A REVIEW
OF
~1t el auvi anbh onwqututnn
OF
THE MEXICAN WAR.
BY WILLIAM JAY.
EIGHTEENTH T  OUSAND.
BOSTON:
AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY.
1853.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1849,
By BENJAMIN     B. MUSSEY & CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
PRESS OF ABNER FORBES,
37 Cornhill, Boston.




INTRODUCTION.
THE writer is a believer in the Divine authority of the
Scriptures-he acknowledges no standard of right and
wrong but the Will of God, and denies the expediency
of any act which is forbidden by laws dictated by Infinite Wisdom and Goodness. This avowal will prepare
the reader to find in the following pages many opinions
not having the stamp of public approbation.  Patriotism, honor, glory, and national prosperity, are terms to
which the Christian and the mere politician attach different ideas, and estimate by different standards.  He
who admits the authority of the Bible will not readily
acknowledge that whatever is "highly esteemed among
men" must be right, nor that what is unpopular is, of
course, wrong.
In the following Review, the public conduct and
opinions of public men are freely and fearlessly canvassed, but in no instance, it is hoped and believed, at
the expense of truth.  In justice to the writer, the
reader is earnestly entreated to bear in mind the distinction between the statement of a fact, and the ex



4                  INTRODUCTION.
pression of an opinion.  Conscious of his own anxious
and often laborious efforts to secure accuracy of detail,
and of quotation, the author flatters himself that his
facts. will be found incontrovertible-for his opinions
he claims no infallibility, and anticipates no general
assent.
The Review has far loftier objects than those of an
historical record.  It aims to recommend and enforce
the duty of preserving Peace, by exhibiting the wickedness, the baseness, and the calamitous consequences of
a victorious War, effecting all the ends for which it was
waged. It seeks to warn the country against that admiration of military prowess, which, by degrading in the
public estimation the virtues which conduce to the happiness and security of society, and by fostering the arts
and passions which minister to human destruction, is
corrupting the morals and jeoparding the liberties of
the Republic.  It strives'to excite the abhorrence of
the good for that statesmanship which seeks the aggrandizement of the country in defiance of the laws of
God; while by presenting a true portrait of the patriot,
it would fain afford some aid in detecting spurious resemblances.
Such are the purposes for which the design of the
Review was conceived and executed. The author hopes
for a hearing, not from the selfish throng ignobly struggling in the political arena for office, and power, and
money, and lavishly squandering in the strife their own
truth and honor, and the public good; but from that




INTRODUCTION.                 5
small, yet increasing number, who are inquiring how far
their relations to the State are to be governed by the
precepts of Christianity.
The maxim that "all's fair in politics," and the monstrous frauds, falsehoods, and forgeries, attending almost
every important election, illustrate the lamentable fact,
that in general "Religion has nothing to do with politics." But religious people in vast numbers have much
to do with politics, and too often seem to think that in
their character of office-holders, or office-seekers, they
have received a dispensation from the obligations of the
Moral Law.   Such persons, should they deign to read
the ensuing pages, may possibly be reminded with
profit, that moral responsibility is not attached solely
to such of our actions as may be termed private and
domestic, but that "God will bring every work into
judgment"-works done in political meetings, at elections, and even on the floor of Congress: and, that as
there is an express prohibition against following "a multitude to do evil," no majority, however great, can be
pleaded in justification. of crime, or in mitigation of
punishment.








CONTENTS.
CHAl.                                                PAGl
I. Early efforts to wrest Texas from Mexico,..   9
II. Independence of Texas,.....        16
III. Professions of the Federal Government in reference to the war between Mexico and Texas,       19
IV. Efforts of the Administration to excite war with
Mexico,...                                  81
V. Claims on Mexico, and war recommended,.     36
VI. Acknowledgment of the Independence of Texas,.    53
VII. New claims made against Mexico,..          68
VIII. Treaty of annexation proposed and rejected,.   64
IX. Treaty of arbitration-action of the slaveholders,  66
X. Results of the treaty of arbitration,...     69
XI. New treaties with Mexico about claims,..   74
XII. Seizure and surrender of Monterey in California,
by Commodore Jones,..                       79
XIII. Negotiation and rejection of the Tyler treaty of
annexation,.......   87
XIV. More attempts to irritate Mexico,...      96
XV. Election of Mr. Polk,......   99
XVI. Annexation by joint resolution,.              101
XVII. Annexation of California determined on,.. 107
XVIII. Slidell's mission to Mexico,...    11
XIX. Western boundary of Texas,.....      121
XX. Commencement of war against Mexico,..    130
XXI. Conquest of California,....               144
XXII. Declaration of war against Mexico,...    158
XXIII. The war prosecuted for conquest,... 17
XXIV. Extent of territory required from Mexioo,.    178




8                     CONTENTS.
CHAP.                                        PAGB
XXV. Motive for acquiring territory-the Wilmot
Proviso,....181
XXVI. Unworthy expedients for facilitating conquest, 196
XXVII. Conduct of American officers in Mexico,.   201
XXVIII. American army in Mexico,.... 213
XXIX. Sufferings inflicted on Mexioo by the war,.  223
XXX. Cost of the war to the United States,.. 240
XXXI. Political evils of the war,.        245
XXXII. Moral evils of the war,.. 256
XXXIII. Acquisition of territory,.       267
XXXIV. Glory,.....272
XXXV. Patriotism,.......      278
XXXVI. John Quincy Adams,..                    290
XXXVII. War, and the means of prevention,..  821




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY EFFORTS TO WREST TEXAS FROM MEXICO.
LOUISIANA was ceded by France to Spain in 1762, and
restored to the former power in 1800. Three years after,
it was ceded by France to the United States. In none
of these cessions, was there any specification of boundaries. ~ The territory was a vast undefined region west of
the Mississippi; and with rare exceptions, untenanted by
civilized inhabitants. It, of course, adjoined the Spanish
dominions in Mexico, but the separating line could not
easily be ascertained. As the American settlements in
Louisiana extended, the question of boundary necessarily
became a matter of discussion, between the governments
of Spain and the United States. This question was finally
settled in 1819, by a treaty with Spain, in which the contracting powers severally ceded to each other all claims
to territory beyond their respective sides of a defined
line.
In 1820, the State of Missouri, formed out of the Louisiana territory, was admitted into the Union as a slave
State. To facilitate its admission, and to overcome the
formidable opposition of the Northern States, to the
incorporation into the confederacy of another slaveholding
State, the slaveholders proposed and effected the cclebra



10        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
ted Missouri compromise, a law declaring that in future
slavery should be prohibited north df 36~ 30" north latitude.
It was not long however, before it was discovered that
this Missouri compromise, together with the southern
boundary of the United States, as defined in the Spanish
treaty of 1819, had reduced within comparatively narrow
limits, the area from which slave States might hereafter
be formed; with the exception of Florida, the territory
south of the Missouri compromise line, was not probably
sufficient for more than two States.
The State of Louisiana was separated from the Spanish
province of Texas by the Sabine river, and the soil, climate, and position of that province, rendered it a desirable acquisition to the slaveholding interest.  Various
expedients were from time to time devised, to obtain possession of this coveted territory-forcible seizure-colonization-purchase-independence, and annexation. The
first was attempted soon after the Spanish treaty had
extinguished all claims of the United States to Texas, as
included within the territory of Louisiana.
A man named James Long, with about seventy-five
lawless adventurers, left Natchez on the 17th June, 1819,
and proceeded to Nacogdoches, about forty miles within
the limits of Texas. On the 23dc of the same month, he
there issued a proclamation which may be regarded as the
first step in that career of fraud, falsehood, and violence,
which ultimately led to the annexation of- Texas, and the
war against Mexico. In this document, which was probably prepared in the State of Mississippi, Long, styling
himself President of the Supreme Council of Texas,
declared' that the citizens of Texas have long indulged
the hope that in the adjustment of the boundaries of the
Spanish possessions in America, and of the territories of




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           11
the United States, they should be included within the
limits of the latter." As this hope had been dissipated
by the recent treaty, the proclamation proceeds to
announce the independence of the REPUBLIC OF TEXAS.
This paper, was of course, intended as an invitation to
American citizens to repair tc Long's standard, and participate with him in the intended plunder; and it was
consequently published in-the Louisiana Iferald, printed
in New Orleans.
In a little while, the whole party were dispersed, some
being killed, and the others taken prisoners by the
Spaniards.*
The plan of colonization was next adopted. Moses
Austin of Missouri, in 1821, obtained leave from the
Spanish authorities, to introduce three hundred families
into Texas, on certain conditions. The permission was
granted, as is said, on the representation of Austin, that
Catholics were oppressed in the United States, and it was
agreed that all the settlers to be introduced by him.
should be of the oppressed religion. Austin dying, tho
grant was in 1823, renewed to his son, who commenced a
colony on the Brazos, with emigrants from  Tennessee,
Mississippi, and Louisiana. By the renewed grant, the
settlers, it is asserted, were to be exclusively Catholics;
but whatever was their creed in other respects, they were
believers in the right of man to hold property in man,
and accordingly carried their slaves with them.
In 1826, a body of emigrants from the United States,
settled about Nacogdoches, again raised the standard of
insurrection under a man of the name of Edwards, and
published a declaration of independence. They were,
however, soon crushed by the Mexican forces.
At the date of the boundary treaty, Mexico was a
* Speech of Mr. Severance in H. of R., Feb. 4, 1847.




12        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR
slaveholding country, and its near propinquity to our own
settlements, was on that account viewed with less jealousy
by southern statesmen.
The planters, as we have seen, might cross the line
with their slaves, and pursue the cultivation of sugar and
cotton; nor was any difficulty apprehended with regard
to the recovery of fugitives slaves from the States.
These border relations were, however, changed by a
decree of the Mexican Congress of 13th July, 1824,
prohibiting the introduction of slaves from foreign countries. The Mexican Constitution, adopted the same year,
declared that no person should hereafter be born a slave;
thus providing for the gradual but total abolition of
slavery throughout the Republic.
The United Provinces of Coahuila and Texas, formed
one State, and its Constitution adopted in 1827, contained
an article giving freedom to all who should be hereafter
born, and prohibiting the introduction of slaves.  The
work of emancipation was completed by a decree of the
Mexican Congress of 15th September, 1829, manumitting
every slave in Mexico.
These successive measures not only frustrated the views
of the colonists, and discouraged further emigration from
the slave States, but greatly irritated and alarmed the
whole slaveholding interest. The future area of slavery
had been greatly contracted by the boundary treaty, and
the Missouri compromise; and now that area was to be
bounded on the south and east, as well as on the north,
by an unlimited AREA OF FREEDOM. Under such circumstances, American slavery was doomed. The influence
of the free States would soon predominate in the general
government, and the growing spirit of abolition would not
only extend into the south itself, but would in various
ways, endanger the security and permanency of slave




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           13
property. The colonists in Texas were at present too
feeble to break the yoke of freedom imposed on them by
the Mexican Government. Against that Government, the
United States had no pretext for war; and the treaty of
boundary was too recent and too explicit to permit any
claim being made to the territory of Texas. But one
resource was left, and that was purchase.
The government as early as the 15th March, 1827,
instructed Mr. Poinsett, our Minister in Mexico, that we
wished to change the existing boundary, making it begin
at the mouth of the Rio del Norte (Rio Grande), thence
up the river to the Rio Puereo, and then with the last
river to its source; thence North to the Arkansas, and
with this to the 42~ North Lat.; and that for this change
of boundary we would give one million of dollars. This
modest proposal included almost the whole of Texas as
at present claimed.
The idea of purchase now took strong hold of the southern mind; and great efforts were made to enlighten public opinion on the importance of Texas, and the necessity
of its acquisition. In 1829 a series of, newspaper essays
on the subject appeared from the pen of Mr. Benton, a
distinguished Senator from Missouri. Of the character
of these essays some opinion may be formed from the following notices of them in the journals of the day.
The Edgefield Carolinian, speaking of Texas, remarked,
"Some imposing Essays, originally published in the St.
Louis Beacon, with the signature of'Americanus,' and
attributed to Col. Benton of the Senate, explaining the
circumstances of the treaty of 1819, and displaying the
advantages of the retrocession, have operated on the public mind in the West with electrical force and rapidity.
The writer produces strong circumstantial proof that the
surrender of Texas resulted from the subserviency of our
2.




