir, I repeat, before going fur- 
 ther, that I sincerely trust, as I love the fair fame of my countrymen, that I may. 
 be able to make this plain. Sir, I should bow in deep and heart-felt mortificatioa. 
 for that fame if I did not believe it to be plain. I would not have it even to be 
 involved in the slightest obscurity or doubt, from the dread of the judgment 
 which the civilized world would then be compelled to pass upon us. We live in 
 an ace when nations, as individuals, lose their power and usefulness, and sin*^- 
 into degradation, if they perpetrate acts of wrong and injustice. We are, tt-^^ik 
 God, surrounded by a moral atmosphere as necessary to healthful nation^^i exis- 
 tence as the atmosphere we breathe is necessary to individual life. V we dis- 
 
card it, if wo sink lielcw It, if wo substitute fo: it that which is inseparable frnm 
 violence and injustice, the punishment is at hand. Decay begins, and progres- 
 ses, iinii! we are involved in hopeless ruin. 
 
 K itionai character, sir, is national power, and the purer, the more elevated, 
 the more spotless that character, the greater the power. I trust, therel()ie, in 
 God, t'jat I am right in the opinion that this M'ar is, upon our part, just and hon- 
 orable. If rjot, if not clearly just and honorable, then will mj be pron ouneed 
 by the jud^i;nier,t of the world a hand of murderers. No oL!)er sentence can 
 then be passed upon us. if we are right, we are wortliy descendants <»f siies 
 who knew no tTioral Ideniish. who estimated the nntioual honor alcove all pri",e. 
 If wc! are wrong, we have disgraced the inheritance of freedou) they have left 
 us, brought dishonor upon our land, and aimed a fatal blow at constitutional free- 
 dom itself. 
 
 Mr. President, if I speak sh'ongh', it is because I iee! strongly. I wish to give 
 ofiencc tojioi;e, I take no oflence if others hold a diiTerent opinion. I am here 
 to jiisti'y my ov/n beibre the ^Jenate and the country, a:id I mean to do it with 
 the freedom that belongs to each of us. 
 
 Mr. President, I have an instinctive repugnance to believe my country v.-rong 
 in any v.'ar in which she can engage, and I rejoict^ that in this instance my feel- 
 ings and my judgment are one. 1 now proceed with the attempt to maintaia 
 that judgment. I have not time, sir, nor health to slate cU the tiicts which our 
 difficuliies v/ith Mexico have developed iip,»lica;>!e to thio question. Nor if I 
 hr.d, rhonld I dcei.i it ncceseary to trespass so much upon the time of this body. 
 My purpose is to refer only to such as I am sure cannot 1)e successfully denied, 
 and which are of themselves, in my cpiuion, conclusive of the controversy. 
 
 In 16^4, the Mexican Congress passed a decree, requiring all citizens to sur- 
 render to the Government their arms. The legislature of Coahuila and Texas, 
 by decree, remonstrated against it and against other acts repealing the constitution 
 of Mexico of '24, by which they had changed the Government from a Federal to 
 a Central one. 
 
 For this General Cos, under the order of Santa Anna, at the head of his ar- 
 my, broke up the legislature of Coahuila and Texas, arrested all the officers of 
 the Government, marched over the Rio Grande, and establishe4 his head-quar- 
 ters at San Antonio, leaving a garrison at Lipautitlan on the Nueces, and one at 
 Goliad. The Texans then commenced the revolution, and in 1836 retook Go- 
 liad, Lipautitlan, and San Antonio. 
 
 The boundaries of Coahuila and Texas, as these departments were laid off 
 into one State by the constitution of '24, were the Nueces, running for upward of 
 one hundred miles up that stream, and then by a line across from that point to 
 the Rio Grande. The territory below that line, between the Nueces and the 
 Rio Grande, Avas a part of the State of Tamaulipas. The territory above that 
 point on the Rio Grande, was divided between Coahuila and Texas, by the river ; 
 that is to say, the Texan boundary, as between herself and Coahuila, established 
 by the constitution of 1824, was the Rio Grande running north-easterly from 
 the point where the line I have stated, from the Nueces to the Rio Grande, struck 
 the latter. Tamaulipas granted to various individuals, by what were called colo- 
 ny-grants, under which many settlements were made, much of the land be- 
 longing to her situated between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. These 
 colonists, or the greater portion of them, so entitled to this portion of the terri- 
 tory, ^'omefi in the Texas Revolution, atid were represented in the convention of 
 Texas, which subsequently declared the independence of that Republic. The 
 day after the battle of San Jacinto, 31st April, '36, Santa Anna surrendered as 
 a prisoner. In about six weeks afterwards he entered into a treaty with the 
 Government of Texas, acknowledging the Rio Grande as its southwestern 
 boundary, upon condition that General Felisolea, then at the head of five thou- 
 sand trtops, being all that were left to the centralists to maintain their power, 
 should be permitted to retire west of the river, and that he, himself, should be 
 
released. These conditions were complied with, Felisolea being perntiitted to 
 retire with all of his force to the west of the river, and Santa Anna, in October 
 afterwards, being released. The treaty contained, also, various stipulations about 
 the release of prisoners and the surrender ofpropert3^ General Rusk (the hon- 
 orable Senator from Texas now before me, and who will pardon me for referring 
 to him by name, it being impossiVjle to avoid it because of its inseparable con- 
 nection with tlie short but glorious history of his country's revolution,) then at 
 the head of the Texan forces, and under the order of the Texan Government, 
 transmitted a copy of the treaty to General Felisolea, who recognized it, and at 
 once complied with all the obligations it imposed upon him. 
 
 In 1836, 19th December, the Texan Congress passed a law describing the 
 Rio Grande as their southwestern boundary. After this, Felisolea was super- 
 seded in command by the appointment of General Urea, who immediately com- 
 menced raisinp- an army to re-invade Texas. General Rusk, who was still at 
 the head ot the army of Texas, and stationed at the Gaudaloupe, ordered the 
 families between that post and the Rio Grande to retire to his rear, or to re- 
 move to the western bank of the river. The most' of them did retire to his rear, 
 but many of the Mexicans elected to cross the river, and settle on the opposite 
 side. For the purpose of facilitating the removal of those occupying the coun- 
 try and of watching the movements of the Mexican army, and preparatory to an 
 advance upon Matamoras, he dispatched General Felix Houston with a sufficient 
 force to take possession of Corpus Christi, and that was done. General Hous- 
 ton exercised more authority, between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, than 
 Urea did, who was stationed at Matamoros, with a force of about ten thousand 
 men. At one period Urea crossed the river with the greater part of his conc- 
 mand, and encamped a few miles east of the river, but in a very short period he 
 re-crossed to the western side. In this condition things remained until 1843, 
 the Mexicans having no army to the east of the river, and the Texans having a 
 few troops at Corpus Christi and San Antonio. With these troops, however, 
 the Texans frequently made excursions to Lacido, a place upon the Rio Grande, 
 and several times crossed it. 'l^e Mexican troops made two incursions, cross- 
 in^ the river both times, coming as far as San Antonio, and upon each occasion 
 were immediately driven back to the west bank. In 1843, also, an armistice 
 was agreed upon, under which the Mexican army was to remain on the west 
 and the Texans on the east side of the river. This armistice was in the same 
 year revoked and the war declared to be renewed. The proclamation of Gene- 
 ral Wool, who was then in command of the Mexican force, issued by direction 
 of Santa Anna, declared that all Mexicans found within three leagues of the 
 river would be considered as " favoring the usurpers of that territory," (mean- 
 ing by the territory, the whole of Texas,) be tried by court martial, and capitally 
 punished. There were, during this period, at a post called Lacido, on the east 
 side of the river, some citizens under a military organization, and organized 
 simply with a view of defence against the Indians, mustered only upon such oc- 
 casions, but claiming to be citizens when Hays or McCullough were there with 
 the Texan Rangers. From the commencement of the revolution in '34, to the 
 independence declared by Texas in "36 — from that period to the admission of 
 Texas into our Union in '45 — and from '45 up to the present hour, no Mexican 
 document can be found, military or civil — no Mexican otlicer, military or civil — 
 has ever been known maintaining that the territory lying between the Nueces 
 and the Rio Grande belonged to Mexico by any other title than that which she 
 maintained to the whole territory between the Sabine and the Rio Grande. 
 Under the colony contracts granted by Tamaulipas, heretofore referred to, 
 the settlers, at an election in Texas in '41 or '42 for members of Congress, voted 
 at Corpus Christi, claiming to be citizens of Texas, and their votes were '«- 
 ceived and recognized by the government. The evidences to the title, too, tJ the 
 lands so settled upon, including all transfers from the time of the revoh'tion of 
 '34, to the present time, are recorded amongst the land records of Te-as. On 
 