14         REVIEW OF THE MIEXICAX  WAR.
negotiator to Spain in her contest with Mexico, together
with the powerful subsidiary motive of hostility to the
southern and western sections of our country. Americanus exposes the evils to the United States of this surrender under twelve distinct heads. Two of them of
particular interest to this section of the country, that it
brings a non-slaveholding empire in juxta-position with the
slaveholding South-west, and diminishes the outlet for the
Indians inhabiting the States of Georgi, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee."
A Baltimore paper, speaking of the essays of "Americanus," says, " One of the reasons that he assigns for
the purchase of Texas is, that five or six more slaveholding
States may thus be added to the Union. Indeed, he
goes farther than this in one of his calculations, and estimates, that'NINE MORE STATES as large as Kentucky,'
may be formed within the limits of that province."
A Charleston paper treating of the same subject, observed, "It is not imposssible that he (President Jackson) is now examining the propriety and practicability of
a retrocession of the vast territory of Texas; an enterprize which could not fail to exercise an important and
favorable influence upon the future destinies of the South,
by increasing the votes of the slaveholding States in the
United States Senate."
Judge Upsher, of Virginia, afterwards Secretary of
State under President Tyler, remarked, the same year, in
the Virginia Convention, "If Texas should be obtained,
which he strongly desired, it would raise the price of
slaves, and be a great advantage to the slaveholders of
that State."  Mr. Doddridge, in the same debate, asserted,
"The acquisition of Texas will greatly enhance the value
of the property in question." -Debates, p. 89.  Mr.
Gholston, of the Virginia Legislature in 1832, said, " He




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            15
believed the acquisition of Texas would raise the price of
slaves fifty per cent. at least." Virginia being. a breeding
State, these gentlemen were anxious to obtain Texas as a
new and extensive market for their staple commodity.
To stimulate the action of the Government, rumors were
set afloat of the intentions of Great Britain to possess herself of Texas; an artifice practised without intermission
from 1829 to the day of annexation. The following from
the New Orleans Creole, of 1829, is a specimen: "A
rumor reached us by the last packet from Mexico, that a
company of British merchants had offered to advance
$5,000,000 to the Mexican Government on the condition
that the Province of Texas should be placed under the protection of Great Britain."
President Jackson entered fully into the views of the
slaveholders, and on the 25th August, 1829, Mr. Poinsett was instructed to offer five millions for Texas. Although this bid so greatly exceeded the former, it was
promptly rejected. The offer was, according to a Mexican journal, followed by another: " When he (Poinsett)
found his offer objectionable, -he further insulted the
nation by proposing a loan of TEN millions (as a pawnbroker would) upon the pawning of Texas until repaid,
which insidious proposal was meant to fill the country of
Texas with Anglo-Americans and slaves, and to hold it
after in any event."
The failure of Mr. Poinsett to obtain from Mexico a
stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves, gave a new stimulus to the efforts of the slaveholders to possess themselves
of Texas




16        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER         II.
INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS.
THE insurrectionary efforts under Long and Edwards
having failed, the Colony under Austin having yielded as
yet no aid to the slaveholding interest in the United
States, all hopes of acquiring Texas by purchase being
now abandoned, and no pretext for war with Mexico existing, the slaveholders, as a last resort, determined to
effect the separation of the Province from the Mexican
Republic, as a necessary preliminary to annexation. Coming events were thus shadowed forth in an article published in 1830, in the Arkansas Gazette: " No hopes
need be entertained of our acquiring Texas (by purchase)
until some party more friendly to the United States than
the present, shall predominate in Mexico; and perhaps not
until the People of Texas shall throw off allegiance to that
government, which they will no doubt do, so soon as they
have a reasonable pretext for doing so. At present they
are probably subject to as few exactions and impositions
as any people under the sun."'It will be observed that
the writer takes for granted that we shall acquire Texas,
as soon as the American settlers shall have a pretext for
revolting from Mexico. At a Congressional election held
about this time in the State of Mississippi, the following
interrogatories were addressed to certain of the candidates —"-Your opinion of the acquisition of Texas, and
how-whether by force or treaty; and whether the law*
* Passed by Mexico in 1830, and repealed in 1833




REVIEW OF TIIE MEXICAN WAR.           17
preventing the emigration of Americans is not evidence of
apprehension that that province wishes to secede from
the Mexican Government, and whether, if requested, we
ought to give the seceders military assistance; and what
would be the effect of the acquisition of Texas upon the
planting interest?"
" The South," said the Mobile Advertiser at this time,
" wish to have Texas admitted into the Union ftr two
reasons; first, to equalize the South with the North; and
secondly, as a convenient and safe place calculated from
its peculiarly good sil and salubrious climate, for a slave
population."  The same year, Mr. Samuel Houston of
Tennessee, disclosed to a friend (Robert Mayo, M.D.),
who communicated the intelligence to the President, that
he was organizing an expedition with recruits from the
United States, for the purpose of wresting Texas from
Mexico; and soon after it was announced in a Louisiana
paper, that Houston had gone to Texas, the editor adding,
" we may expect shortly to hear of his raising his flag."
One mode of effecting a revolution was to enlist the pecuniary interests of as many American citizens as possible
in the independence of Texas. Vast grants of land had
been made by the State Legislature to a few individuals.
These grants were of course worthless till sold out in parcels. Many of the patentees resided in the United States,
and joint-stock companies were formed for the sale of
these lands. Three of the most notorious of these companies, viz.: "The Galveston Bay and Texas Company,'
"The Arkansas and Texas Company," and "The Ric
Grande Company," were established in New York. Care
was taken to eilist prominent politicians in these companies; and great efforts were made to distribute the scrip,
or certificates of partial purchases, as widely as possible.
This scrip was of little value while Texas continued under
2*




.18        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
the government of Mexico, but in case of independence
followed by annexation might prove a fortune to the
holder. In this manner, a powerful pecuniary interest
was excited in the fiee States in behalf of Texas.*
The plans of the conspirators in Texas were aided in
1832, by the withdrawal of the Mexican' troops, in consequence of one of those political revolutions with which the
Repiblic had been frequently afflicted since its independence. In this state of things, fresh emigrants found no
difficulty in entering the territory with their slaves. The
colonists, however, experienced an obstacle to their views
in their union with Coahuila, in as much as their representatives were in a minority in the joint Legislature.
The first step, therefore, to independence, was the dissolution of the connection between the two provinces. For
this purpose, the colonists in 1833 organized themselves
into a distinct and separate State. This organization was
in direct and palpable violation of existing laws. The
Mexican Congress refused to recognize the separate State
of Texas. A small body of troops was sent into the insurgent territority, and driven out. The standard of rebellion was raised. Texan agents traversed the United
States, addressing public meetings, enlisting troops, and
despatching military supplies to the revolted province.
On the 2d March, 1836, the insurgents issued their declaration of independence,f and fifteen days after adopted
a Constitution establishing PERPETUAL SLAVERY.
* After the Texan revolution, an alderman of the New York
Corporation introduoed a resolution, overflowing with patriotism, and calling upon Congress to acknowledge the independence of Texas. The surprise occasioned by this extraordinary
attempt in a civic body to influence the foreign relations of the
national government, was dissipated by themiscovery, that the
mover of the resolution was secretary to one of the Texan land
companies
t Of the fifty-sevan'signers to this declaration, fifty were emigrants from the slave Sale/s, and only three Mexicans by birth,
and these, it is said, largely interested in Texan land speculations.




R.VIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           19
CHAPTER        III.
PROFESSIONS AND CONDUCT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN REFERENCE TO THE WAR BETWEEN MEXICO
AND TEXAS.
THE Government of the United States has at all times
been liberal in its professions of neutrality in regard to
belligerents, and has on various occasions endeavored to
prevent its citizens from engaging in hostilities against
friendly powers. In 1793, President Washington issued
his proclamation warning American citizens against " committing, aiding or, abetting hostilities against any of the
Powers at war," and threatening with prosecution all
who should "violate the laws of nations," with respect to
the belligerents.  Washington's subsequent acts abundantly evinced the sincerity of his proclamation.
In 1806, President Jefferson issued a proclamation declaring, that "sundry persons, citizens of the United
States, are conspiring and confederating together to begin and set on foot a military expedition against the dominions of Spain; fitting out and arming vessels in the
western waters of the United States; collecting. arms,
military stores and other means;" and he commands all
such persons to cease all further proceedings as they will
"incur prosecutions with all the rigor of the law."  He
moreover enjoined it upon all military officers of the army
and navy of the United States, "to be vigilant in bringing to condign punishment persons engaged in those unlawful enterprizes."




20        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
In 1815 a similar proclamation was issued by President
Madison against persons chiefly in Louisiana, who were
preparing to invade the Spanish provinces.
In 1838, President Van Buren by proclamation informed the citizens of the northern, frontier who were aiding
the Canadian rebels, that, by compwomitting the neutrality of the Government, they would render themselves
liable to arrest and punishment, "under the laws of the
United States, which will be rigidly enforced."
It thus appears that from 1793 to 1838, our Government had acknowledged the duty, and professed the ability, to punish its citizens for violating the neutral obligations of the nation.
In 1835 and 1836, Texas was at open war with Mexico,
part of the time as an insurgent province, and part of the
time as a separate Republic. The first official act of the
government manifesting its sympathy for the insurgents,
was the appointment in 1835 of four consuls to reside
among them. The appointment was of itself insulting to
the Mexican government, and was undoubtedly made for
the purpose of stationing in Texas confidential agents who
might facilitate the progress of revolt, independence, and
annexation.
The embarrassment and perplexity into which Mexico
was thrown by the revolt of Texas, and the aid openly
furnished the insurgents from the United States, encouraged the Cabinet at Washington once more to press their
proposal for purchase, and Mr. Butler, the minister in
Mexico, was instructed (16th August, 1835), to negociate for a cession of the territory bounded by the Rio
Grande from its source to the 37th degree north latitude,
and thence to the Pacific including the whole of Texas,
Santa Fe, and a large portion of California!*
* Ex. Doc. 1st Sess., 25th Congress




REVIEW, OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          21
It may readily be supposed that the-Federal administration was not very zealous in prohibiting succor to the
Texans, who were laboring to secure to the United States
a very large portion of this coveted territory.
On the 29th October, 1835, the Mexican Minister informed the Secretary of State that no less than twelve
vessels were about to sail from New York and New Orleans with military stores, and that on the 10th of the
month an armed schooner had sailed from New Orleans
for Texas, without papers from the Mexican Consul, and
he demanded the interposition of the Government to prevent such breaches of neutrality. In consequence of this
application, the Secretary (Mr. Forsyth) addressed a circular to various United States' Attorneys, directing them
to " prosecute all violations of those laws of the United
States which have been enacted for the purpose of preserving peace and of fulfilling the obligations of treaties
with foreign nations."  The cold generality of this circular indicated the temper and wishes of its author, which
were no doubt perfectly understood by the' prosecuting
officers to whom the order was addressed. - Notwithstanding the publicity and notoriety of the "violations,"
not an individual was ever punished for participating in
them, nor was an officer of the Government ever dismissed
or censured for treating the circular as a mere matter of
form. A few months after the date of the circular, Mr.
N. C. Read, United States' District Attorney in Ohio,
addressed a public meeting in that State, called in aid of
the Texans, and proposed the following resolution, which
was adopted:-" Resolved, that no law, human or divine,
except such as are framed by tyrants, and for their benefit, forbids our assisting the Texans; and such law, if any
exists, we do not as Americans choose to obey." At the
same meeting, a Committee was openly appointed " to




22          EVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
assist Captain Lawrence in raising recruits and funds for
the cause of Texas."  We have no evidence that the extraordinary conduct of the Ohio prosecuting officer impaired the confidence the Government had placed in him.
Nevertheless, Mr. Forsyth assured the Mexican Minister
that "all measures enjoined and warranted by law have
been and will continue to be taken to enforce respect by
the citizens of the United States within their jurisdiction
to the neutrality of this Government."
The declaration of Mr. Van Buren, the personal friend
of General Jackson, and his successor in office, is a
singular commentary on this official and solemn pledge.
" Nothing is either more true or more extensively known,
than that Texas was wrested from Mexico, and her independence established through the instrumentality of
citizens of the United States." *
To a second remonstrance from the Mexican Minister
against the aid so openly and scandalously afforded by
American citizens to the Texans, Mr. Forsyth returned,
29th January, 1836, the following most extraordinary
reply: " No sooner was it apparent that the dispute
between Texas and the dominant party in the other Mexican States would be carried to extremities, and indications
observed of a design in some of the citizens of the United
States to take a part in the struggle, all the measures in
his power were adopted by the President to prevent any
interference that could by possibility involve the United
States in the dispute, or give just occasion for suspicions
of an unfriendly design on the part of the Government tc
intermeddle in the domestic quarrel of a neighboring
State."
Six days before these solemn and official assurances
were given, a course of measures had been commenced
* Printed Letter to Mr. Hammet, 20th April, 1844.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          23
by the President which exhibits the very peculiar view he
was pleased to take of neutral obligations.
On the 23rd January, General Gaines was directed to
take a position near the western frontier of the State of
Louisiana, to prevent the contending parties from entering into the United States' territory! He was reminded
that, by treaty with Mexico, each power is required to
prevent by force j" all hostilities and incursions on the
part of Indian nations within their respective boundaries."
Supposing this order to have been given in good faith, its
sole object could have been to protect the Texans from
assaults by American Indians.  There was no reason
whatever to apprehend that the Texans, Americans themselves, and daily receiving supplies from their countrymen, would make hostile incursions into the American
territory. The Mexicans had neither the disposition nor
the ability to invade the United States. There was, moreover, no proof that the American Indians intended any
aggressions upon the Texans.  The army was stationed
on the frontier of Texas for objects very different from
those which were avowed. Commanded by a General
devoted to the cause of annexation, it gave countenance
and support to the Texans in their struggle; and, should
more efficient aid be needed, no small portion of its men,
arms, and ammunition, would readily find their way into
the Texan camp. It is to be observed, moreover, that
Gaines was not directed to prevent American citizens
from compromitting the neutrality of the Government.
Regiments raised in the Southern States might freely pass
his tent on their way to wage war against a friendly
power. In deference to our treaty stipulations, Indians
were to be restrained from entering Mexico; but foes far
more dangerous to the Mexicans than savages were to
have free admittance. General Gaines was a willing in



24         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
strument; and, in acknowledging the receipt of the orders
sent to him, showed that he thoroughly understood the
purposes for which they were issued.  "Should I (said
he in his letter to the Secretary of War of 29th March,
1836,*) find any disposition on the part of the Alexicans
or their red brethren to menace our frontier, I cannot but
deem it my duty, not only to bold the troops of my command in readiness for action in defence of our slender
frontier, but to anticipate their lawless movements by
crossing our supposed or imaginary national boundary,
and meeting the savage marauders wherever they may be
found in their approach towards our frontier."  In other
words, he would march to the rescue of Texas, should the
Mexican forces advance into the revolted province.  A
few days after the date of this letter, the General, in his
hot zeal, made a requisition on the Governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee, each for a
battalion of volunteers to protect the frontiers! The General and the Cabinet acted in perfect unison.  The former had hinted his readiness to cross the imaginary
boundary, for She purpose of anticipating the approach of
the Mexicans. The latter, on the 25th April, informed
him there was reason to believe the Indians would be induced to join the Mexicans, and in that case, should the
contending parties approach the frontier, he may advance
as far as NACOGDOCHES. On the 4th May, he is informed
" that the Secretary of War had written to the Governors
of Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, anid Alabama, requiring them to furnish him with such militia
force as he may require to protect the Western frontier of
the United States from hostile incursions."  The General
had, on his own responsibility, called for four battalions
from four States.  The President, still more provident,
* Ex. Doe., 1st Sess. 24th Cong. Vol. 6.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          25
gives him power to call for an unlimited number of Militia
from no less than five States. And why were these vast
powers confided to Gaines?-and what and where was
the enemy against whom this unnumbered Militia was to
be poured forth by all these States? Not-an Indian, not
a Texan, not a Mexican, had invaded our territory.  The
country was at peace; nor were there even rumors of approaching war. To understand the management of Gaines
and his employers, it must be recollected that adventurers
were now flocking to Texas, and that Texan agents were
organizing in the Southern States military expeditions to
rescue the province from the dominion of Mexico. A letter from one of these men, Felix Houston, dated Natchez,
Mississippi, 4th March, 1836, and published in the journals of the day, will suffice to show the character of these
expeditions. "I contemplate starting for Texas about 1st
May next, and expect to take with me about five hundred
emigrants. I am making preparations for arms, ammunition, uniforms, &c., &c, at an expense of $40,000. I shall
have a rendezvous, and begin to send on supplies by the
ist May."   Of course, such expeditions were a drain
upon the pockets of slaveholders, as well as upon the
treasury of Texas.  The device of the Cabinet, in permitting General Gaines to collect volunteers on the frontier of Texas, from no less than five States, at the public
expense, obviated the only serious difficulty experienced in
raising within the United States a military force for wresting Texas from Mexico.  Recruits for Texas might now,
under the requisitions of the President, and the plenipotentiary discretion of the General, be equipped and transported from the neighboring States to Nacogdoches, in
Texas, at the cost of the United States.  When once in
Texas, they might fight the Mexicans if they pleased, but
they were sent there to "protect the frontier;" and, in
8