the first of March, '45, the ahernative resolutions for the admission of Texas 
 into the Union were passed. On the 29th of December, '45, Texas was ad- 
 milted, and on the same day an act was passed to extend the laws of the United 
 States over the State of Texas. On the 31st December, '45, Texas was con- 
 stituted a revenue district, and the city of Galveston, the only port of entry, hav. 
 ing annexed to it, amongst other ports, as ports of delivery, the port of Corpus 
 Christi, a port on the west side of the Nueces. Under that act a revenue offi- 
 cer of the United States has been appointed for Corpus Christi. On 2d Febru- 
 ary, 47, Congress, by an act establishing additional postroads in the State of 
 Texas, there were established, amongst others, one from Brasos Santiago via 
 Pomt Isabel to Fort Brown, opposite Matamoros ; and one from Corpus Christi to 
 Brazos Santiago, a point south of Point Isabel, near the mouth of the Rio Grande. 
 Now, as before stated, Texas was annexed under the first of the alternative 
 resolutions of the 1st March, '45. 
 
 [The fir.n resolution provides, Thnt Congress doth consent that the territory properly included 
 Within, and nghtful.y belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be 
 called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of 
 said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, 
 in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union. 
 
 that the foregoing consent of Congress is eiven upon the condition that the said State be 
 lormed, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise 
 With other governments ; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption 
 by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United 
 btates, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one 
 thousand eight hundred and forty-six. 
 
 The second resolution provides, that if the President of the United States shall, in his judgment 
 ana discretion, deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the first resolution to the 
 itepubhc of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate 
 with that repubhc, then that a State be formed out of the present republic of Texas, with suita- 
 Dle extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress until the next apportionment 
 ot representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with 
 tlie existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the 
 remaining Texan territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the government of Texas 
 and the United States ; and the sum of $ 100,000 is hereby appropriated to defray the expenses 
 ot missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by 
 treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two Houses of Con- 
 gress, as the President may direct.] 
 
 Immediately upon the annexation the Minister of Mexico, General Almonte, 
 demanded his passports, upon the ground that the annexation itself was a state 
 of hostility to Mexico, and from that period to the march of General Taylor 
 from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, the frequent efforts of the American Go- 
 vernment to terminate the controversy by negotiation failed ; and before that 
 march, the Mexican Government were collecting their forces upon the Rio 
 Grande, with the avowed design, not of taking possession only of the territory 
 between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, and conceding- to the United States 
 that portion of Texas which lay west of the Nueces, but of disputing with the 
 United States the title to the whole of the country between the Rio Grande and 
 the Sabine, and upon the ground tJiat the whole and every part of that territory 
 was still a portion of Mexico by virtue of her original and paramount title. 
 Now, Mr. President, the proposition which I seek to maintain is this : that as 
 between the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico, 
 the former had in this condition of things a perfect right, and the same right for 
 the purpose of repelling the threatened invasion, to march her troops into the 
 territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, as into any territory situated 
 between the Sabine and the Nueces. The question is not, whether such a 
 movement of the troops was under all the circumstances judicious and prudent ; 
 it is not, whether by a different course an actual conflict might not have been 
 avoided ; but whether, as a matter of right — as a matter of self-defence, the 
 Unites} States (not the President) had not, under the law of nations, full and per- 
 fect authority and justification to make such a movement. 
 
 What, xir, are the clear and indisputable facts ? The United States had re. 
 ceived the i^public of Texas into the Union without antecedently defining her 
 
6 
 
 bniindaries ni;d ruder a conslitiitlon which reiterated what had hern, as far back 
 Jis '3''), a pair, of her o.-iginal constitution ns an iiidependent republic — that the 
 Rio (iratide, from its source to its niou*h,\vas hor soiith\ve*torn boundary. The 
 Ujiited Siat^-s c; terded all he r laws over tlie State of Texas, as so admitted. 
 They had as.^uni >d actual jurisdici ion at Corpus Christi. They knew that there 
 M'crc citiz'-ns betwc^en ilse Nuccey and the Rio Grande who claimed to be citi- 
 sens of the State of Texas so admitted. They knew that for nine years the 
 fc5tatt> of Texas [ir.d existed as an independent nation. 
 
 Who proposed withdrawing Taylor on the 13th May ? Who denied then, that 
 "we had good right to expel the Mexicans and to invade, for the purpose of aveng- 
 ing the outrage on our flag, any and every part of Mexico? She had refused to ne- 
 gotiate ; she had considered annexation as war ; she had terminated all diplomatic 
 relations ; she had refused to receive our Minister upon a mere quibble of the then 
 President, because he was afraid of his own power, threatened with downfall 
 because it was believed he was willing to negotiate with us at all. She had 
 mustered an army on the Rio Grande with the declared object of invading all 
 Texas, and recovering the whole to her own sovereignty. Her then Government 
 owed its existence to this very determination. She had never maintained any 
 peculiar title to what is now called disputed territory. What, in this state, w^ere 
 the United States to do ? Were they bound to remain still and wait the invasion, 
 or were they not authorized to meet the threatened invasion, even upon the ad- 
 mitted territory of the invader ? Who doubts, that with nations as with individu- 
 als, the right of self-defence gives the right to strike the first blow ? To prevent 
 an injury is easier than to repair it. Sir, where is the writer on the law of na- 
 tions who holds a diffJ^rent opinion !' There are some propositions so plain 
 that they admit of no illustration; they furnish their own best illustration, and 
 this is one of them. We had a clear, undeniable right to meet Mexico at the 
 very outermost limits of Texas, and repel her there ; or if we deemed it advisable, 
 an equally clear and undeniable right to anticipate her by striking the first blow 
 on her own admitted territory. But it is said that the place of conflict was 
 on Mexican territory. If it was, the argument in our behalf^ would not be in the 
 least enfeebled. She was there intending to go further. She Avas there to drive 
 our army back to (he Sabine. She v/as there to re-conquer Texas, the whole 
 and every part of Texas, and not to retain a portion only, upon the ground that 
 such portion was not Texas. 
 
 But even the fact is not as alleged. Whether this portion of the territory was 
 or was not rightfully a part of Texas was, at least, a matter of dispute. Texas 
 claimed it; Texas, over a portion of it, exercised jurisdiction. Citizens resid- 
 ing on it, claimed to be citizens of that government. Mexico had in vain at- 
 tempted to recover it. The constitution of Texas included it. The United 
 States had exercised, after the admission of Texas into the Union, sovereignty 
 over part of it — the highest act of sovereignty, the taxing power. She had re- 
 ceived Texas into the Union without any other definition of boundary, reserving 
 the right only as between themselves, Texas, and any other power who might 
 question the justice of the boundary, to settle it by negotiation. Without a breach 
 of honor to Texas, the United States could no more have surrendered, without 
 inquiry and negotiation, to an absolute and armed demand, this portion of the 
 territory, than they could have surrendered to such a demand the entire State. 
 