26         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
sending them for such a purpose, the President of course
violated none of the obligations of neutrality, and afforded
the Mexicans no cause for complaint! General Gaines
had been authorized to advance as far as Nacogdoches;
but circumstances might occur to render it expedient for
him to go still farther, and the administration boldly reserved to themselves the privilege of sending him and his
army wherever they pleased. The Mexican Minister very
naturally remonstrated against the invasion of Mexican
territory by the American army. Mr. Forsyth very coolly
replied (May 10th), " that to protect Mexico from American Indians, and to protect our frontiers from Mexican
Indians, our troops might, if necessary, be sent into the
heart of Mexico."
It would seem that neither General McComb, the Commander-in-Chief of the army, nor the Governor of Louisiana, had been admitted into the secrets of the Cabinet.
On the 26th of April, the former addressed a letter to
the Secretary of War, from New Orleans, informing him
that the Governor insists that it is unnecessary " to send
to the frontiers of the State any troops, as the country
was not invaded, nor likely in his opinion to be invaded;
and further, he was impressed with the belief, that it was
a scheme of those interested in the Texan speculations,
who had been instrumental in making General Gaines
believe that the Mexican authorities were tampering with
the Indians within our boundaries; and at the same time
exciting, by false representations here, the sympathies of
the people in favor of the Texans, with a view of inducing
the authorities of the United States to lend their aid in
raising in this city a force composed of interested persons,
who should move to the Texan frontier under the call of
General Gaines, and afterwards, under false pretensions,
vutually march into Texas, and take part in the war now




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           27
waging between the Texans and the Government of Mexico;
and all this at the expense of the United States, and consequently with the implied sanction of the Government."
This letter affords an amusing instance of the simplicity
of the commanding General, who supposed he was giving
information to the Government when detailing the natural and intended consequences of its own measures. The
General did not know what is proved by official documents, that the device of placing an army on the frontiers
of Texas originated with the Cabinet, and not with Gaines.
The troops, in obedience to orders from Washington,
marched into Texas, and took a position at Nacogdoches.
Immediately, Houston, the Texan President, issued his
proclamation, pretending that the Indians were about to
attack Nacogdoches, and calling on the militia "to sustain the United States troops at this place," and to report
themselves to the United States Commander. The object
of the proclamation was two-fold, first, to impress both
Texans and Mexicans with the military aid to be granted
the former by the United' States,-and secondly, to array,
as soon as possible, the Texan militia under the American General.
An American officer at Nacogdoches, indignant. at the
perfidious conduct of the Government, thus gave vent to
his indignation in a letter published at the time in the
Armny and Navy Chronicle. Speaking of the object of
taking their present position, he remarked, " It is to create the impression in Texas and Mexico, that the Government of the United States takes a part in the controversy.
It is in fact lending to the cause of Texas all the aid which
it can derive from the countenance and apparent support
of the United States, besides placing our troops in a situation to take an active part in aid of the Texans, in case a
reverse of their affairs should render aid necessary."




28         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
One of the practical results of sending troops into
Texas is given in the following extract from the Pensacola
Gazette:- " About the middle of last month, General
Gaines sent an oicer of the United States army into
Texas, to reclaim some deserters. He found them already
enlisted in the Texan service, to the number of Two HUNDRED. They still wore the uniform of our army, but refused, of course, to return.  This is a new view of our
Texan relations."
When our troops were no longer needed in Texas, they
were withdrawn, and sent to fight the Seminoles in Florida. General Gaines now issued a proclamation, offering
a full pardon to those who had "absented themselves
from their regiments," provided they returned by a certain day. As these absentees, commonly called deserters,
had been serving the cause of slavery in Texas, the mercy
of the General was cordially extended to them.
When the Government thus evinced its sympathy for
Texas, and sent its army among the insurgents to countenance, and, if necessary, protect them, it could not be
expected that the partisans of Texas in the United States,
would be very regardful of the laws of neutrality. A few
extracts from the journals of that day will show the publicity with which the people of the United States made
war upon a friendly power:"WHO WILL GO TO TEXAS? Major J. W. Harvey of
Lincolnton, has been authorized by me, with the consent
of Major-General Hunt, an agent in the western counties
of North Carolina, to receive and enrol volunteer emigrants to Texas, and will conduct such as may wish to
emigrate to that Republic, about the 1st October next, at
the expense of the Republic of Texas.
" J. P. HENDERSON,
"Brig.-Gen. of the Texan Army."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           29
"THREE HUNDRED MEN FOR TEXAS. General Dunlap
of Tennessee is about to proceed to Texas with the above
number of men. Every man is completely armed, the
corps having been originally raised for the Florida
War."
"This morning more than 200 men, commanded by
Colonel Wilson, and on their way to Texas, passed this
place in the Tuskina, with drums beating and fifes playing. They will be followed by 300 men more, all from
old Kentucky."
In vain did the Mexican Minister, from time to time,
call the attention of the Government to these violations of
neutrality.  Notwithstanding the solemn and repeated
assurances given by the Secretary of State, not a serious
effort was made to arrest the tide of war which was rolling from the United States upon the Mexican territory.
No proclamation was issued, warning our citizens of their
duties and responsibilities; no instructions were given, as
in former instances, to military officers, to arrest the violators of our neutrality. Jefferson had succeeded in
bringing a man, lately one of the highest functionaries in
the country, to trial, for secretly planning an invasion of
the Spanish dominions. Jackson, one of the most energetic Presidents that ever occupied the executive chair,
never enforced the penalties of the law on one individual
of the many thousands who openly perpetrated the crime
which Burr had only designed.
When commanding in the southern department, General
Jackson thought proper to put to death two foreigners,
named Arbuthnot and Ambrister, accused of aiding the
Indians in their hostilities, and thus expressed himself in
his order for their execution:-" It is an established principle of the law of nations, that any individual, of any
nation, making war against the citizens of another nation,
3*




30         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
tkey being at peace, forfeits his allegiance, and becomes
an outlaw and a pirate."
The " established principle of the law of nations," announced by the General, was not recognized by the President when his own personal and political friends were
the outlaws and pirates, and were struggling to effect an
object most dear to his own heart. On the 10th May,
1836, General Gaines transmitted to the President the
news of the victory of the Texans at San Jacinto, over
Santa Anna, and indulged the anticipation that in consequence of the victory, " THIS MAGNIFICENT ACQUISITION TO
OUR UNXIQ0 " would grace his administration




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          31
CHAPTER IV.
EFFORTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXCITE A WAR WITH
MEXICO.
THE distracted and exhausted state of Mexico, the energy
and rapidily increasing numbers of the Texans, the vast
supplies they were daily receiving from the United States,
together with the presence of a friendly army, ready,
when necessary, to interpose between them and the
enemy, all combined to render the issue of the struggle
certain. Texas, it was seen, would become independent
o4 Mexico. But her independence would not necessarily
add to the political power of the slave-holding interest in
the United States. For this purpose annexation was indispensable.  But annexation could not be effected at
present, without drawing after it a war with Mexico, and
this obvious consequence strengthened the objections entertained to the measure at the North. It was well
ascertained that no treaty of annexation, especially at the
price of a Mexican war, would at present receive the
sanction of Congress. But, if Mexico could be induced to
commence hostilities against the United States, or should
her conduct justify a declaration of war against her, then
one powerful obstacle to annexation would be removed,
and Texas would become ours, by right of conquest, and
with the unanimous consent of her inhabitants. Every
attempt to purchase Texas had failed, and all hope of acquiring it by this means, was abandoned on the termination of Mr. Butler's fiuitless mission. From this time, the




32         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
policy of the administration was to force lMexico into a
war. The commencement of this new policy was the advance-of American troops into Texas, on the pretence of
protecting the frontier against Indians.
On the 5th of August, 1836, the President, in a letter
to the Governor of Tennessee, countermanded a requisisition by Gaines for troops, assigning this remarkable reason: " There is no information to justify the apprehension
of hostilities to any serious extent from the Wrestern Indians."
The victory of San Jacinto bad now been won, and the
President probably thought that General Gaines's zeal in
behalf of Texas was putting the country to unnecessary
expense. Why the order countermanding the General's
requisition was not given through the Secretary of War
does not appear. Possibly it was deemed most prudent
not to put the important admission we have quoted/ on
record in the War Office, and it is to some accident or
carelessness that we are indebted for this letter, among
the official documents published by Congress. Let its
date be kept in mind. 5th August, 1836.
On the 10th of the succeeding September, the Mexican
Minister at Washington wrote to the Secretary of State,
ind, referrhig to some newspaper statements that the
United States troops had invaded the Mexican territory,
iverred that, if this invasion was sanctioned by the Government, his mission must terminate. And what reply
xas returned? Did the Government apologize for the
nvasion as having been induced by false reports? Did it
Lcknowledge, that there was now "'no information to
ustify the apprehension of hostilities to any serious exent from our Western Indians," and that therefore the
roops should be immediately recalled? Far different was
he response returned. The Secretary of State admitted




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            33
that American troops were then stationed at Nagadoches,
and further, that on the 4th of that month the President had
instructed General Gaines to enter the Mexican territory,
if he shall be satisfied, "that any body of Indians who
disturb the peace of the frontier of the United States,
receive assistance or shelter within the Mexican territory."
The Minister denied that Mexico had any wish to excite the Indians against the United States, and he formally
demanded the withdrawal of the troops from the Mexican
territory (Texas). This demand was, on the 13th October, met by a flat refusal-a refusal coupled with insult.
The Minister was informed by our Secretary of State, that
by treaty each party was bound to restrain its own Indians from making hostile incursions upon the territories of
the other; and, as Mexico had not the ability to fulfil her
engagement, the United States had the right in selfdefence to occupy her territory. Not a particle of evidence was adduced to show that the frontiers of the
United States were menaced by Mexican Indians-not an
argument advanced to prove the necessity of our army
advancing into Texas in self-defence, and the whole pretext is stamped with the brand of impudent falsehood, by
the confession made to the Governor of Tennessee by the
President in the letter we have quoted.
Two days after this insult to Mexico, her Minister demanded his passports.* This was a great point gained
by the administration. Diplomatic intercourse with Mexico was so far interrupted; and the rupture, if properly
managed, might result in war, and consequently in annexation. While in the very act of inflicting the grossest
outrages upon Mexico, and amid professions of neutrality
as ardent as they were false, the administration thought it
* See Ex. Doc., 2d Sess., 24th Cong. Vol I.




34         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
expedient to raise a note of wailing for the injuries committed by Mexico upon American citizens, accompanied
with the most obstreperous clamors for compensation.
The public have heard much, but understood little,
about " Our claims upon Mexico." It is not probable that
one in a thousand of those who declaim about Mexican
outrages, as justifying the war against that Republic,
know whereof they affirm. Before entering upon an examination of our claims upon Mexico, it may be well to
state two of the general principles which, by the laws and
usages of nations, limit the interference of a government
in behalf of the demands of its citizens upon foreign powers for the redress of alleged grievances.
Complaints growing out of contracts entered into by
citizens of one country with the Government of another,
are not properly subjects for international discussion.
Our Government would not tolerate for a moment, a remonstrance from the British Cabinet in behalf of an Englishman employed in our arsenals or ship-yards, who
complained that he had not been paid his stipulated
wages.
Where by treaty a foreigner is entitled to seek redress
in the courts of the country in which his alleged injury
has been received, his Government is not permitted to
convert his wrong, whether real or imaginary, into a
national grievance. Should an English subject be assaulted in our streets, defrauded by his debtor, or falsely
imprisoned by a police officer, his Government could not
demand of ours redress for his sufferings. Were these
two principles to be disregarded, and- were Governments
to insist on sitting in judgment on the contracts their subjects might form with foreign powers, or on the quarrels
in which they might be involved abroad, it is very evident
that the peace of the world would be perpetually dis



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            35
turbed. Yet these principles, as we shall see hereafter,
have been set at naught in many of the claims preferred
by the American Government on that of Mexico.
But the subject of these claims is so important in itself,
and so indicative of the determination of the Cabinet at
Washington to provoke a war with Mexico, as to demand
a separate chapter.