 All then that can be said is, that the title of Texas to this part of her territory 
 was open to dispute. Such a dispute is to be settled by two means — by negotia- 
 tion or by force. If the negotiation was refused, if Mexico elected the other al- 
 ternative, force, can she complain if we met her with force ? But suppose her 
 design was not actual force, but to get possession only of the disputed ground. 
 Had not the United Slates the same right to take possession, and hold whatever 
 they possessed, until the question of title was decided by negotiation ? The very 
 question of title might have been affected by the fact of possession. Mexico 
 might have relied upon it as conclusive of the inability of Texas, and the United 
 
States as their successors, to prevent >, and as deraonstratin;^ that her original 
 sovereignty had not been lost by lh'5 rev-.lution. This the Unitfd States hud a 
 right to guard against ; their own houor bnde them guard agaiiint it. If ;ictu;il 
 possession, by Mexico, could weaken the title of Texas, it was ti'.eir duty to 
 strengthen it l>y also taking possession. Pending a question of disputed territo- 
 ry, not actually possessed i.>y either, who ever contended that it was the dury of 
 one of the parties to suffer the o'her to tak3 possession, and then try the title. 
 No, sir, no lawyer would give such advice. No statesman would so act. Tilings 
 should, in such a case, be suffered to rema'n iu "s/afw ^mo." Neither should 
 seek to get advantage of the other. If [ am right in this, and Mexico designed 
 taking possession, then she cannot complain if we also took possession; and es- 
 pecially not, if she knew that, notwithstanding such possession, we were willing 
 at any time to negotiate on the quet^tioi? of liile. 
 
 Sir, it has been said, that to march into the disputed territory is an act of hos- 
 tility. I concede it. But then to threaten to march — to prepare to march — to 
 muster an army to march, and with the avov/ed purpose of taking forcible posses- 
 sion and holding, is also an act of hostility. This Mexico did iirst, and we had 
 then a clear right to anticipate her, upon every principle of the national law, by 
 marching ourselves, and placing ourselves in a condition successfully to meet 
 and repel her. Between nations, as between individuals, aggression may be 
 met by aggression — assault may be met by battery. But it is said revolution 
 gives no title unaccompanied by actual and undisturbed possession and jurisdic- 
 tion. As a general principle, the proposition is true ; but what is actual and 
 undisturbed possession ? Does it mean that the revolutionary government is to 
 have a soldier on each foot of her asserted domain ? Does it mean that every 
 inhabitant within her territory is to acknowledge and submit to her sovereignty ? 
 or does it not onl}^ mean, that such government is to have possession, claiming 
 exclusive title to the whole of her asserted bounds, and to possess the power and 
 determination to make that title good by force, against the original sovereignty? 
 I say it means this, and nothing more. 
 
 See the result of a different doctrine. Wr declared our independence in '76 ; 
 the war continued seven years. Suppose no treaty of peace had been made re- 
 cognizing our limits, but England had simply retired from the contest in disgust 
 with the struggle, as she might well have done, would not our title at that mo- 
 ment have been as good to every foot of our glorious Thirteen, as it was to the 
 very battle-fields of Saratoga and Yorktown. And yet, how inconsiderable 
 a part of our country was ever trodden by the American soldier or within 
 actual reach of his arm. And yet, how many hearts, throughout the contest 
 beat high with true loyalty to England^ and were striking, or were burning 
 to strike, for her standard. No, sir, the proposition is not true as it is some- 
 times understood. It means only the ability to make the usurpation good 
 by force of arms, when the usurper's title is by force of arms assailed. Subject 
 to this test, who can doubt that Texas had the ability to maintain her title to any 
 part of the territory claimed by her between the Nueces and the Rio Grande ? 
 Let the facts give the answer. After her declaration of independence, and after 
 she had by force driven the Mexican troops across the latter river, they after- 
 wards returned but twice, and were each time driven back ; and from the period 
 of the last incursion, in 1843, no Mexican soldier ever crossed the river, and no 
 civil officer of Mexico ever exercised jurisdiction over that portion of it to which 
 our troops were marched. Texas then claimed the territory — Texas drove 
 Mexico from it — Texas had apparently the power, and certainly the will, to drive 
 her from it whenever she invaded it. If these were the facts, and I appeal to 
 the honorable Senator from Texas for their truth, wdiat doubt is there, that to 
 that part of her constitutional limits she has a perfect title. Sir, a word or two 
 more, and upon this point I have done. What Senator, what American, would 
 now be content to abandon the territory in question, make the Nueces the boun- 
 dary, and fight only for that boundary 1 For peace, to put an end to the war, to 
 
spare the further effusion of blood, some might be found, who would, by negotia. 
 tion, agree to that limit, if Mexico would surrender iill title to the rest of Texas. 
 But who is there who would now propose to fall back to the Nueces, and abandon 
 at once the intermediate territory, the very fields of Palo Alto and Resaca de la 
 Palma to Mexico, and fight her »nly on the banks of the Nueces ? I believe, I 
 hope, for the honor of a common allegiance, that there is not one. I have said 
 that I trusted for the sake of our heretofore stainless character, that the opinion 
 I have thus feebly endeavored to maintain was correct — that the war is, on our 
 part, a just one. 
 
 If not, sir, why is it not ? It is because, without justification, we invaded Mex-^ 
 ican soil. It is because, without justification, v/e caused Mexican blood to be 
 spilled upon Mexican ground. It is because they were met at their own homes, 
 which we invaded ; upon their own fields, dear to them, as love of country is 
 dear — consecrated to them by all the associations which bind man to the soil of 
 his birth, in the holiest of all duties — the defence of home and country ; and 
 have, without right, without excuse, without palliation, given them to the sword — 
 slaughtered them by hundreds and thousands, and driven the survivors away. 
 Sir, would not such a tale of wrong, of itself, cover our country with ignominy? 
 But it is not yet half told. What else have we done ? We have seized upon it 
 as a pretext for other, and if possible, yet deeper enormities. We have publish- 
 ed to the world a falsehood. We have endeavored to conceal the true character 
 of our outrage. We have stated that the contest was of their own seeking — not 
 ours ; and upon this degrading perversion, we have pursued them with still more 
 frightful outrages. We at once called into the field 50,000 soldiers — placed the 
 whole naval power of the Government at the disposition of the Executive — en- 
 trusted him with ten millions of dollars, and carried on the war thus begun — took 
 possession of their towns, bom.barded Monterey — carried it almost by storm, 
 slaughtering men and women by hundreds and thousands. Still the story is not 
 told. The damning dishonor is not yet as dark as the truth. Another Cono-ress 
 assembled — we of the Senate composing it in part. We authorized additional 
 troops to be raised — we placed additional funds in the hands of the President. 
 We hear of an intention to strike outraged Mexico in yet more vital points — we do 
 not arrest it. We sufTer the expedition to go on. Before the Mexican blood is yet 
 dry upon the fields of Palo Alto, Resaca de la Palma, Monterey, and Buena Vista, 
 Vera Cruz is bombarded. Her churches fall under the dreadful aim of our mor- 
 tars — the blood of her women and children run in streams through her before 
 peaceful and happy streets — her almost every thoroughfare is obstructed by the 
 mangled bodies of her slaughtered citizens, until at last, her valor can hold out 
 no longer before the mighty and crushing power of our arms. She surrenders. 
 Yet still our vengeance is not glutted. Innocent, unoffending Mexico has yet 
 more cities to be laid waste or conquered — more hearts to be wrung — more gal- 
 lant blood to be shed — more women and children to be slaughtered — more agony 
 in every form to suffer. W^e have not yet had our fill of blood. We march on 
 in our fiendish progress. At Cerro Gordo, Cherubusco, Chapultepec, Molino del 
 Key, our deeds of slaughter are renewed, and go en with yet more fearful vio- 
 lence. Mexican blood waters every hill and plain. The cries of Mexican agony 
 startle every car, and still the v.-ork goes on. We lay siege to the city of Mex- 
 ico itself— bombaid its peaceful dwellings — make her streets to run with human 
 ■gore, and slaughter again women and children, until resistance becomes unavail- 
 ing. We get possession of the Capital, and yet carry on the contest. Sir, can 
 our country have done such deeds ? Is she 'so deeply steeped in crime ? Has 
 she no honor left? Are M-e christian and civilized men, or are we robbers and 
 murderers ? I hope she will pardon me the inquiry ; and yet if the war was un- 
 just, if it was not provoked, if it was our act, and not the act of Mexico, every hu-' 
 man heart, animated by a single human feeling, can but answer in the affirmative- 
 
 But no sir, no sir, it is not so. She is high-minded, just, and honorable. She 
 is. civilized, not savage. Her citizens are moral and Christian. Those scenes 
 
9 
 
 are, in the eye of God and man, to be justified, because necessary to our honor,, 
 and forced upon us in vindication of our violated rights. Mexico is answerable 
 for all these sad and sickening results. The v\'ar is just, because she commenc- 
 ed it. It does exist by her act; and, so help me God, but for that conviction, as 
 I reverence truth, and detest falsehood, I would never have voted for the act of 
 13th May, 1846. 
 
 So far I have been considering the justice of the war as between the two 
 belligerents — the United States and Mexico, as nations. But another and a 
 material inquiry presents itself. What, independent of the attack upon our 
 troops on the Rio Grande, the immediate cause of the war, was its remote cause ? 
 Upon this point I agree, I believe, and have ever agreed, with my political 
 friends, and, as I think, M-ith hundreds and thousands of our political opponents. 
 That cause is to be found in two measures of the President of the United States. 
 The first, the mode he pursued under the resolutions of the Ist March, '45, to 
 consummate the annexation of Texas to our Union. The second, and the more 
 direct and immediate cause, his order to march our troops to the Rio Grande. 
 Upon both these points I proceed to give my opinion with the frankness which 
 becomes me, and at the same time the decorum which is due to the chief Execu- 
 tive officer of the Government. 
 
 First. The mode he adopted of consummating annexation. The resolution 
 of Congress of 1st March presented alternative modes. Under the one, Texas 
 Avas to be admitted without any precedent definition of her boundaries. Under 
 the other, there was to be such a definition. Sir, I will not stop to inquire into 
 the secret history of that resolution in this body. The treaty vvhich preceded it 
 had been rejected, because it prescribed no other boundary than that which Texas 
 claimed. It was rejected, as appears by the debates in this chamber, because, in 
 the judgment of some Senators on the other side, such claim was uutrue and in- 
 valid — invalid because a large portion of the territory embraced within the as- 
 serted limits was clearly a portion of Mexico. The treaty being rejected, the 
 resolution of the 1st March, 1845, came to the Senate. That, too, was open to 
 the same objection as the treaty. It left the boundary to depend on the claim of 
 Texas. It was impossible for those who thought the treaty was obnoxious on that 
 ground, and on that ground voted against it, to give it their support. 
 
 But they did vote for it, after getting it amended, by the insertion of an al- 
 ternative mode. Sir, how happened it that this change of form reconciled them 
 to the measure ? Could it have been for any other reason than because they 
 were satisfied that that alternative would be pursued by the President ? Such al- 
 ternative obviated the objection of an unsettled and unjust boundary. It looked 
 to negotiation as the remedy to avoid all difficulty either with Texas or Mexico. 
 It looked to annexation, without the hazard of a war, and v/as designed for the pure 
 and patriotic purpose ofmaintainingthe peace and honor ofthe United States. Now, 
 sir, I do not allege that this was the ground of their support, and still less that 
 they had any assurance from the President upon the subject ; but I do allege 
 that I can conceive no other reason for tlipir vote upon the resolution at all in 
 keeping with their characters for high intelligence, firmness of purpose, and pat- 
 riotism, than that they thought they had an assurance that their mode of annex- 
 ation would be pursued. Sir, how did it turn ogt ? The ink was hardly dry 
 with which the resolution was recorded, and the name ofthe President attached 
 to it, before, without going through the form even of a moment's subsequent 
 deliberation, a messenger was despatched to the Government of Texas, inviting 
 her into the Union, under the first alternath'e — and under the first alternative she 
 came into the Union. 
 
 Now, sir, I charge upon the President, that this hasty and ill-advised step was 
 the remote cause of the present Hvar. I charge it upon him, that if he had acted 
 prudently, and cautiously, and wisely, he would have proceeded under the other 
 alternative, and have saved the dreadful eflfusion of blood the world has been com- 
 pelled to witness. I charge it upon him that the course which he did pursue was 
 
10 
 
 iijcnr.sis.'ent wifli tha* uni^jru. policy of his prodocossors to aA'oid, or to seek to 
 iivoid^by every possible and lioi orable means, that direst of all national evils, war. 
 
 Sir. it h no delonce thut Congress aiitluirized the step he did take. They, to 
 be su,->;, Futhor'zed it, lint did not command it. They left with him, unwisely, 
 ] tfii!'.k — jeriairily I would not have done it — the discretion to adopt it. But he 
 ]sne\/---nu5t have known — that some of the wisest and purest of statesmen pre- 
 ■<licted that it would end in war; and that some of the wisest and purest ofihe slaUvs 
 men bGlonginp; to his own political party entertained that opinion. He knew that 
 the majority of the Senate, his constitutional advisers, were firmly of that opinion. 
 He knew they had promptly rejected a treaty upon that very ground, and that 
 alone ; and yet, in defiance of all this, he headlong takes the obnoxious step, and 
 the war ensues. The responsibility is upon his head, and heavy and overwhelm- 
 ing is that responsibility. 
 
 Sir, annexation of itself would not have been war — Mexico had no right to make 
 it a cause of war, Texas' independence had been too long established and un- 
 disturbed to have her absolute right of sovereignty called in question. Acknowl- 
 edged by the principal powers of the world, all had a right to say, that revolution 
 had ripened into title, and especially had the United States, the neighbor of the 
 new government, that right. Nor do I believe, Mr. President, that Mexico, proud 
 and arrogant as she then was, would have dared, on account of the treaty of an- 
 nexation, to make war upon the United States. No, sir, it was the manner, not 
 the fact. It was the rashness, and, under the circumstances, in my opinion, the 
 utter rashness of the President's course. I repeat, therefore, my settled convic- 
 tion, that the President is, on this account, answerable for the war. But, upon 
 the second ground to Avhich I have referred, his liability is even yet more mani- 
 fest, and without a shadow of justification or excuse. Sir, I need not say that I 
 impute no improper motives to the President. He has, no doubt, I hope, acted 
 under a mistaken sense of duty. But, in my opinion, sir, the order to march our 
 army to the Rio Grande was a flagrant violation of that duty — was ill-advised, 
 reckless, and clearly against the spirit ot the Constitution. 
 
 Sir, he could not but hiive known that such a measure was likely to bring on 
 hostilities. He could not but have known that such hostilities would be in the 
 judgment of the nation, war. The war-making power is exclusively vested in 
 •Congress, for wise, high, and vital reasons of public policy. No man would be 
 Tnad enough to repose such a dreaded power in the Executive. The security of 
 freedom and peace demands, that those who are to pay the expenses of war, should 
 alone have the right to declare it. Congress ■was then in session, why were they 
 not consulted ? Was it apprehended that they would not by such a step hazard 
 the peace of the nation ? Was it because it was believed that they would resort 
 to every possible effort before taking a step so likely to involve us ? Sir, I hope 
 not, I am bound, in respect to the President, to believe not. But, sir, the fact re- 
 mains. Is there a citizen in the United States of any intelligence who can doubt 
 that Congress never would, in the then condition of things, have suffered, if they 
 could have prevented it, much less ordered, that march. 
 
 I charge, therefore, upon the President that as far as the United States and him- 
 self are concerned, he is the author of the war. He, and he only ; and upon his 
 hands rests the blood which has crimsoned its many glorious battle fields. But 
 this, sir, is a question between the country and the President. Mexico had no 
 right on that account to assail our Jlag. To her it made no difference under what 
 authority of this Government our troops were on the Rio Grande. We had, I 
 repeat, and I hope I have shown, a right to send them there, and her attack 
 upon them was, as regards her and ourselves, war actually begun by her. 
 
 Sir, our flag has waved in proud glory over every field of conflict. The na- 
 tion's heart has beat high with pride and gratitude to the brave spirits who have 
 borne it, for their matchless gallantry and skill. Upon the nation's brow no 
 blush need to be seen. They were not permitted to avoid the horrid strife. 
 Tiieir President, without their knowledge, rashly involved the nation's honor. 
 