36         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR
CHAPTER V.
CLAIMS ON MEXICO, AND WAR RECOMMENDED BY THE PRESIDENT TO ENFORCE THEM.
ON the 20th July, 1836, shortly after the victory of San
Jacinto, and the captivity of the President of Mexico, the
Secretary of State sent to Mr. Ellis, our Minister, a list of
fifteen complaints against the Republic, accompanied with
the strange acknowledgment that "the Department is
not in possession of proof of all the circumstances of the
wrong done in the above cases, as represented by the
aggrieved parties." The Cabinet deemed it expedient to
prefer the complaints without loss of time, and to seek
afterwards for proof to establish them.
But the most extraordinary part of this procedure, and
which reveals the anxiety of the Government to bring on
a rupture with Mexico, is the course prescribed to Ellis.
He is ordered to demand such reparation "as these accumulated wrongs may be found to require." If no satisfactory answer shall be given in three weeks, he was to
announce, that, unless redress shall be afforded without
unnecessary delay, his further residence would be useless.
If this threat proved unavailing, he was to notify the
Government that, unless a satisfactory answer was returned in two weeks, he should ask for his passport, and
at the expiration of the fortnight, he is to return home, if
no satisfactory answer is received. The Mexican Minister
had already, for the reasons we have stated, left Washington; and here we see a contrivance for withdrawing our




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           3'
Minister from Mexico in a manner highly irritating and
insulting. All diplomatic relations between the two countries being thus interrupted, and for the alleged reason
that Mexico had refused to pay our just demands, the way
would be open for reprisals, and consequently war would
follow.
It will be observed, too, that the responsibility of taking the momentous step which was almost necessarily to
lead to hostilities, was adroitly thrown upon the discretion
of a Mississippi slaveholder, eager to enlarge the slave
territory by'the annexation of Texas. Mr. Ellis was to
judge whether the reparation offered was such as our
"accumulated wrongs" required; he was to decide what
was unnecessary delay, and he alone to determine whether
the answers he received were or were not satisfactory.
We will now notice the fifteen grievances, the redress
of which in a manner which Mr. Powhatten Ellis might
deem sufficiently satisfactory and prompt, was to be the
sine qua non of peace or war. We entreat the reader's
patience while we enumerate these grievances, and the
replies to them, because as he will see hereafter, it was for
these that our diplomatic intercourse with Mexico was
broken off, and that the President recommended to Congress, a measure equivalent to a declaration of war. The
claims afterwards urged, can of course afford no justification or apology for the conduct of the administration,
founded exclusively on the fifteen transmitted to Mr.
Ellis. They were in substance as follows:
1. An American, of the name of Baldwin, had in 1832,
unjust judgments given against him in the Mexican courts,
and on one occasion, on account of an altercation between
him and a magistrate, he was sentenced to the stocks.
He resisted, and attempted to escape, and fell and injured
4




38         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
his leg. He was thereupon seized, put into the stocks,
and afterwards imprisoned.
2. The American vessel Topaz, was chartered by the
Mexican Government in 1832, to convey troops. The
master and mate were murdered by the soldiers, the crew
imprisoned, and the vessel seized and used in the Mexican
service.
3. The American vessel Brazoria, was seized in 1832, and
employed in a military expedition, without compensation.
4. Two American steamboats were taken possession of
by Mexican officers, and used without compensation,
in 1832.
5. Capt. McKeige was imprisoned at Tabasco, in 1834,
and an enormous fine imposed upon him, " without cause."'
6. The American vessel Paragon, was causelessly fired
into by a Mexican schooner, in 1834.
7. The American brig Ophir, was seized and condemned in 1835, at Campeachy, because by some mistake,
the proper papers were not shown at the Custom-house.
8. The American vessel Martha, was seized at Galveston, in 1835, for alleged violation of the revenue laws,
and the passengers, accused of an intention to use fire
arms against a guard placed on board, were put in irons.
9. The American vessel Hannah Elizabeth, stranded in
1835, on the coast, was boarded by soldiers, and the crew
imprisoned, and pillaged of their clothes. The crew were
afterwards released.
10. Two American citizens were arrested in Metamoras,
in 1836, by a party of soldiers, who struck one of them
n the face with a sword. They were temporarily confined
on suspicion of an intention to proceed to Texas. Sentinels were placed at the CONSUL's door, under false pretences. Soldiers broke into his gate, searched his house,
and took from his yard a mare and two mules.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           39
11. Mr. Slocum, bearer of despatches, was in 1836,
detained and fined, for carrying official letters.
12. The American schooner Eclipse, was in 1836,
detained at Tabasco, and her master and crew, mal-treated
by the authorities.
13. The American schooner Compeer, and other vessels,
were in-1836, forcibly detained at Metamoras.
14. The United States revenue-cutter Jefferson, in
1836, arrived off the harbor of Tampico, and was forbidden
to enter.  An officer and boat's crew, on landing, were
temporarily arrested.
15. The American vessel Northampton, was wrecked
in 1836, near Tabasco, and taken possession of by Custom-house officers and soldiers. The crew remonstrated,
and the captain was wounded. More than half of the
goods saved from the wreck were pillaged, and lost, by the
revenue officers and soldiers. The Consul complained,
but obtained no redress.
Such are the fifteen " accumulated wrongs," complained
of by the American Government, and ordered to be formally presented by Mr. Ellis. It will be observed, that
not one of them is alleged to have been committed by the
Mexican Government. No law, no act of the Government,
is complained of. Custoni-house officers may act illegally,
and soldiers may commit outrages, police officers and
magistrates may be guilty of oppression, and yet the
Government be wholly ignorant of the offences committed.
Millions and millions of American property have been
seized, by virtue of orders issued directly by the Governments of England and France; yet in no instance, did
the American Cabinet venture to hazard the peace of the
country, by demanding reparation within a specified
number of days. On the contrary, the settlement of our
claims upon other nations, was preceded by protracted




40         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR
negotiations. Our claims for the value of slaves carried
away by the British forces, in 1815, were not settled and
paid, till 1826. Indennity for French spoliations on our
commerce, from 1806 to 1813, was not received till 1834.
In these cases, our claims were not a pretext for war, and
consequently their payment was not hazarded by an
insulting demand for a satisfactory reply in two weeks.
Several of the fifteen complaints we have enumerated,
if well founded, did not justify national interference,
being injuries for which the sufferers were entitled to seek
redress in the Mexican courts; others were proper subjects for inquiry and remonstrance; not one afforded a
legitimate cause for war, for not one had been ordered, or
as yet justified by the Mexican Government.
The extreme haste with which Mexico was required to
redress these complaints, is the more extraordinary when
we recollect, that the alleged grievances were mostly of
recent date. The complaint of Baldwin, was the oldest,
viz.: five years standing; three others occurred four years
before, two in 1834, three in 1835, and the other nine
within less than twelve months of the instructions to
Mr. Ellis.
It so happened, that before Mr. Forsyth's despatch
reached the minister, two of the fifteen wrongs, the
eleventh and fourteenth, had been settled to the satisfaction of the latter. Through the ignorance of a Post-master,
Mr. Slocum had been fined $6, for a supposed violation of
the law in carrying letters. The government, on learning
the affair, censured the post-master, and remitted the fine.
The revenue cutter Jefferson was refused admittance
into the harbor of Tampico, only because the port was
closed against all foreign vessels, without exception; and
the commander of Tampico, had been removed for his




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           41
harshness in temporarily confining the American officer
and crew who had landed.
On the 26th September, Ellis laid before the Mexican
Minister in writing, the thirteen remaining grievances, and
was promptly assured that they would be investigated.
As most of these complaints related to acts recently committed by Custom-house officers and other officials, it was
probable that the letter of the 26th September, was the
first notice of them, that the Government had ever received; yet on the 20th October following, less than four
weeks from the date of the first letter, Ellis announced to
the Government, that unless the wrongs complained of,
are redressed without unnecessary delay, " his farther residence in Mexico would be useless."
To this insulting missive, a calm, dignified reply was
returned the next day. Ellis is reminded that a delay in
answering a note is not a sufficient cau*s for breaking off
a negotiation; and that, to decide on the grievances presented, documents were to be collected from various offices
in different parts of the Republic. He was informed, that
measures had already been taken to procure the requisite
documents, and promised that, when these were received,
the decision of the government would be communicated
to him. Well did John Quiucy Adams remark in a note
to his printed speech in Congress in 1838, "From the
day of the battle of San Jacinto, every movement of the
administration of this Union appears to have been made
for the express purpose of breaking off negotiations, and
precipitating a war, or of frightening Mexico into the ces-,
sion of not only Texas, but the whole course of the Rio del
Norte, and five degrees of latitude across their continent to
the South Sea. The instructions of the 20th July, 1836,
fiom the Secretary of State to Mr. Ellis almost immediately after the battle, were evidently premeditated to
4*




42          REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
produce rupture, and were but too faithfully carried into
execution. His (Ellis's) letter of the 20th October, 1836,
to Mr. Monasterio was the premonitory symptom, and no
true-hearted citizen of this union can read it, and the
answer to it on the next day by Mr. Monasterio, without
blushing for his country."  But neither Ellis nor his employers were in the habit of blushing; and on the 4th
November the Minister, in pursuance of his instructions,
gave formal notice that, unless his complaints were satisfactorily answered in two weeks, he should demand his
passports!
It was only to a feeble nation, and one whose hostility
was courted for ulterior designs, that the administration
would have hazarded such insolence.     Mexico, sensible
of her feebleness, did not resent the insult, and Mr. Ellis
received an answer within the number of days he had assigned.  The Mexican Secretary remarked that, by the
existing treaty, citizens of either country were entitled to
bring their grievances before the tribunals of the other, and
hence it was unnecessary for their respective governments
to interfere to procure that justice for them which the courts
of law were ready to afford;* and that complaints against
* The 14th Art. of the treaty between the United States and
Mexico guaranteed protectiai to the persons and property of
the citizens of each, "1 leaving open and free to them the tribunals cf justice for their judicial recourse, on the same terms
which are usual and customary with the natives or citizens of
the country in which they may be." Mr. Forsyth availed himself of this article of the treaty in his reply (January 29th,
1836), to a demand from the Mexican Government for the punishment of the Captain of an American armed ship, for an alleged outrage committed by him on a Mexican vessel. The Secretary remarked, "That the courts of tl/e United States ar? free/u
open to all persons in their jurisdiction, weho may consider themwselves
to have been agrieved in contravention of our laws and treaties."
This application of the treaty to Mexican complaints was exceedingly convenient; but its application to American complaints
was indignantly refused by Mr. Ellis in his reply of the 15th
November of the same year. He declared that "the opinion ex 




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            43
officers of the customs should not be made subjects of negociation, for the reason that Americans have the same
means of redress in the tribunals of the country as the
Mexicans themselves.  Nevertheless, the government will
not decline to examine the complaints preferred by Mr.
Ellis. These, it will be recollected, had been reduced to
thirteen, and they were thus answered:
1. As to Mr. Baldwin, whatever may have been his
wrongs, he ought to have sought redress in Mexican
courts. It was probable his behavior had been improper,
as six criminal prosecutions were pending against ]lim.
The government had no power to interfere between litigant parties in courts of justice; but it had signified to
the authorities the wish that justice might be awarded to
Baldwin with promptitude and impartiality.
2. The government understands that the Topaz which
was chartered to convey troops, was wrecked; that, after
she was stranded, and while the soldiers were in the hold,
the American crew shut the hatches upon them, and murdered three Mexican officers who were upon deck. That
the object of the crew was to carry off the money on
board; that the soldiers forced the hatches, attacked the
crew, killed one, and secured the others for trial.
3. The Brazoria was pressed into the service of the
Texan colonists by Austin, and had been abandoned by
her owner with protest for loss and damages. The Minister of War had ordered her to be sold, and the proceeds
paid into the treasury.  On proof of ownership, the
Government was ready to pay an equitable indemnity.
4. As to the steam-boats detained, the government had
pressed by the lion. Mr. Monasterio which limits the citizens
of the United States having certain claims against the Government, to resort to the judicial tribunals of Mexico for indem
nity, is wholly indefensible."
Ex Documents, 24th Congress, 2 Sess., Vol. 3., Doc. 139.




44         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
a contract with the owner, who is now in debt to the
Government. Nothing is due to him; but if he thinks
otherwise, let him establish his claims before the tribunals.
5. Tie case of Captain Keige has been investigated,
and the Government has ordered the offending officer (o
be prosecuted, and will indemnify Captain Keig6.
6. Orders have been given for the trial of the officer
who fired into the Paragon; but the result of the trial is
not yet known.
7. In the case of the Ophir no wrong was done. The
vessel was properly condemned for want of the necessary
papers. An appeal was taken to a higher court, before
which the missing papers were produced, and the vessel
discharged.
8. The Government is wholly ignorant of the case of
the Martha, and has called for, but not yet received, information upon the subject.
9. In regard to the case of the Hannah Elizabeth, the
government had called for, but not yet received, a statement of the transaction.
10. The Government is ignorant of the proceedings at
Metamoras, and has called for information.
This information was soon after received, and Mr. Ellis
was informed that, on the arrival at Metamoras of the
commander of that city, he understood that two strangers had just departed, who were supposed to be Texan
spies. He sent four dragoons after them, who saw them
enter a house in the outskirts of the city. Finding a mare
and two mules in the yard, the soldiers removed the animals to prevent the escape of the strangers. The soldiers
then entered the house, and arrested the two men, who
on examination were found to have passports, and were
allowed to proceed on their journey, and the animals were




REVIEW OF TILE MEXICAN WAR.         45
returned. It was not till after the affair that the commandant learned that the house was occupied by the
American Consul.
11. The Government was uninformed of the affair of
the Eclipse, but would make the proper inquiries.
12. The Compeer and other vessels were detained a
few days at Metamoras, in consequence of a general embargo on all vessels without distinction, imposed by the
Commander of that department, without the knowledge
of the Government, which disapproved of and revoked it.
13. The Government knows notling of the case of the
Northampton, but has called for information.
Such were "the accumulated wrongs" for which the
Cabinet determined to break off all intercourse with
Mexico.  It is rare, indeed, that diplomatic history exhibits a series of national complaints so trivial in themselves,
urged with so much spleen and arrogance.on the one
side, or met with so much fairness and good temper on
the other.  To the thirteen grievances forwarded from
Washington, Mr. Ellis had thought proper to add five
more without instructions, and we therefore continue the
catalogue of grievances, viz.:
14. The American Consul at Tampico had, May 26th,
1836, been summoned by the authorities to authenticate
certain papers, and on his refusal had been threatened
with imprisonment.-To this it was replied, that the Government was ignorant of the circumstances, but would
investigate the matter.
15. The American vessel, Peter D. Vroom, being
wrecked on the coast, June, 1836, the American Consul
had the cargo bright to Vera Cruz, where the consignee
abandoned it to the underwriters. Whereupon the Mexican Court appointed an agent for the underwriters, who
-o]ld tihe cargo, and the dermand of the American Consul




46         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to receive the proceeds was refused.-To this the Mexican Secretary replied, that as the underwriters had appointed no agent, the Court did right to appoint one for
them, and that the Consul had no official authority in the
premises.
16. Ellis complained that copies of certain judicial proceedings in the case of the brig Aurora had been refused
to the American Consul. -He was informed that the
copies were offered to him, but that he refused to pay the
legal fees charged for making the copies.
17. The American vessel Bethlehem was seized by a
Mexican armed vessel on the 2nd September, 1836, and
the crew detained twenty days, and then landed, the vessel confiscated, and the captain refused a copy of the
proceedings.-The Government knew nothing of the affair,
but would make inquiries.
18. The. American vessel Fourth of July had been
taken possession of by Mexican soldiers.-It turned out
that the vessel had been built for the Mexican Government.   The agent had contracted before a notary for the
sale; but a party of soldiers had been sent on board previous to the delivery of the bill of sale. The owner had
been paid for his vessel, and made no complaint.*
We have now the sum-total of all the complaints against
Mexico, which the joint efforts of Messrs. Forsyth and
Ellis could collect. We can readily imagine the storm of
indignation and resentment which such a budget presented
by the British Government to that at Washington, with a
demand for a satisfactory answer in fourteen days, would
raise throughout the length and breadth of the Federal
* Mr. Forsyth having heard of this case~wrote to Ellis, December 9th, 1836, as " the owners of the brig Fourth of July
are content," he is not to insist on the restoration of the vessel,
but only to demand satisfaction for the insult offered to the
American Flag!!