11 
 
 That honor was then illegally asi=ai]ed. They 1 ad no choice but to vindicate it. 
 Theirs is all the glory which has been achieved. Tha President hereafter, when 
 in the retirement of private lite, and reviewing tlic scenes of these bloody con- 
 flicts, however it may be now, will take no joy in the remembrance of our trl- 
 umph;^ The voice of conscience will tell him that a'i the blood of the battle was 
 of his shedding. The tale of its glory, to him, will be icst amidst the agonizing 
 cries of the widows and orphans it has made. Sir, I repeat it, i allege no im- 
 proper motive to the Executive, but as I believe that J .'!m now addressing you, 
 tio I believe that upon the President rests the blood and expenses of the war, and 
 upon him, therefore, I charge them. 
 
 I have said all, Mr. President, that I proposed to say upon ihe part of the subject to 
 which, so far, I have called the attention of the F.enaie. It i? possible, however, that 
 in what I am about to offer to the consideration of iheScn.iie, I s'.ali incidentally 
 refer to it again. I speak next, and in the first place, of liie actual conduct of the war 
 under the management of the President of the United States. The war was recog- 
 nised as existing on the 13th of May, 1840, br the act of Congress of that date. We 
 are now in the month of January, JS48, and to'ail appearances, the restoration of peace 
 is as far off, and even further, than it seemed to be on the 13lh May, 1846 The whole 
 power of the nation, so far as he has deemed it advisable to ask to have that power 
 -devolved upon him, has been placed in the hands of the Executive. iSot an occasion, 
 although there have been so many and such glorious ones, has presented itself in which 
 the American arms have not been triumphant. And yet there is no peace. My opinion 
 is, and has been throughout, that the reason is to be referred exclusively to the 
 want of vigor with which the war has been prosecuted. We have had an ostentatious 
 and asserted vigor, but we have had nothincr else, as far as t!ie President is concerned. 
 
 I am very far from imputing— because I am incapable of making a charge which I 
 •do not believe to be true — I am very far from imputing, that this want of actual vigor 
 has been intentional on the part of the Executive. So far from it, I believe that he 
 has been deluding himself, from time to time, with the idea thai peace was to be ob- 
 tained without the effusion of blood ; a sad delusion — a delusion, sir, which must here- 
 after constitute a great and overwhelming account of responsibility against him. 
 
 I said yesterday, that it was the march of our troops from the Nueces to the Rio 
 Grande, that was, in my opinion, the immediate cause of the war. T say to-day what 
 I have had occasion to say in other places, ever and over again— that I believe that that 
 inarch of itsel^', if it had been made with a proper force, would not actually have led 
 to such a result. I have no doubt that if, instead of sending the small but gallant 
 band— the heroes of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma— to the Pdo Grande, he had 
 sent from 5,000 to 8,000 men, not a drop of blood would have been shed, and no Mex- 
 ican ever have ventured to have trodden the soil on this side of the river in hostile 
 attitude. But sir, the war commenced, was recognised, and .50,000 troops, with an 
 unlimited amount of treasure, were freely placed at the disposal of the Executive, to- 
 gether with an implied promise, such as to give the President the assurance, (if such 
 were needed,) that this unlimited amount could, if the expression may he excused, be 
 made still more unlimited. And yet what has he done? Instead of calling out twenty 
 or thirty, or forty, or fifty thousand men, as he was authorized to do by the act of the 
 13th of May, 1846, he, and the officer at the head of the War Department, called them 
 out by driblets— and announcing to the country from time to time, that they had a 
 sufficient force in the held to conquer a peace. What has been the consequence ? 
 That which every man of intelligence who speaks as he thinks must acknowledge — 
 that great and mighty and extraordinary as have been the triumphs of the American 
 arms, they have hardly furnished us anything but the glory attending them. They 
 have, to be sure, illustrated the American character for valor and military skill ; but 
 they have served no other purpose. And why, Mr. President ? Because cash struggle 
 has been at such fearful odds, that the gallant officer in command has been unable to 
 follow it up, or profit by the result. 
 
 Look at the history of the campaign on the Rio Grande. General Taylor, who, with 
 a few thousand men, marched to Monterey, and succeeded, after a dread and fearful con- 
 flict, in carrying that almost impregnably fortified town, was so far crippled that he 
 was unable to hold even the prisoners that he might take. W hat happened afterwards? 
 The plan of the campaign is changed, some new light dawns upon the mind of the 
 Executive, and Mexico is to be stricken in a different part. There is a point still more \ 
 vital to be assailed— a point still more certain, if assailed, to lead to the restoratioa 
 of peace, and to the vindication of our outraged rights. What is done ? Gen. Tay- 
 lor is stripped of what was supposed to be the very flower of his command. The enemy 
 
12 
 
 approached. Eight or ten millions of the public property were exposed to be lost^ 
 unless preserved by the gallantry and indomitable valor of the few soldiers left behind 
 to guard it. Almost with electric speed it becomes knov(^n at the city of Mexico, and 
 an army such as she had never before marched into the field, was organized, amount- 
 ing to some twenty or twenty-five thousand troops, and led on by their greatest chief. 
 
 Mr. President, much as his previous successes had satisfied every American that 
 Taylor, and the officers and men under his command, were competent to accomplish 
 almost any triumph that human power could accomplish, was there one who did not 
 tnen tremble for their fate? And the fact that they were not utterly annihilated, may 
 be considered almost a military miracle. Disparity of force was comparatively nothing- 
 before the energies of the American soldiers ; and in the annals of former military 
 triumphs, the proudest of them all will hereafter be regarded as nothing in comparison 
 with the victories of Buena Vista. They are ail thrown in the shade by the brilliant 
 light of an exploit, whic!), whilst it electrified the American heart, astounded the world. 
 
 Let us look now, sir, to the campaign of last year. Gen. Scott was compelled to as- 
 sail the city of Vera Cruz with between 12,000 and 14,000 troops, and to carry, at all 
 hazards, a castle supposed to be impregnable. He succeeded in accomplishing it, but 
 he has done little or nothing beyond that. Every battle which was fought between 
 Vera Cruz and the city of Mexico, was fought with a disparity of numbers actually ap- 
 palling. That noble leader was forced to march a distance of 150 or 200 miles, (I 
 forget the exact distance,) into the enemy's country, and, for a great portion of the 
 way through a dense population, to assail a city containing 180,000 or 200,000 inhabi- 
 tants, surrounded by fortifications, which were supposed to be impregnable, and with- 
 out even the means of keeping up his communications with the seaboard, for the pur- 
 pose of getting supplies. These supplies fuund their way to him, from time to time^ 
 by the gallantry of the escort, who were obliged to fight, foot by foot, almost every mile 
 of their progress. And at the end of all hisgreat and extraordinary triumphs, Scott finds 
 himself in the city of Mexico with only some 6,000 soldiers. Now, sir, who does not 
 believe that, if he had started with an army of 30,000 men, although we might then 
 have been deprived of the glory of his many victories, we might have been in posses- 
 sion of the city of Mexico, perhaps, without shedding a drop of blood, American or 
 Mexican. Who can doubt that it is the duty of an Executive, managing a war de- 
 clared to exist by a Christian people, to do what the honorable Senator from Missis- 
 sippi, (Mr. Davis,) said it wou'd be the eflfectof this bill to accomplish — not to ensure 
 a triumph on the battle-field, but to avoid a battle by accomplishing success by force 
 of numbers — to break down the moral power of the enemy — to conquer a peace by de- 
 monstrating to that enemy that resistance is in vain. All at once (1 find no fault with 
 it, on the contrary, I rejoice at it,) the eyes of the Execut ve have been opened. All 
 at once it seems to be perceived by him, that the war heretofore has not been vigor- 
 ously prosecuted, except on paper. Well, whose fault is it, Mr. President? Who would 
 have borne the dread responsibility, if our gallant little army on the Rio Grande had 
 been sacrificed ? Who would have had the equally tremendous responsibility, if those 
 gallant spirits now in the halls of the Montezumas had been sacrificed ? The nations 
 of the world would have said, with one accord, the Executive of the United States. 
 Upon him the responsibility for the useless and cruel expenditure of blood and of treasure 
 would have rested. Sir, I make bold tosay,iHspeakingin the presence of those who know 
 infinitely more upon such subjects than 1 do, that if the President had called out the 
 50,000 volunteers after hearing of the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, 
 there never would have been another blow struck in Mexico; and peace would long 
 since have been restored. The Mexicans, to be sure, have a high and indomitable 
 spirit, (I speak particularly of that portion of them who have in their veins the true 
 Castilian blood,) but they know there may be a point at which resistance ceases tO' 
 be a virtue, and they would have seen that that was their condition when they saw a 
 deternnination on the part of the T?nited States to exert their whole power in the ac- 
 complishment of the purpose for which war had been declared. 
 
 Who can doubt that if the Executive of the United States had announced that the 
 purpose of the war was merely to procure indemnitv for wrongs, and to vindicate out- 
 raged character, and to maintain the honor of our flag, and had placed fifty thousand 
 troops in Mexico, as he might have done, it would have led to a cessation of hostili- 
 ties. Sir, 1 think we have no peace, because the President of the United States has 
 not exerted the power which Congress has placed in his hands, and Avhich was in- 
 tended to be exerted. I think, and I therefore charge upon him, that the American 
 blood which has been so freely poured out, has been thus freely poured out because of 
 his error. I think, and I therefore charge upon him, that the millions of money which 
 have been spent, and have yet to be spent, have been and are to be spent because of 
 his error. This is all that I propose to say, Mr. President, on the manner in which 
 this war has been conducted. 
 
13 
 
 And this leads me to consider very briefly what should be, in my judgment, the mode 
 of its further prosecution. There are only three modes to be resorted to. The first 
 is, to withdraw the troops altogether — if not to the Nueces, to (his side of the Rio 
 Grande. The second, to withdraw them to what is lervned a defensive line ; and, the 
 third, to carry on the war in the heart of the Mexican territory, until Mexico agree to 
 terms of peace. I prefer the last. 
 
 Mr. President, in saying that I prefer the last, I do not wish to be misunderstood. 
 I prefer the last if the end to be obtained is not one which, in my judgment, would 
 tarnish the American name. I prefer the last, if the object to be accomplished is 
 merely the vindication of our violated honor, and indemnity for our heretofore violated 
 rights. But if the purpose of ibis war, with the President of the United States, is to an- 
 nihilate the nationality of Mexico, if it is the forcible dismemberment ofherterritory, 
 then I say, on my responsibility as a Senator and a man, I would not give him a dollar. 
 
 Sir, we live at a time when character i~- of immense value with nations, as we know 
 it to be with individuals ; and if there be any one thing which more than another 
 •stains national character, it is using national power to inflict national injustice. And if 
 ithere be any national crime, more crying and enormous, in the opinion of all Christendom, 
 than any other, it is the forcible dismemberment of the territory of a \?eaker nation. 
 
 When I say, Mr. President, that I am for fighting the war out, I mean that I am for 
 fighting it out in order to accomplish the purpose which we seek to have accom- 
 plished; that is, to have American rights recognised, and American honor vindicated; 
 so as to furnish full and complete security against any subsequent violation. 
 
 The two first points to which I have referred, the proposition for withdrawing the 
 troops, and that for taking a defensive line, I have already said, I cannot concur in. 
 To withdraw the troops altogether, in my judgment, would be national dishonor, and 
 I cannot, therefore, entertain the idea for a moment. To take a defensive line, would 
 not, in my judgment, lead to peace, but would, on the contrary, he perpetual war; 
 and so far as expense is to be mentioned in any comparison with the other calamities 
 of war, it would be attended with infinitely greater expense than that of fighting it 
 out. Now, sir, the objection to carrying the war on, is the expenditure of money with 
 which it will be necessarily attended, and the consequent derangement of the whole 
 financial condition of the country. My impression is, from some examination which 
 I have given the subject, and with an anxious desire to arrive at a satisfactory result, 
 that the war iiiay be carried on in Mexico, without the expenditure of a single 
 American dollar, and of course without affecting the pecuniary condition of the 
 American people, or the pecuniary condition of the Government itself 
 
 The resources of the Mexican Government, Mr. President, even under all the disad- 
 vantageous circumstances under which that government has existed, are infinitely 
 greater, it seems to me, than is generally supposed. The fact is, that until a compari- 
 lively recent period, indeed until a short time before the commencement of the war 
 with ourselves, the expenditures of their government have been about $21,000,000 an- 
 nually. And it has been appropriated to these purposes. They have had an army of 
 30,000 men always on pay, costing the Government about ^10,000,000. They have 
 had a civil list bill of about $6,000,000, and interest to be paid on the public debt to 
 the amount of $5,000,000, making $21,000,000. Their army has been punctually paid, 
 their civil list punctually met, and the interest on the public debt, until, as I have said, 
 a comparatively recent period, has been met with equal punctualitv. From what re- 
 sources, sir ? The products of their mines, when they are in full operation ; and for 
 a series of years, when in such lull operation, they have produced $25,000,000 per 
 year; they charge what is termed a transit duty on all the bullion that is drawn from 
 the mines until it reaches the port of exportation. This transit duty is paid in the 
 form of a permit, granted on the part of the government, to convey the bullion from 
 town to town, the permit being renewed at each terminus, until it reaches the place of 
 exportation, and when it gets there, it is subject to an export duty of one per cent. 
 The average amount of these transport duties, until the bullion reaches the place of 
 exportation ; is about two and a half or three per cent. The gross amount of bullion 
 drawn from the mines, as I have said, is about $25,000,000. The Senate will easily 
 perceive then, the amount derived from this source, with an average of two and a half 
 or three per cent, as transit duty, and with a specific export duty of one per cent, upon 
 the value of every pound of bullion exported. The next source of revenue and the 
 amount that it raises, it is almost impossible to calculate; or rather to speak more cor- 
 rectly, the amount it would raise if peace was restored to Mexico, if that country was 
 restored to quiet, and business operations were permitted to go on in their ordinary 
 course. This source is the stamp tax. They charge what is termed a stamp 
 tax on every description of contract transferring every description of property, of or 
 exceeding the value of five hundred dollars. That is to say, every contract between 
 
14 
 
 man nnd mnn ft latii^e to p-oper'y 'vorth five hi.nclipj dollars, is to be written upon 
 stump 1 ^fer, for \\riiich th^^ j>arties pay 'o ihe sintj'p ouicers, six dollars. But accord- 
 injj lo itieir lawp, cuit.ac's of tiiis des(Tipuon nrc left in the hands of a Notary, and 
 are le ordod aition?;- the ciT.cial traiisaeii oiisuf the Notaiy, making it necessary for the 
 parties lo ihf contract, if ihi^y desire tj jiave in iheir possession evidence of the con- 
 iraci. !o ob'iiua ofTicial copie?' ; f>nd ihe reault is, that each one of the parties almost 
 invari^My lake-s a copy oi' ihe oontiact. 'I h? eojy is also written on stamped paper, 
 and fjr ihe copies there is [laid six dollars each. 
 