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           47
Republic. The tone assumed by Mr. Ellis was not less
offensive than the pretended grievances themselves.  Of
that tone, we may form some opinion from the dignified
conclusion of the Mexican answer:
"Your Excellency, after specifying all the subjects
which have been thus replied to, goes on to say, that the
Mexican armed vessels have fired upon and insulted the
flag of the United States, that her consuls have been maltreated and insulted by the authorities, private citizens
assassinated, arrested, and scourged, like malefactors, their
property condemned and confiscated, &c., &c.  But as
these charges are made in terms so general, the Supreme
Government of the Republic desires that they may be
specified, before taking them into consideration."
Let us now see the character of the eighteen specified
grievances, as explained by the Mexican Government.
The cases of the Topaz (No. 2), Brazoria (No. 3), Captain
Kiege (No. 5), the Paragon (No. 6), the Ophir (No. 7),
the affair at Metamoras (No. 10), the case of the Compeer (No. 12), the Peter D. Vroom (No. 15), the Aurora (No. 16), and the Fourth of July (No. 18), are utterly divested of all wrong and injustice on the part of
the Mexican Government.
There remain only eight of the whole budget which
afford the least room for complaint; and of these the
Government professed entire ignorance in the case of the
Martha (No. 8), the Hannah Elizabeth (No. 9), the
Eclipse (No. 11), the Northampton (No. 13), the treatment of the Consul at Tampico (No. 14), and the Bethlehem (No. 17). It was not pretended that the injuries
complained of in these six cases had been inflicted by
orders from the Government; and it might readily be
believed that. the Government was not acquainted with
every abuse of power by its officials..But ii each of these




48         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
cases, an inquiry was promised; and it is difficult to conceive what more could have been reasonably demanded.
We have now left only two cases within the knowledge of
the Government, at all open to the suspicion of injustice
and oppression —the case of Baldwin (No. 1), and of the
detained steamboats (No. 4). Apparently neither was a
fit subject of negotiation; for the complaints in the first
case were made against judicial decisions, which can never
be properly brought into question by a foreign government, except when founded on some great principle contradicted by treaty or national law, and not on mere
issues of fact. The complaint in the second instance appears to have grown out of a contract over which our own
Government had no legitimate cognizance.
The Cabinet had relieved themselves from bireaking off
the negotiations by throwing the responsibility of it upon
Mr. Ellis. Their confidence in this gentleman was not
misplaced. After receiving from the Mexican Secretary
of State the explanations and assurances already mentioned, he demanded (7th December) his PASSPORTS!
The Mexican Government begged to knowfor what cause
he took a step so calculated to affect the relations of the
two countries.  It would not do to give the true reason:
it wvas difficult to fiame a plausible one; and Mr. Ellis
remained silent.
The Mexican Minister had left Washington on account
of the march of American troops into Texas, and the
claim advanced by the Government of the right to send
an American army into the heart of Mexico, if necessary,
to guard against Indian hostilities. Mr. Ellis had terminated his mission in Mexico in the exercise of the discretion
allowed him, adjudging the answers made to the eighteen
complaints unsatisfactory. Negotiations being at an end,
satisfaction for the eighteen grievances, and as many more




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           49
as we could find, could of course be obtained only by
force, which would necessarily lead to war, and that as
necessarily to the immediate annexation of Texas.  Accordingly, on the 6th February, 1837, the President having received Mr. Ellis's report, sent a Message to Congress on the subject of our claims upon Mexico. In this
document, complaining of the conduct of the sister Republic, he observed: "The length of time since some of
the injuries have been committed, the repeated and unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of
some of the outrages upon the property and persons of
our citizens, upon the officers and flag of the United
States, independent of recent insults to this Government
and people by the late extraordinary Mexican Minister,
would justify in the eyes of all nations IMMEDIATE WAR.
That remedy, however, should, not be used by just and
generous nations, confiding in their strength, for injuries
committed, if it can be honorably avoided; and it has
occurred to me that, considering the present embarrassed
condition of that country, we should act both with wisdom
and moderation, by giving to Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past, before we take redress into
our hands."
"To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as
well as to protect our national character from reproach,
this opportunity should be given with the avowed design
and full preparation to take immediate satisfaction, if it
should not be obtained on a repetition of the demand for
it. To this end, I recommend that an -act be passed,
authorizing reprisals and the use of the naval force of the
United States, by the Executive, against Mexico, to enforce them, in the event of a refusal by the Mexican
government, to come to an amicable adjustment of the
matters in controversy between us, upon another demand
5




50         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
thereof, made on board one of our vessels of war, on thk
coast of Mexico."
The cruelty of this attempt to involve the two countries
in war, was aggravated by the very character of the recommendation. No specification is made of the injuries
we have received, no notice is taken of the answers returned to the eighteen complaints, no mention made ol
the amount of money claimed. The President is to be
armed with power to take immediate satisfaction, and foi
this purpose the navy is to be placed at his disposal. But
to what amount the navy is to plunder the commerce and
sea-ports of Mexico, is not stated. However, before a
system of robbery is commenced, a demand for satisfaction (but how much no one knows,) is to be sent to
the Government of Mexico, fiom a ship of war off Vera
Cruz, and "a satisfactory answer" to be retnrned, ot
course, in a certain number of days. No one can fail to
see that the President intended WAR, and that a compliance with his recommendation by Congress would have
been equivalent to its declaration. The country was not
yet prepared to commence a system of human butchery,
for the purpose of facilitating the acquisition of Texas; and
General Jackson's blelligerent proposition found but little
favor with either house of Congress.
But the reader is as yet only partially acquainted with
the extreme wickedness of this proposal. He is yet to
learn that only six months before the date of this message,
the President had himself acknowledged that Mexico was
guiltless of the conduct he now imputed to her. We must
again advert to the letter of the 5th August, 1836,
already quoted in the preceding chapter. This was a sort
of semi-official, semi-confidential epistle, written, not at
Washington, but at the President's residence in Tennessee,
and addressed to the Governor of that State. Governor




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            51
Cannon was, doubtless, no less anxious than his friend, for
the annexation of Texas, even at the cost, if necessary, of
a war with Mexico. General Jackson seems to htave
written the letter, to excuse himself for countermanding
Gaines's order for troops, and for not facilitating annexation, by making war on Mexico. On the first point he
tells the Governor " there is no information to justify the
apprehension of hostilities to any serious extent, from the
western Indians." But was not the frontier endangered by
the Mexicans? Was not Mexico virtually waging war
upon us? Listen to the solemn assertions made by the
President's ambassador Ellis, in his letter to the Mexican
Secretary of State, on the 26th September, only a few
weeks after the communication made to Governor Cannon:-" The flag of the United States has been repeatedly
insulted, and fired upon by the public armed vessels of this
Government; her consuls, in almost every port of the Republic, have been maltreated and insulted by the public authorities; her citizens, while in the pursuit of a lawful trade,
have been murdered on the highl seas, by a licentious and
unrestrained soldiery.  Others have been arrested and
scourged in the streets by the military, like malefactorsthey have been seized and imprisoned under the most
frivolous pretexts-their property has been condemned
and confiscated in violation of existing treaties, and the
acknowledged laws of nations, and large sums of money
have been exacted of them, contrary to all law."  Now, ir.
such a state of things, how did General Jackson excuse
himself to his friend, for not vindicating the rights of his
country? Very easily. All the grievances we could
muster were but eighteen, and Ellis's vituperation was intended for the purpose of insult and exasperation. The
President well knew, as the result proved, that Congress
could not be prevailed on to declare war against-Mexico




52         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
at present, and hence he tells Governor Cannon: " Should
Mexico insult our national flag, invade our territory, or
interrupt our citizens in the lawful pursuits which are
guaranteed to them by treaty, then the Government will
promptly repel the insult, and take speedy reparation for
the injury.  BUT IT DOES NOT SEEM THAT OFFENCES OF
THIS CHARACTER HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY MEXICO."* Let
it not be forgotten, that this confession was made about
two weeks after the date of the instructions to Ellis
already mentioned, and which were obviously intended to
produce a rupture of the diplomatic intercourse between
the two countries, as preparatory to war.
* See this remarkable letter in Ex. Doc. 2 Sess. 24 Cong. Vol.
1, No. 2. It was probably.intended as a private letter, but
cArcost immediately found its way into the newspapers, most
likely through the indiscretion of Governor Cannon.  Being.
thus made public, Mr. Forsyth made use of it, the 31st of the same
month, in his correspondence with the Mexican Minister, sending him a newspaper copy of the letter, as evidence of the President's friendly disposition towards Mexico!




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          53
CHAPTER VI.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS.
THE colonists of Texas being American citizens, at no
time wished to remain a separate and independant nation.
Their highest aspiration was to see their lone star admitted
into the American constellation. The slave-holders also
were adverse to the rise of a small independent State on
their southern borders-a State that in time might form
a barrier to the progress of slavery. It was the policy of
the Texans to stimulate the desire of the slave-holders for
annexation, and hence within fifteen days after the declaration of independence, they adopted a constitution
giving the rights of citizenship to all white emigrants, after
a residence of six months, authorizing emigrants to bring
their slaves with them, and rendering human bondage
perpetual, by depriving the legislature of the power to
abolish it. A boon was held out to the breeding States,
by granting them the monopoly of the Texan market, the
importation of slaves being prohibited, except from the
United States. Free negroes. and mulattoes, it is well
known, are regarded by the slave-holders as a dangerous
population. In Texas, no colonization society was needed
to remove such nuisances from the country. By the Constitution, every negro and every mulatto, now or in future,
remaining on the soil of Texas, was doomed to bondage.
There was still one more lure held out to the South. Mr.
Benton had calculated that nine slave States might be
carved out of Texas; but his vision of the future was confined to the Mexican province of that name. The Ameri5*




54        ]REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAit.
can insurgents, however, resplved to offer to the slaveholding interest, not a single province only, but parts of
Coahuila, Tamaulipas, and New Mexico; and accordingly
voted themselves, on the 19th December, 1836, the vast
territory included between the United States and the Rio
Grande, from its source to its mouth. To proclaim, moreover, their eagerness to transfer themselves and their immense domain, now consecrated to slavery, to the Federal
Union, a poll was held in 1836, at which the electors
were required to express their wish for annexation, or for
a separate government. The result Was, 3279 votes for
annexation, and 91 against it. This vote is also important, as showing the diminutive population of the
insurgent State. These various manifestations were not
made to unwilling or unobservant spectators.
The President, while full of complaints against the aggressions of Mexico, sent an official agent (Henry -M.
Morfit,) into Texas, whose report of the good land, it was
hoped, would excite the American people to go up and
tale possession. On the 22d December, 1836, the President laid before Congress a communication from his
agent, on the " Political, military, and civil condition of
Texas." This document reveals the following important
facts: —" The boundaries claimed by Texas will extend
from the mouth of the Rio Grande, on the east side, up
to its head waters, thence' on a line due north, until it intersects that of the United States, and with that line to the
Red River, on the northern boundary of the United States,
then to the Sabine, and along that river to its mouth, and
from that point westwardly with the Gulf of Mexico to
the Rio Grande. It was the intention of the Government,
immediately after the battle of San Jacinto, to have claimedfrom the Rio Grande along the river to 30 degrees of
latitude, and then west to the Pacific. It was, however,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            55
found that this would not strike a convenient point on the
California, that it would be difficult to control a wanderiug population so distant, and that the territory now determined upon would be sufficient for a young Republic.
The political limits of Texas proper, previous to the last
revolution, were the Nueces river on the west, along the Red
River on the north, the Sabine on the east, and the Gulf
of Mexico on the south."*
The report of his agent in Texas was accompanied by
the President with certain remarks highly characteristic
of the policy pursued from the first by the Federal Government towards that province. "It is known," said
the President, "that the people of Texas have instituted
the same form of government with our own; and have,
since the close of your last session, openly resolved, on
the acknowledgment by you of their independence, to seek
admission into the Union as one of the Federal States.
The title of Texas to the territory she claims is identified
with her independence. She asks us to acknowledge that
title to the territory with an avowed design immediately to
transfer it to the United States." Thus we have a direct
appeal to the avarice of the American people in behalf of
annexation. The extravagant claims of Texas to Mexican
territory are spread before Congress, and that body is
reminded that the title to these vast domains is identified
with the independence of Texas.  Let us acknowledge
that independence, and we thereby acknowledge the goodness of her claims; and, as soon as the acknowledgment
is made, all Texas, and part of Coahuila, Tamaulipas, and
most of New Mexico, will be ours. The influence of the
tempter was in no degree lessened by a little commonplace cant about the duty of avoiding all suspicion of acting from interested motives. It was now obvious that, as
*Ex. Documents Vol. 2. 24 Cong. 2 Sess.