 'I hire is anuiher souicc, au'l that is a duty on tl;-- sale of everything that is sold.. 
 Koihuiir i^aMsos from ham! to hand ny way of sale ihut dees not pay a specific duty, 
 regulaitd by th^ Bnionr.t of the value ot the articles so passing. Now, I will not es- 
 TiiiMie the anmuni il.us deriv-'d ; ii is (-iifricitni Ibr rny pvrpose to state the fact as I 
 UndersirtHfi ihc fact lo he, tliat the -.mount of revenue received from these sources has 
 been ahtindiiMily suihcient to eiiahle the Government of Mexico to meet punctually its 
 ilisburstnienis to the amount uf $2[.')V0,i)0J. 'i his amount would support any army 
 whicn we uii^rlit ])ut iutu ihe field ; and this we would have a perfect right to' appro- 
 jjriate. Not to seize ami ccnfiFcate individual properly, which is abhorrent to every 
 sense of justice, v.hich would be an act of barbarism— a dishonor to the age in which 
 we live, and a s-ain upon ouv national chaiac:.er— but to appropriate the public revenue 
 of the country, .--o as lo enfeeble the power of the. r goverament, to reduce the military 
 to ihe^a'ne tianda'd gs private citizens, nnd prove, by the fact that we are thoroughly- 
 able to enforce it, that the restoration of peace depends on their submission. Now, I 
 bt'iievePs coriliufvitly as I can anythins: of which we have not certain knowledge, that 
 by puisin!;g a cgimso of this description, for the purpose of enforcing a termination of 
 this war, we shall not only o.-jiain money as much as is necessary for the support of 
 our army, but no pcrtior, of it will come from the people of the United States. 
 
 1 .'incw, ^ir, fhe objeciioM that m,ay be raised as to the consequence that may result, 
 fro.m takh.7 possesflion cf ibe wb.ole couniry. 1 think I can see almost as clearly as 
 does '.he houorahie Sr-aator from 8outh Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun, ) the result of incor- 
 porating the whijie of I'.lexico inic this Union ; and, if I believed that the object was 
 the incorporation ni the whole of Mexico into the Union by the further prosecution of 
 liie ^'>'ar, much as ] should hang ray Jiead in mortification and shame for the honor 
 of my country, I would wiliingly submit to the withdrawal of the troops, rather than 
 prosecute ihe war an hour longer. But I do not believe that such is to be the result. 
 I do not believe that the people of the United States would suffer an Executive offi- 
 cer to perpetrate such a wrong, if the Executive even had it in contemplation. I da 
 not believe that they would ever themselves assist an Executive to accomplish such 
 an object. I would have much less confidence in them than I have, if I thought it 
 possible that the mere lust of rapine, the mere lust of territory, would lead them to. 
 dishonor the American name by blottingfrom existence a neighboring and feebler nation. 
 I am for prosecuting the war, sir, because I believe the consequence will be, to 
 bring Mexico the earlier to her senses, and to prompt her cheerfully to accept terms of 
 peace. And this brings me to say a word or two on what should be, in my opinion, 
 the terms of such a peace. 
 
 Now, sir, I speak for myself, though I have no doubt that I speak the sense of most 
 of the friends around me. My honorable friend from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) 
 the other day, in the speech which he did us and the country the honor to deliver, said 
 he believed ihe people of the United States were irrevocably detei-mined on taking in- 
 demnity for the wrongs which we have suffered from Mexico, in territory. I hope he- 
 is mistaken. I believe he is mistaken. I believe the people of the United States 
 "Would be to-morrow contented by a treaty which would make the Rio Grande the 
 boundary. I believe they would be contented with such a treaty, for the purpose- 
 of terminating the war, rather than that Mexico should be compelled by the force of 
 our arms to dismember herself. Now, in expressing this hope and belief, and in ex- 
 pressing the opinion that the war might be honorably terminated by taking the Rio 
 Grande as the boundary, I wish it not to be supposed that I am opposed to the ac- 
 quisition of additional territory. I am against the acquisition of territory by force. I 
 am not opposed to the acquisition of territory of itself, but for one consideration which 
 "Weighs in my judgment, and which has had heretofore and still has a controlling ope- 
 ration. Mr. President, I fear, I greatly fear, the eonfiict to which such an acquisition 
 ■would lead. The honorable Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Hale) told the Sen- 
 ate the other day that the true origin of this war lay in the settled purpose on the 
 part of the South to perpetuate and extend slavery. I am not alluding to this now 
 with any design to try conclusions with the honorable Senator on the question of sla- 
 very. Sir, he will pardon me for telling him that that is a subject which no Southern 
 man on this floor, when he can avoid it, desires to discuss. He vrill permit me to tell 
 
15 
 
 bi:T). ''ard I do it wiih all frond fe-rling-, p:id with all the respect in which T lioll him as 
 a Stn;'.'oi cf ihe I iiiied iJSiaies,) ihat it Ijas beet) owing to tlie Lsciiitiy discussioiis ou 
 this stitjcct in iln' North, thai slavtiy nov/ exists in many of vhe Souiliern States. He 
 v/ill pj iiiif, lue ui iell hriit, that I l>ave iio doitbt, not the least, that it has bt^eii ih*' 
 •jourse, aod tlat ol" tliost- wliosj sciuinienis he sjjcalcs, on this sulijfcl, which hafcdone 
 more ihun aaylhii'? el.sr towards i.s parpeiualicwi. 
 
 'J'he trr?atesi practical advi cates cl slavery, sir, have been the Senator himself and 
 Jiis pi^r iciila/ consiil'K nts. Sir, i have ray t pinion on this subject as deeply iiK-iilled 
 PS can ha Vij the Senator from IS'ew Hampshire. 'I l:ey uerealmcsi i cm v. iijiuip;^ 
 they have be»-n conrirn.od hy the txperiei::oe ot every day of my hie 'J hey have been 
 f^lrtngtheiet! by cll siibsequeiu rtlieciioii. 1 do not choose to express .heiu on this 
 floor ii'.ile&s the topic is pre.>-bed home. IJat whilst I have fixed and iinabeiable con- 
 victio.is aa to the li'iere iusiituttfin of shtvery itself as a polr.ical or civil insmuiii'n. I 
 havo another corivicliv^n as deeply and iifevocably fixed, and thai is a coiiviciicn (hai the 
 iSouihetn States (;we ii to themselves, one and all of ih m, to Siand on iluir own 
 rights, TO vindicate their own equrliiy, ai.'d exclubively Pt their own time. Mil ■with- 
 out the inlerlerence if others, U) meddle in their own wav, xvith ll.is peculiar ins-iitu- 
 tioii. No;wi'uis!audit!g ll is, ."Vir. Piesidnit, [ cannot be blind to all the indicaiioriS of 
 the iiiiie«. I caitnot hufsay, that the opinions entertained in the North, however fr- 
 ronei'US 1 may ihinlc they are, are still honestly tr.terraintd. J cannot but say, that 
 the iSoiiaior bom New Hampshire would be false to the iuij'licd pre mh'e v\ hich he has 
 <.iven to the State which sent him here, if he were uni to ir.r.ke it a c-ndition, in the 
 atquisiiion'of B'iv aiiditionaj lerritoiy, thut slavery shv-uld be forever excluded from it. 
 t carisot but perceive that that is a jropuiar fceliitg, which is su'eejiijg lil..e a whiri- 
 Vvind El ihv' North ; but there is an equally deiermined and suauy leeiingui ihc c-outh^ 
 Jl' tliese feelings be further excited, ihe:e can be but one rcsuii ; that is deadly con- 
 flict, or^ amicable separation. And when I loolc ai. either, IMr. PresiJeut, my heart, 
 fciok'ciis ut ti'-^ reflecnoti. Sous of a common ancestry, bound together by common 
 tic-, gloixifiy in a comrin.n renown, looking in common to a still more glorious future,. 
 I ca.i'iol bur. i\ ei sny heart sinK within me, even at the possibility of such a result. 
 And it is !i,'<'tuso I believe it will follow, if the state of things to which I have allud- 
 ed shall be brought into existence, and not because I am opposed merely to the acqui- 
 sition of territory, that I gave my cordial support to the resolution oflered upon that 
 subject by the distinguished Senator from Georgia (Mr. Jderiuen,) at the last session. 
 
 Sir, I am not to be driven into a different course by being told that it would leave 
 us a pecuniary loss. With me, Mr. President, loss of money is nothing to loss of 
 character. With me the boundless wealth of the world would be as nothing, compared 
 "with what I should esteem the incalculable loss attending the destruction of our na- 
 tional character. But, sir, it is not true, that a peace accomplished on the terms to 
 which I have referred, would leave us without indemnity. Sir, we have indemnity 
 in the history of this war. It is to be found in the many glorious battle-fields which 
 it has presented to an astonished world. It is to be found in the delight which elec- 
 trified every American heart at the result of every conflict. It is to be found in the 
 security which it furnishes against the disturbers of our peace hereafter. A few hun- 
 dreds of millions, even if it should go to hundreds, that may be expended, will be for- 
 gotten even while spoken of — while the glory and renown which it has heaped upon 
 the American character, will be remembered as long as time itself shall endure. I 
 am not, therefore, to be told that peace on such terms would leave us losers, in the 
 true, high, and moral sense ot the term. 
 