56         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
Texas could not be purchased, and as Mexico would probably not be provoked into war, the acknowledgment of
Texan independence was a necessary preliminary to annexation. But there was a powerful and vigilant hostility
at the North against every'measure leading to the acquisition of more slave territory.  Pains were, therefore,
taken first to weaken this opposition by considerations of
personal and party interest, and, secondly, to lull its apprehensions by false and deceptive suggestions and assurrances. Thus President Jackson, in the Message already
quoted, after showing how exceedingly profitable to the
United States the acknowledgment of Texan independence would certainly prove, proceeded to allay the alarm
of the North which his own representation awakened, by
pretending that such acknowledgment must be indefinitely
postponed.  "Prudence," said he, "seems to dictate
that we should still stand aloof, and maintain our present
attitude, if not till Mexico or' one of the great foreign
powers shall recognize the independence of the new Government, at least until the lapse of time, or the course of
events, shall have proved, beyond all cavil or dispute, the
ability of that country to maintain their separate sovereignty, and to uphold the Government constituted by
them."
This declaration, so frank and explicit, and made at the
beginning of the Session of Congress, tended to prevent all demonstration of popular opinion against the acknowledgment, and all pledges on the subject from the
Representatives to their constituents.
On the 1st of March, two days before the close of the
Session, and in the absence of six members, a resolution
passed the Senate acknowledging the INDEPENDENCE OF
TEXAS. Allusion was made in debate to the objections




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            57
made by the President on the 22d of the preceding December to such a measure. To the astonishment of the
public, the mover of the resolution, Mr. Walker, from
Mississippi, declared in his place that he " had it from the
President's own lips that, if he were a Senator, he would
vote for this resolution."  Thus the lapse of time and
course of events, contemplated by the President in his
Message, were ascertained to be eight weeks, and a majority in Congress. The resolution was adopted by the
lower House, and the American Colonists in Texas were
thus received into the family of nations as forming an Independent- Republic.




58         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER VII.
NEW CLAIMS ADVANCED AGAINST MEXICO.
IT will be recollected that President Jackson, in his Message of the 6th February, 1837, proposed that he should
be authorized to make reprisals against Mexico, and for
that purpose to employ the naval force of the nation,-provided Mexico did not come "to an amicable adjustment
of the matters in controversy between us, upon another
demand thereof made on board one of our vessels of
War."
Now, " the matters in controversy between us" were,
in fact, no other than the eighteen grievances already specified.  It was stipulated by the existing treaty with
Mexico, that neither party shall " order or authorize any
act of reprisal, nor declare war against the other on complaints of grievances or damages, until the said party
considering itself offended shall first have presented to the;ther a statement of such injuries or damages, verified by
competent proof, and demand justice and satisfaction, and
the same shall have been either refused or unreasonably
delayed."  Whatever claims and grievances we might
have against Mexico, they were not " matters in controversy" until after they had been presented, and by the
express terms of the treaty could not warrant either reprisals or war, until they had been verified, and the Mexican Government had either refused or unreasonably delayed justice.
Notwithstanding this treaty stipulation, the President




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           59
laid before Congress a schedule of grievances amounting
in number to FORTY-SIX.* Of the original eighteen claims,
only one dated as far back as 1831, in the new schedule
thirty-two are founded on acts alleged to have been committed prior to 1832. Having given the reader a specifification of each of the original claims, we will not now
trespass on his patience by noticing in detail the additional ones which the administration now found it convenient to disinter from the oblivion of past years, and
which had been in fact buried by the treaty ratified 5th
April, 1832, which proclaimed the friendship existing
between the two Republics. It may be well, however, to
give a few samples of these claims to show the determined efforts of the American Government to quarrel
with Mexico.
"Mexican Company, Baltimore, 1816; amount of
claim hot stated. This was an association of individuals
that furnished General Mina with the means of undertaking his invasion of Mexico, which amount they aver has
never been repaid to them."
"Mrs. Young, 1817; amount of claim not stated. The
claimniait is the widow of Col. Guilford Young, who was
a partner of Mina, and was killed while fighting in 1817.
The claim is understood to be for arrears of pay."
These claims it will be observed, are for insurrectionary
services against the Spanish Government, seven or eight
years before that Government was succeeded by the
Mexican Republic.
"John B. Marie, 1824; amount of claim not stated.
Goods seized upon pretext of having been introduced contrary to a Mexican law. The claimant says he was ignorant of the law."
"T. 1. Dudley, and J. C. Wilson, 1824; amount
* Ex. Doc., 24th Cong., 2d Sess., vol. 3.




60         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
claimed not stated. The claimants robbed of a part of
their property by the Camanche Indians, on their return
from a trading expedition to Mexico."
The proposition to employ the naval force of the Union
in making reprisals to enforce such claims was deemed too
hazardous to be wise. It would necessarily bring on a
war; and a war waged on pretexts so scandalous, might
destroy the popularity of the party, and augment the
anti-slavery feeling of the North.  It was evident the
nation was not yet prepared to incur the calamities of war
for the sole purpose of hastening the annexation of Texas;
and moreover, such a war, to receive the concurrence of
the North, must at least be commenced by lIexico. A
course was therefore adopted, more sagacious than that
urged by the fiery impatience of the President. Committees of the two Houses of Congress, made reports well
calculated, by exaggerating the misconduct of Mexico, to
exasperate the ill-feeling already existing, but recommending that one more demand should be made for reparation.
On the last day of the Session, an appropriation was
made for the salary of a Minister to Mexico, " whenever
in the opinion of the President circumstances will permit
a renewal of diplomatic intercourse honorably with that
Power." It was only in the preceding December that the
Diplomatic intercourse had been broken off by instructions
from the President, on the ground that it could not honorably be continued; and yet, on the 30th of March, without any circumstance having occurred in the interval to
invite a renewal of that intercourse, except the refusal of
Congress to go to war, the President nominated a Minister
to Mexico! "And who," to use the language of J. Q.
Adams, " was this Minister of peace, to b'e sent with the
last drooping twig of olive to be replanted and revivified




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            61
in the genial soil of Mexico? It was no other than Powhattan Ellis, of Mississippi, famishing for Texas, and just
returned in anger and resentment from an abortive and
abruptly terminated mission to the same Government.
His very name must have tasted like wormwood to the
Mexican palate; and his name seems alone to have been
used for the purpose of giving a relish to these last resources of pacific and conciliatory councils. But though
appointed, he was not permitted to proceed upon his embassy. He was kept at home, and in his stead was despatched a courier of the Department of State, with a
budget of grievances good and bad, new and old, stuffed
with wrongs as full as Falstaff's buck basket with foul
linen, to be turned over under the nose of the Mexican
Secretary of State, with an allowance of ONE WEEK* to
examine, search out, and answer concerning them all."
In politics as in commerce, the supply is regulated by
the demand. The Cabinet were in urgent want of claims
upon Mexico, and, as it was, possible money might be
extorted on these claims, there was, of course, no lack of
claimants.
On the 20th July, 1836, the "accumulated wrongs"
for which Mr. Forsyth instructed Ellis to demand satisfaction, and, if not received in a limited time, to ask for his
passports, amounted, as we have seen, to fifteen in number,
but as two had been already settled, in fact only to thirteen.  These, by the zeal and industry of Ellis, were
increased to eighteen.  On the 6th February, 1837, the
accumulation was swelled to forty-six, and on the 20th
July, 1837, the anniversary of Mr. Forsyth's celebrated
despatch to Ellis, the "courier of the department of
* " The messenger bearing the budget was instructed to remain
in the city of Mexico one week." Rep. of Cong., 1st Sess., 29th
Cong., Vol. 4.
6




62         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
State," appeared in the city of Mexico, bending beneath
a load of FIFTY-SEVEN wrongs, for which, in the name of
the American Government, he demanded "justice and
satisfaction."
Of these complaints, it may readily be imagined, many
were in the highest degree most insolent and ridiculous.
Let one suffice:-In 1829, Mexico was invaded by a
Spanish force, and a printing press in Tampico, said to
have been American property, was destroyed by the
invaders. Eight years after the occurrence, Mexico is
for the first time informed that she is held responsible by
the Federal Government, for an act committed by her
enemies in time of war. We can judge of the effect of
such a claim upon the Mexicans, by supposing a demand
of the French king upon the American Government, for
payment of injuries received by one of his subjects, from
the British troops while in possession of the city of
Washington.
The temporary detention of two citizens at Metamoras,
and the pretended abduction of two mules and a mare,
although so abundantly and satisfactorily explained, again
figure among the national grievances for which the " courier" demanded satisfaction.
That our Government had no desire whatever, to bring
their dispute with Mexico to an amicable termination, is
perfectly obvious from the extraordinary course it pursued
on this occasion. Congress decided not to go to war, but
to renew negotiations, and furnished money for the salary
6f a minister. A minister is appointed personally odious
to the Mexicans, but detained at home, while a messenger is
sent with a list of fifty-seven grievances, of which not
more than eighteen at most had ever before been brought
to the notice of the Mexican Government. This messenger
was forbidden to remain for more. than one week. No




RVEWIW OF THE MEXICAN WAA.           63
opportunity was afforded to Mexico to make explanations,
or even to ascertain what reparation would be satisfactory.
She had no minister in the United States. The American
Minister, appointed in obedience to the Wishes of Congress,
was not dispatched; and hence, admitting our claims to
have been just, and admitting Mexico to be willing to
allow them, the very measures adopted by the Cabinet
precluded all adjustment of the points in controversy
Our demands were in truth intended only to irritate, and
to furnish stronger pretexts than had yet been found for
reprisals and war.
Before this "buck basket," with its fifty-seven grievances reached Mexico, that Government-which knew of
no other than the eighteen causes of complaint against it
specified by Mr. Ellis, and on account of which he had
terminated his mission-had passed an Act offering to
submit to the award of a friendly power, the claims of
the United States.*
* EX. Doc., 25th Cong., 2 Seas. Vol. 8.




64        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER        VIII.
TREATY OF ANNEXATION PROPOSED AND REJECTED.
JUST twelve months after the declaration of Texan independence, that independence was acknowledged by the
United States.  A  minister representing the Federal
Government, was immediately despatched to the insurgents, and one in return was received from them. Mr.
Hunt, recently an American citizen, and now "Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Texas," appeared among his old friends at
Washington, and in August, 1837, proposed, in behalf of
the yearling Republic, a treaty of annexation. Mr. Van
Buren had, the preceding 4th of March, assumed the
reins of Government. This gentleman had, on various
occasions, shown so much anxiety to conciliate the South,
as to be stigmatized by his opponents as "the Northern
man with Southern principles." Mr. Hunt was therefore
warranted in believing, that he would have no personal
objection to extending the slave region by the addition of
Texas. But very sufficient obstacles existed to the proposed treaty. Such a treaty would necessarily involve a
war with Mexico, and in such a war the country was not
yet prepared to engage. The treaty moreover, could not
be ratified, because it was well ascertained, that more than
one-third of the Senators would withhold their assent. A
fruitless attempt to negotiate such a treaty would be a
political blunder which Mr. Van Buren was too sagacious to
commit-a blunder which would inevitably destroy the




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         bb
popularity of the administration, and have a most disastrous
influence on the ensuing election. The Texan proposition
was therefore politely declined on the ground that annexation at the present time must result in a war with Mexico.
This was a reason which could give no offence to the
South, especially as there were good grounds for hoping
that the dextrous management of our claims would ere
long remove the only alleged obstacle to annexation. The
pear was not yet quite ripe, and Mr. Van Buren was at
the time ignorant of the Mexican offer, which was destined to postpone its maturity.




66         REVIEW OF THIE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER        IX.
TREATY OF ARBITRATION-ACTION OF THE SLAVEHOLDERS.
MEXICO, anxious to preserve peace with the United States,
not only proposed to refer the claims of the latter to arbitration, but once more sent a Minister to Washington.
This gentleman arrived in October, and, as is said, from a
misapprehension that the Mexican proposition had already
been communicated to the American Government, did
not officially announce it till the 22d December, 1837.
The proposition itself was a sore disappointment to the
partisans of annexation. It tended to avert, or at least to
postpone war. It was a proposition so fair and honorable, so pacific, and so directly appealing to the moral
sense of the community, that it could not be rejected,
without bringing great odium upon the administration;
and the party of which it was the representative, had but
little popularity to spare. Still it was received in sullen
silence, and no other notice taken of it at the time, than a
formal acknowledgment of its receipt.*  No less than
three times after this acknowledgment, did Mr. Forsyth
(Secretary of State), press upon the Mexican Minister
new claims, and new demands without deigning even a
passing allusion to the very important proposal he had
received.  Four months elapsed, and this Government
had yet given no intimation of its willingness to adopt an
equitable and pacific mode of obtaining redress for " the
accumulated wrongs " under which it professed to be suf* See Ex. Doc. 25th Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. 12.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           67
fering. In the meantime, the Mexican offer had become
public, and petitions had been presented to Congress
praying its acceptance;* and at least forty thousand citizens had laid before that body their remonstrances against
annexation. At length on the 21st April, 1838, Mr. Forsyth informed the Mexican Minister, that the President
"is too anxious to avoid proceeding to extremities," not
to accept the offer! Negotiations were now commenced
at Washington, which resulted, on the 10th of September,
1838, in a convention between the two Governments, by
which it was agreed, that all the claims against Mexico
should be referred to a board of four Commissioners, two
to be appointed by each party. The board to meet in
Washington three months after the exchange of ratifications, and to sit not more than eighteen months. The
award of the Commissioners to be final, but the cases on
which they could not agree were to be decided by an
umpire to be named by the King of Prussia. Should the
Mexican Government not find it convenient to pay the
amount awarded in cash, the payment was to be made in
so much government stock as would, at the market price
in London, be equal to the award. The Mexican ratification of this Convention not having been exchanged within
the time limited, it was renewed with slight modifications
in 1840; the most important of which was, that the sum
awarded was to be paid, one half in cash, and the other
in Treasury notes bearing eight per cent. interest, and receiveable for Mexican duties.
The determination of the Executive to refer the Mexican claims to arbitration, and the delay necessarily caused
by such a reference, seemed to excite the slaveholders to
increased energy in forwarding their favorite object. Mississippi had already, by its Legislature, demanded the an* See Ex. Doc. 25th Cong., 2 Sess., Vol. 12.