 A word on another subject, and I cease to trouble the Senate. I have already indi- 
 cated, Mr. President, my preference of a regular over a volunteer force. Now, sir, 
 that preference is founded, (and I have but a word or two, in Avay of reason, to assign 
 for it,) on the opinion which informatioa in my possession has enabled me to form, 
 that the expense of a regular force is much less, and their efficiency infinitely greater; 
 above all, that the sacrifice of human life is less, Mr. Secretary Poinsett, in his letter 
 of the 21st March, 1838, to the Honorable Mr. Speaker Polk, now President, speakings 
 of the comparative expense of the two descriptions offerees, says that — 
 
 " The difference of expense between the employment of this description of troops, (meaning vol- 
 unteers and militia,) and regulars, is at least as four to one, independently of the wastage attending 
 their ignorance of every administrative branch of the service, the enormous expense of marching 
 them to and from distant points, for short periods of service, and the great increase that will be 
 made to the Pension List, under the provisions of the act of the 19th March, 1836." 
 
 Now, sir, the Senate will find how ineflficient this description of force is — I mean as 
 compared with regular forces — by turning to Document 297, of the 2d Session, 25th 
 Congress. They will there find, that volunteers and militia were called out in the 
 years '32, '36, '37, and '38,to serve in the Florida War, in the Black-Hawk War, in the 
 
16 
 
 War against the Cherokees, and in the State of New York, at the time of the Border 
 difficulties, to the number of 55,324. They will find, I am satisfied, that, aside from 
 the additional expense attending the employment of these forces, and for the purpose 
 now in vie w, (the superior efficiency of the regulars,) that the mortality among volunteers 
 aad militia, compared with regulars, is as ten to one. Sir, to what is this owing ? 
 It is owing principally to the fact that the officers are unable to subject them to the 
 same state of discipline, and to prevent the exposure which leads to disease. 
 
 From the statements to be found among the papers from the War Department, it 
 appears that the number of men enlisted for the line of the regular army, (the old es- 
 tablishment,) for the first five months of J 847, and from January 1st to January 1st, 
 was 4,605, the number offering to be enlisted during the same period, and rejected by 
 the recruiiing officers, because of physical infirmity, was 8,475 — more ihan twice the 
 amount actually received. Now, I do not mean to underrate the volunteers. God 
 forbid that I should ! but I make bpld to say, that at least one-half of those who were 
 rejected as unfit for the regular service may be found in the ranks of the volunteers. 
 The chances of mortalityin that corps ate of course very much increased. 
 
 I have said, Mr. President, all I intend to say upon this point; and I ask the atten- 
 tion of the Senate only a moment or two longer, while 1 add a word or two by way 
 of conclusion. Sir, I have heard it said by some, that this war should be prosecuted 
 because its tendency was to ameliorate the condition of Mexico. I have heard it said 
 that we were constituted missionaries by Heaven, even by fire, and by sword, and by 
 slaughter, to carry the light of civilization into that benighted land I have heard that 
 it has been slated, even in the pulpit, that we have been selected by Divine Providence 
 to purify a dark and false religion— to break down their old, ancient, and degraded su- 
 perstitions—to bring them into the pale of the true faith, and to substitute for it the holier 
 and purer light of the Protestant religion. I have heard it stated, that the war is to be 
 prosecuted to enlarge the "area of freedom." I hold to no such doctrines. No, sir. 
 
 We need not, for the sake of enlarging the area of freedom, become propagandists. 
 No physical force is on our part called fur to break the bonds which bind other people 
 in subjection. There is a silent, but potent moral power progressing through the 
 world, rapidly tending to that consummation. I» has its origin in the lesson which 
 our example is leaching. Here is seen perfect personal and political freedom, combin- 
 ed with unexampled national happiness, prosperity, and power. Here is seen that 
 individual equality wiiich nature stamps upon the heart as a right, protected and enjoy- 
 ed amongst ourselves to an extent never before known, and shielded by a national arm 
 that the nations of the world would in vain attempt to strike down. 
 
 Yes, sir, our institutions are telling their own story by the blessings they impart to 
 us, and indoctrinating the people every where with the principles of freedom upon 
 which they are founded. Ancient prejudices are yielding to their mighty influence. 
 Heretofore revered, and apparently permanent systems of government, are faUing be- 
 neath it. Our glorious mother, free as she has ever comparatively been, is getting to 
 be freer. It has blotted out the corruptions of her political franchise. It has broken 
 her religious intolerance. It has greatly elevated the individual character of her sub- 
 jects. It has immeasurably weakened the power of her nobles, and by weakening in 
 one sense has vastly strengthened the authority of her crown, by forcing it to resifor 
 all its power and glory upon the hearts of its people. To Ireland too — impulsive Ire- 
 land — the land of genius, of eloquence, and of valor, it is rapidly carrying the bles- 
 sings of a restored freedom and happiness. In France, all of political liberty which be- 
 longs to her, is to be traced to it ; and even now, it is to be seen cheering, animating, and 
 guiding the classic land of Italy, making the very streets of Rome itself to ring with 
 shouts of joy and gratitude for its presence. Sir, such a spirit suffers no inactivity, 
 and needs no incentive It admits of neither enlargement nor restraint. Upon itsowa 
 elastic and never-tiring wing, it is now soaring over the civilized world, every where 
 leaving its magic and abiding charm. I say, then, try not, seek not to aid it. Bring 
 no physical force to succor it. Such an adjunct would serve only to corrupt and par- 
 alyze its efforts. Leave it to itself, and, sooner or later, man will be free. Sir, as to 
 this war and its influence upon ourselves, there is much to rejoice at and be proud of. 
 The struggle of '76 demonstrated the deeply-seated love of freedom in our sires, and 
 their stern and indomitable purpose to enjoy it or die. The war of 1812, demonstra- 
 ted the capacity of our institutions to bear such a trial, and nobly was the test borne 
 and the capacity illustrated. The present war has again demonstrated, not only that 
 such mere capacity continues, but that no nation exists endowed with greater military 
 power. Mr. President, the result cannot but redound to our future peace and happi- 
 ness. It furnishes ample indemnity for all the wrongs and obloquy we have hereto- 
 fore suffered, and ample, ample security against their recurrence. Such a result has 
 "won for us national glory, and that is national power, stronger than thousands of fortress- 
 es, and as perpetual as, 1 hope in God, will be our nation's love of virtue and of freedom. 
 
 W46 
 
-n^o^ 
 
 
 C^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 /^^ ^^ 
 
 iV . . ^ ' 
 
 
 -^o 
 
 
 
 
 V^ fl* 
 
 
 
 ^^0^ 
 
 --l^^. 
 
 ^'< ^^6^ /^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^^ 
 
 
 « A^^ 
 
 
 

 
 '•^ 
 
 
 
 'V''*^\^'^^ %'*^-'\o'^ \.'''*^\^'«'^ *^o. 
 
 ^^o^ 
 
 -o^*-^.'%o' \"'^'"<**^ '°^*''^-*V 
 
 
 7^' 
 
 WtRT 
 BOOKBINDING 
 
 Crantville, Pa 
 Jan Feb 1989 
 
 
 J"% 
 
 
 
 ■• •-•.,.,/ .c^oi-. "^-.*-'* -'km.:- %...,'' 
 

 ■;i;*it'; 
 
 ,,li.,U..-.,' 
 
 . '':',--'''M^ 
 
 CiMi 
 
 
 
 
 ',*' ./!; 
 
 ti :■, 'ii, .;/, 
 
 
 ^■■'?;:*- 
 
 .;r /■;?■,. 
 
 a 
 
 ■M