68         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
nexation of Texas, avowedly for the benefit of the slaveholding interest.  The State of Alabama now did the
same. The Legislature of Tennessee joined in the demand, but refrained from the indecency of resting-it on
the extension of human bondage. Three days after the
acceptance of the Mexican offer, Mr. Preston, a senator
from South Carolina, introduced a resolution, declaring
the expediency of annexing Texas to the Union. On the
14th June, 1838, Mr. Thompson of the same State proposed a joint resolution in the Lower House, directing the
President to take proper steps for the annexation of Texas,
( as soon as it can be done consistently with the treaty
stipulations of this Government."
At the South there was little or no difference between
the two political parties on the question of annexation.
As a specimen of the recklessness and profligacy with
which the measure was then urged, we may quote the
following language held by a prominent whig journal,
"We have heretofore asserted, and we repeat it again,
that Texas should be made a component part of our
country at all hazards, peaceably if she was willing, and
forcibly, if she was reluctant."*
The North, however, was not silent. The whig party
were nearly united in their opposition to Texas, and they
were in many instances joined by portions of their political
opponents.  The States of Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut. Rhode Island, New York, and Pennsylvania, all protested, through their Legislatures, against
annexation. It is not, therefore, surprising that Mr. Van
Buren departed from the policy of General Jackson in referring the claims of Mexico to arbitration instead of the
sword.
* Frankfort (Ky.) Commonwealth, May 2d, 1838.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            69
CHAPTER X.
RESULTS OF THE TREATY OF ARBITRATION.
IT is not to be inferred, from what has been heretofore
said of the claims upon Mexico, that none of them were
founded in justice. Unquestionably some of the most legitimate were nevertheless of a character which, according
to the laws and usages of nations, were not fit subjects of
national controversy, such for instance as were founded
on contracts or on torts within the cognizance of the ordinary tribunals of the country. Nor is it surprising that,
during the many military revolutions by which Mexico
had for years been convulsed, subordinate officers should
occasionally have exceeded their powers, and for military
purposes have trespassed on the neutral rights of American residents. The admiralty courts of Mexico, had condemned American vessels, taken with arms and munitions
of war intended for Texas. These articles of contraband
were by treaty liable to forfeiture; but the vessels themselves, together with such parts of the cargo as were not
contraband, were by treaty exempted from condemnation.
Had the intentions of the American Government been
equitable, and their measures temperate, there is no reason to believe that any serious difficulty would have been
experienced in recovering compensation where it was
justly due.
The Board of Commissioners appointed under the
Treaty commenced their session in Washington, 17th
August, 1840; and by 26th May, the next year, a period




70         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
of about nine months, they had passed upon every claim
that had been presented to them, accompanied with the
necessary vouchers, a fact deriving great importance from
subsequent events.  In February, 1842, the Commission
was dissolved by the limitation prescribed in the Treaty,
having sat eighteen months.  The King of Prussia had
named his Minister at Washington, Baron Roenne, as
umpire.
Total amount of Claims presented, - - - $11,850,578
Qf these submitted too late to be examined,  3,336,837
8,513,741
Referred to Umpire, and undecided by him
for want of time, -  - - - -    -     928,627
Amount of Claims adjudicated, - - -    7,595,114
Rejected by Commissioners and Umpire, -  5,568,975
Allowed        do.         do. - -    $2,026,236
This statement invites various remarks.  The Federal
Government had been for years espousing the cause of
the Mexican claimants.  Session after session had the
Executive Messages brought before Congress, not the
particulars but the subject of Mexican outrages. Committees had reiterated the lamentations of the President
over our accumulated wrongs. A minister had been withdrawn from Mexico, because redress had been withheld;
and war had virtually been recommended by General
Jackson to obtain, by force of arms, that justice for our
citizens which Mexico denied them. Finally, a solemn
Treaty proposed to afford the long-desired but denied reparation. A Court, composed of two American and two
Mexican citizens, were to sit in judgment on these claims;
and, where the Court could not agree, an impartial umpire was to award the amount justly due,  The Court
commenced its session about two years after its first appointment. Surely the claimants had abundant notice to




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            71
prepare and present their claims; and they had also
timely notice that the term of the Court was limited to
eighteen months. For the convenience of the claimants,
the Court assembled in Washington, contrary to the
wishes and remonstrances of the Mexican Government.
Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that, after
the Court had been in session nine months, only one-half
of the time to which it was limited, it had disposed of
every case that had been presented with proper vouchers.
But at the termination of the next nine months, we find
claims to the amount of $3,336,837, that were presented
too late to be even examined! The magnitude of these
claims, and the astonishing delay in presenting them, after
the unwearied solicitude of the Government to swell the
demand against Mexico, clearly indicate their fraudulent
and speculative character. We find, moreover, that of
those claims which were passed upon, about THREEFOURTHS OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WAS REJECTED as not
due.   Unquestionably the strongest claims were first
brought forward; and if these were three-fourths spurious, we may judge of the character of those introduced
at the close of the session. We have seen the eagerness
with which the Government welcomed and pressed every
claim, however stale and absurd. It is obvious that the
Court of Claims, if we may so name it, was a lottery in
which magnificent prizes might be drawn, and in which
the tickets cost nothing.  Every man who had been in
Mexico for the last twenty years, and could manufacture
a wrong, was virtually invited to come forward and try
his luck.  There is also strong reason to believe, that,
when at the end of the first nine months, all the cases
reddy had been heard, it was found that the result would
be so insignificant as to cast contempt and ridicule upon
the Cabinet; and that, therefore, great efforts were made




72        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to induce reckless speculators and adventurers to come
forward with claims which would at least swell the unliquidated demand, and furnish ground for continued and
irritating complaint.' But supposing the unsettled claims
to have been not less worthless than those which were
adjudicated, then one million more would have been added to the award, making a debt due by Mexico of three
instead of the eleven millions claimed.
Congress lately passed a bill for paying to American
claimants five millions, due from the French Government,
but which ours did not choose to go to war to collect. It
was only of feeble Mexico, with her unprotected territory,
that the Federal Cabinet was ready to collect debts at the
mouth of the cannon.
It may not be amiss to give some specimens of the
shameless profligacy of many of these claims, which politicians, for selfish purposes, have found it convenient to
magnify into grievous wrongs.
A. 0. de Santangelo was a schoolmaster and printer in
Mexico.  In one of the revolutionary struggles, he was
obliged to flee, abandoning his school and press. Ie
came to New Orleans, and thence to New York, where
he became a naturalized citizen of the United States,
and in that capacity brought in a bill of $398,690 against
the Mexican Government for damages! The Mexican
Commissioners denied that anything was due; the American Commissioners allowed him  $83,440-which the
Umpire cut down to $50,000, one-eighth of the demand.
On what principle this eighth was allowed, it is difficult
to imagine.
Rhoda McCrae claimed $6,694.04 for a pension for
her son killed in the Mexican service.  The American
Commissioners to their shame allowed the claim, and the
Umpire to his credit rejected it.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           73
Sophia M. Robinson claimed, for services rendered by
her husband in Mexico-then a province of Spain-in
1817, (!) $16,000, and as much more for interest.  The
American Commissioners allowed her $32,000!  The
Umpire most righteously refused her a cent.
John Baldwin claimed for a trunk of wearing apparel,
seized by a Mexican custom-house officer, $1170. Interest $311.50: $1481.50. All allowed by American Cor
missioners. Undecided by Umpire.*
Mr. Pendleton, of Virginia, in a very able speech in
Congress, 22nd February, 1847, on these claims, thus
comments on one of them: " There is one particular item
-a beauty of its kind —which I will mention. The item
is for fifty-six dozen bottles of porter. I believe the best
London porter can be purchased in any part of the world
for something like three dollars a-dozen; and I estimate
this porter, therefore, very liberally, when I put it down at
two hundred dollars. What do you suppose is charged
for it in this account? Why, sixteen hundred and ninety
dollars!  But that is reasonable, compared with the interest charged upon the price. That is for less than six
years set down at $6,570; making for fifty-six dozen
bottles of porter the nice little sum of $8,260! I do not
say that all these accounts are of that sort; but this I
will say, that many of them are more unreasonable."t
One of the claims left undecided was preferred by a
Texan land company for the comfortable sum of $2,154,
604; and one individual claims $690,000 for erroneous
decisions against him in Mexican courts! It is creditable
to the justice and moderation of Mexico, that, when such
unscrupulous audacity was countenanced by our Government, the demands manufactured against her reached to
no more than eleven millions of dollars.
* Ex. Doc., 27th Cong., 2nd Sess. No. 21,
t App. Cong. Globe.
7




74         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WALR
CHAPTER XI.
NEW TREATIES WITI MEXICO ABOUT CLAIMS.
THE Treaty of Arbitration had deprived the Administra
tion for some time of all pretexts of complaint against
Mexico, and probably postponed the annexation of Texas.
Fortunately for the designs of the Cabinet, the accumulation of claims towards the close of the Commission had,
as we have seen, left a large nominal amount undecided.
Of this surplus, the Administration eagerly availed itself
to renew a harassing negotiation. No Minister had been
sent to Mexico since Mr. Ellis thought it expedient to demand his passports, and to decline specifying the reasons
of so ungracious a measure.  The Commission under the
Treaty terminated, as we have seen, in February, 1842;
and the next March, Mr. Tyler, who as Vice-President
had succeeded to the Executive Chair on the death of
President.Harrison, appointed Mr. Waddy Thompson, of
South Carolina, Minister to Mexico.  In selecting this
gentleman, he was no doubt influenced by the same motives which had led to the appointment of Messrs. Poinsett, Butler, and Ellis. I-e was a slaveholder, devoted to
the cause of Texas.  He had, moreover, on the floor of
Congress, introduced a resolution directing the President
to take measures for the annexation of Texas, as soon as
it could be done, consistently with the Treaty stipulations
of the Government-an pict which necessarily rendered
him personally offensive to the Mexican Government.
It will be recollected that by the treaty of arbitration
the award was to be paid half in cash, and half in treat



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           75
ury notes at par, bearing eight per cent. interest, and
receivable for duties. Mr. Thompson found the Mexican
credit very low, and treasury notes at a discount of about
seventy per cent.  His diplomatic correspondence has
been published only in part, and we are therefore ignorant
by what means he succeeded in negotiating, 30th January,
1843, a new convention or treaty by which Mexico agreed
to pay on the 30th April of the same year, all the interest
then due, and the award itself in five years, in equal
quarterly instalments. This arrangement has been represented as a boon granted to Mexico,* and therefore aggravating her ingratitude. The assertion, like most others
made in vindication or apology of the Mexican war, is
untrue. Says Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, writing
to Mr. Shannon, minister in Mexico, June 20th, 1844"The convention (of 1839), provided that the claims
which should be allowed, might be discharged by payment
of Mexican treasury notes, but as these were much depreciated in value, it became a matter of importance to effect
some other arrangement by which specie should be substituted in their stead. To this end your predecessor
(Thompson), was empowered and instructed to enter into
a negotiation with the Government of Mexico, and a
convention was concluded, 30th January, 1843."  Mr.
Thompson, in his " Recollections of Mexico," speaking
of this convention, says, p. 223, "the market value of the
treasury notes was about thirty cents on a dollar, and, if
this additional two millions had been thrown upon the
market, they would have been depreciated still more.
The owners of these claims knew this, and were anxious
lo make some other arrangement."  Hence the " boon"
* Report of C J. Ingersol, Chairman of Cor. of Foreign
Affairs, June 24th, 1846.




76        REVIEW OF THI:E MEXICAN WAR.
was extorted from  Mexico, and probably through the
menaces of the negotiator.
But the new convention did more than regulate the
payment of the award. It stipulated for the negotiation
of another arbitration treaty, and one more comprehensive
than the last, for it was to provide for the settlement of
all claims made by the Government of Mexico against the
United States, as well as the claims of the Government
and citizens of the United States against the Republic of
Mexico. Here was at least the appearance of fairness.
Thle United States consented by this treaty, which was
duly ratified, that the wrongs the Government and it citizens had done to Mexico should be submitted to a court
of referees. What claims the citizens of Mexico had
against the United States do not appear; but the claims
of the Government were numerous and important.
Vessels captured by Mexican ships of war for being engaged in contraband trade, had been forcibly seized and
carried off by American armed vessels, and a Mexican national vessel had been audaciously captured and brought
to the United States by one of the vessels of our navy; and
frequent had been the insults which American functionaries
had offered to the Mexican authorities. It must, therefore,
have been a grateful reflection to the Mexicans, that the
wrongs they had themselves suffered, were to be examined
and redressed by a tribunal more impartial than the Cabinet at Washington. Whether it was through inadvertence,
or with a view of inducing Mexico to provide for the settlement of the vast amount of claims left undecided that the
American Government accorded this unusual justice to the
sister Republic, is uncertain. The treaty stipulated for by
the convention of 30th January, 1843, was concluded in
Mexico on the 20th November of the same year. The
respective claims of the citizens and Governments of the




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           t
two countries were to be referred to a joint commission to
sit in Mexico; and where the commissioners should not
agree, the award of an umpire, to be named by the king
of Belgium, was to be final. This treaty was sent to
Washington, accompanied by a letter from Thompson to
the Secretary of State, in which he tells him " the place
of meeting of the board, you will see, is in Mexico, and
not in Washington. The Mexican plenipotentiaries said
that the last commission met in Washington, and that it
was their right to insist that this one should meet in
Mexico. The only reply that I could make was, that the
claims presented to that commission were all against
Mexico, and that nearly all the claimants resided in the
United States; to which they replied that this commission
will also be charged with the claims of the Government
and citizens of Mexico against the United States, and that
they could not concede this point. I thought there was
much reason in their demand; and, as it was matter
of punctilio, and as with a Spaniard punctilio is everything,
I was well satisfied it would be a sine qua non, and therefore yielded it, in consideration of their allowing me to
name the arbiter-a much more important consideration."
The mere details of this treaty were of course matters
of discretion to which the Governmentat Washington had
the strict right of objecting.  But the United States
had, by a solemn convention duly ratified, agreed that
the complaints of the Government and citizens of Mexico
should be referred by treaty to a tribunal for settlement;
to refuse therefore to consent to.such a reference, was a
breach of faith plighted by treaty. Yet of such a breach
was the Senate of the United States guilty.  The treaty
was conditionally ratified by the Senate, first striking out
of it the right of each Government to prefer before the
commission claims against the other; and secondly, alter7*




78         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
ing the plate of meeting to Washington.*  There was nc
dispute about the treaty of 30th January, 1843. Mr.
Upshur, Secretary of State, in his correspondence with
Thompson, acknowledged and regretted the obligation it
imposed, of referring to a tribunal wholly judicial in its
character a subject " strictly diplomatic." Yet, in defiance of a plain treaty stipulation, the Senate refused to
refer the claims of the Mexican Government to the
decision of the commissioners and umpire. The place of
meeting was changed by the Senate to Washington,
although the -Government had been warned by its own
agent, that the sitting of the commission in Mexico was a
sine qua non, and a point of national pride. The treaty
thus mutilated, and conditionally ratified, was sent back to
Mexico, where no farther notice of it was taken. Hence
arose the cry from the partisans of Texas, that Mexico
refused to settle the claims advanced by the citizens of the
United States. President Polk in his labored vindication
of the war against Mexico, contained in his message
of December, 1846, had the temerity to charge Mexico
with " violating the faith of treaties, by failing or refusing
to carry into effect the sixth article of the convention of
January, 1843"!
* Report of Cor. on Foreign Affairs, June 24th, 1846.




REVIEW OF'THE MEXICAN WAR.         79
CHAPTER        XII.
rHE SEIZURE AND SURRENDER OF MONTEREY, IN CALIFORNIA, BY COMMODORE JONES.
ON Mr. Thompson's appointment, an attempt was made
in the Iouse of Representatives, to defeat his mission by a
motion to strike out from the supply bill the appropriation
for a salary to the Minister to Mexico. In opposing this
motion, Mr. Wise, of Virginia, the administration leader
in the House delivered, 14th April, 1842, a characteristic
speech, of which the following is an extract:
"Texas had but a sparse population, and neither men
nor money of her own to raise and equip an army for her
own defence; but let her once raise the flag of foreign
conquest-let her once proclaim a crusade against the
rich states to the South of her, and in a moment volunteers would flock to her standard in crowds from all the
States in the great valley of the Mississippi-men of enterprise and hardy valor before whom no Mexican troops
could stand an hour. They would leave their own towns,
arm themselves and travel at their own cost, and would
come up in thousands to plant the lone star of the Texan
banner on the Mexican capital. They would drive Santa
Anna to the South, and the boundless wealth of captured towns, and rifled churches, and a lazy, vicious, and
luxurious priesthood, would soon enable Texas to.pay her
soldiers, and redeem her State debt, and push her victorious arms to the very shores of the Pacific.
"And would not all this extend slavery?  Yes, the




80         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
result would be, that, before another quarter of a century,
the extension of slavery would not stop short of the
Western Ocean.
"To talk of restraining the people of the great valley
from emigrating to join her armies, was all in vain. They
had gone once already. It was they that conquered Santa
Anna at San Jacinto; and three-fourths of them  after
winning that glorious field, had peaceably returned to their
homes. But once set before them the conquest of the
rich Mexican provinces, and you might as well attempt to
stop the wind. Let the work once begin, and he (Mr.
Wise) did not know that this House would hold him very
long.
" Give me five millions of dollars, and I would undertake to do it myself. Although I don't know how to set a
single squadron in the field, I could find men to do it; and,
with five millions of dollars to begin with, I would undertake to pay every American claimant the full amount of
his demand with interest, yea, fourfold. I would place
California where all the powers of Great Britain, would
never be able to reach it. SLAVERY SHOULD POUR ITSELF
ABROAD WITIOUT RESTRAINT, AND FIND NO LIMIT BUT THE
SOUTHERN OCEAN. The Camanches should no longer hold
the richest mines of Mexico; but every golden image which
had received the profanation of a false worship should soon
be melted down, not into Spanish milled dollars indeed, but
into good American eagles. Yes, there should more hard
money flow into the United States than any exchequer
or sub-treasury could ever circulate. I would cause as
much gold to cross the Rio del Norte as the mules of
Mexico could carry; aye, and make a better use of it
than any lazy, bigoted priesthood under Heaven. I am
not quarrelling with the particular religion of these priests;
but I say, that any priesthood that has accumulated and




REVIEW OF TIlE MEXICAN WAR.          81
sequestered such immense stores of wealth, ought to disgorge, and, it is a benefit to mankind, to scatter their
wealth abroad where it can do good. Texas had proclaimed a blockade against all the coast of Mexico; and
though she had no fleet to enforce it, she would be able
to make it good by hewing her way to the Mexican
capital. Nor could all the vaunted power of England
stop the chivalry of the West, till they had planted the
Texan star on the walls of the city of Montezuma. Nothing could keep these booted loafers from rushing on till
they kicked the Spanish priests out of the temples they
profaned. War was a curse; but it had its blessings too.
H-e would vote for this mission as the means of preserving
peace; but, if it must lead to war, he would vote it the
more willingly."
The author of such a speech was, of course, admirably
fitted for the Mexican mission; but, as that was already
filled, the President (Tyler) ex.pressed his obligation to
the Orator, by appointing him Minister to France.  A
Whig Senate recoiled at the idea of sending Mr. Wise to
represent American morality and refinement in Europe,
but consented that he should discharge that function in
Brazil. Amid the vulgarity and profligacy of this speech,
there is much that merits attention as indicative of the
views and anticipations of the slaveholders.  We see
what visions of plunder the idea of a war with Mexico
raised before their excited imaginations; we see what
boundless regions were in their hopes to be consecrated to
human bondage, and with how little cost and danger, the
chivalry expected to gather a golden harvest from both
mines and churches. Mr. Wise was chairman of the naval committee, and high in the confidence of the administration; and hence his reference to California was pecu-!iarly significant, and shadowed forth coming events. The




82         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
annexation of Texas was the immediate object of the
slaveholders; but California was looming in the distance,
and many wistful eyes were gazing upon it, as the means
of carrying slavery to the " Western Ocean."
Mr. Upshur, the Virginian who in 1829 wanted Texas
to raise the price of slaves, and now Secretary of the
Navy, in his report of December 4th, 1841, announced to
Congress, that "In Upper California there were already
considerable settlements of Americans, and others are
daily resorting to that fertile and delightful country. Such,
however, is the unsettled condition of that whole country,
that they cannot be safe either in their persons or property,
except under the protection of our naval power."  He also
declared that, "It is highly desirable that the Gulf of
California should be fully explored, and that this duty
alone will give employment a long time to one or two
vessels of the smaller class." Here was a beautiful device
for forcing Mexico into a war and wresting California
from her. Our ships of war were to be continually hovering on the coast, and their officers surveying the harbors
and interfering in every controversy between the Mexican
authorities and American squatters and adventurers.
A few days after this report, Commodore Jones, also a
Virginian, was dispatched with a squadron to the Pacific.
He was specially instructed to keep one or more vessels
occasionally or constantly cruising upon the coast, and
within the GULF OF CALIFORNIA, and the officers were " to
pay particular attention to the examination of the bays
and harbors they may visit, and to lay down their positions
correctly." The subsequent conquest of California bears
testimony to the foresight of Messrs. Tyler and Upshur.
It is not to be supposed that Commodore Jones was permitted to depart without being acquainted with the wishes
and hopes of his employers. HIe undoubtedly well under



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           83
stood, although not formally instructed, that he was to
avail himself of any good opportunity of getting a foothold in California.
In May, 1842, the Mexican Secretary of State sent a
circular to the diplomatic Corps, declaring that the Mexican Government protested against the aid afforded to the
Texans by citizens of the United States with the toleration
of their own Government. At the same time the Secretary addressed a letter to Mr. Webster, American Secretary of State, formally protesting against the allowance
by the Federal Government of the violation, on the par
of its citizens, of the obligations of neutrality in the opel
aid afforded to the insurgents cf Texas. These two letters were published in a Mexican journal, and fell into the
hands of Commodore Jones at Callao, together with a
Boston newspaper, giving from a Yew Orleans paper one
of those common lies about English interference, which
had for years been plentifully manufactured by the partisans of annexation.
The lie which now caught the eye of the Commodore
was, that Mexico had ceded California to Great Britain for
$7,000,000! It so happened that three British armed
vessels were at this time in the Pacific, and the watchful
Commodore did not know their business, nor where they
were going.  The Mexican documents induced him to
guess, that war had been declared between the United
States and Mexico, and the rumor given from the New
Orleans paper, led him to guess, that Great Britain had
purchased California; and as he had not been informed
where the three British vessels were going, he guessed
they had gone to take possession of the newly purchased
territory. He accordingly left Callao on the 7th September, 1842, "crowding all sail on the direct coast of
Mexico" (California)  The next day he summoned a




84         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
council of his officers, submitted to them his documents,
at the same time expressing his belief that the British
squadron was there on its way to Panama, "where it will
be reinforced by troops, &c., from the West Indies (!!)
destined for the occupation of California."  Under these
circumstances, he asked for the advice of his th;ee captains, as to the "employment of the small naval force
(three vessels), at my disposal so as to best promote the
interests and honor of our country, thus suddenly jeoparded!" The three marine statesmen assembled in the
cabin of the United States frigate, thus intrusted by the
Commodore with the weighty question of peace and war,
advised that the squadron, already "crowding all sail" for
California, should continue its course; and moreover announced, as the result of their deliberation, that, "in case
of war between the United States and Mexico, it would
be their (the officers) bounden duty to take possession
of California," and that they "should consider the military occupation of the Californias by any European power,
but more particularly by our great commercial rival England, and especially at this particular juncture, as a measure so decidedly hostile to the true interests of the United
States as not only to warrant, but to make it our duty, to
forestall the designs of Admiral Thomas, if possible, by
supplanting the Mexican flag with that of the United
States at Monterey, San Francisco, and any other tenable points within the territory said to have been recently ceded by secret treaty to Great Britain."
These naval expounders of the laws of nations would
have regarded the expression by any European power
of a doubt of the right of the United States to purchase
territory in either of the four quarters of the globe, as an
insult to the national sovereignty; but they calmly determine, -without consulting their own government, to rob




REVIEW OF TIHE MEXICAN WAR.          85
England of a territory they supposed she had acquired by
treaty, although they well knew that by such a robbery
they would, of course, involve their country in a war with
their great and powerful "commercial rival."
The three officers composing the Council, as well as
the Commodore, and the Secretary of the Navy under
whom they were acting, were all from the slave States.
On the 19th October, the Commodore entered the harbor of Monterey. The Mexican and not the British flag
met his sight, and of course he achieved an easy conquest.
He landed, and, without opposition, took possession of the
fort, and unfurled the stars and stripes. The provident
Commodore had brought with, him for the edification of
the Californians, whom he intended instantly to transform
into American citizens, printed proclamations in the Spanish language, which were without loss of time distributed
among the inhabitants. "These stripes and stars," said
the proclamation, "infallible emblems of civil liberty, of
liberty of conscience, with constitutional right and lawful
security to worship the great Deity in the way most congenial to each one's sense of duty to his Creator, now float
triumphantly before you, and hence and for ever will give
protection and security to you and your children, and to
countless unborn thousands."  Amid all this fustian we
distinctly discover, that the immediate and permanent annexation of California was the object of the expedition.
It does not appear where this magnificent proclamation
was prepared and printed. Printing presses are not, it is
believed, included in the ordinary equipments of ships of
war, and it is therefore a natural inference that the proclamation was printed either in Washington, or at Callao,
the port from which the Commodore had departed for
Monterey. In either case, it seems that the conquest of
California was deliberately resolved on before the Commo8




86         REVIEW OF T'L: iMEXIC(AN WAR.
dore convened his officers to sanction by their advice the
enterprise he had already commenced. On the 13th September, six days after he had left Callao, and while on his
course to Monterey, he wrote to Mr. Upshur, " In all that
I may do (in reference to California), I shall confine myself strictly to what I may suppose would be your views
and orders, had you the means of communicating them to
me." Mr. Upshur's well-known sentiments, and the character of the ultra pro-slavery party to which he belonged,
leave no doubt that the Commodore perfectly comprehended his wishes.
The day after Jones had distributed his proclamation
with all its fine promises, he discovered that, instead of
robbing Great Britain of a territory she had purchased,
he had seized upon a possession of a neighboring Republic
still at peace with his own country. The "infallible emblems of civil liberty," &c., &c., were therefore lowered,
and a due apology was made to the Mexican commander;
and the succeeding day, the Commodore, abandoning the
task of converting the Californians into American citizens,
returned to the more inglorious but more innocent occupation of exploring the coast and bays of California, preparatory to another and less transient conquest.
The Government at home was, of course, compelled to
disavow Jones's act; but in vain was his punishment demanded by Mexico. She was informed that he "intended
no indignity to the government of Mexico, nor anything
unlawful to her citizens."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           87
CHAPTER        XIII.
NEGOTIATION AND REJECTION OF TREATY OF ANNEXATION
WITH TEXAS.
THE treaty concluded with Great Britain in 1842, by removing all apprehension of collision with that power respecting the north-eastern boundary, gave a fresh impetus to the partisans of annexation. It had been foreseen
that a war with England, by diverting the forces of the
United States, and by giving Mexico a powerful ally,
might enable the latter to repossess herself of Texas.
This danger being passed, Messrs. Tyler and Upshur determined that annexation should no longer be delayed.
Texas, moreover, had been acknowledged by France and
England. With the latter she had entered into a treaty
for the suppression of the slave-trade, thus nominally
yielding what the United States had sternly refused. This
very treaty was alarming to the slaveholders, who became
apprehensive that, if Texas was left to herself, owing to
emigration from abroad, the time might come when slavery would be abolished within her borders, and this apprehension seems to have been shared by some of the
Texan leaders themselves. General Lamar, recently President of the Republic, about this time addressed a letter
to his friends in Georgia warning them that, unless annexation shall be effected, " the anti-slavery party in Texas
will acquire the ascendancy, and may not only abolish slavery by a constitutional vote, but may change the whole
character of the constitution itself.
" At present the anti-slavery party is in the minority;




88         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
but it would be dangerous, even now, to agitate the question with much violence, for the majority of the people of
Texas are not owners of slaves. Texas, if left to stand
alone, there is every probability that slavery will be abandoned in that country. The negroes are yet but few in
number, and would be emancipated in the country without the slightest inconvenience, and indeed would continue
to be useful in the capacity of hirelings.  He then goes
on. to remark that, as to the southern States, annexation
" would give stability and safety to their domestic institutions, and thereby save them FOR EVER from the unparalelled calamities of abolition."
The very idea of freedom in Texas aroused the slaveholders to new and. more resolute efforts for immediate
annexation. So unequivocal had become the indications
of a determination on the part of the south, to brook no
longer delay, that at the close of the session of Congress
in March, 1843, J. Q. Adams, and twelve other representatives published an address to the people of the
United States, warning them of the machinations of the
administtation to secure the extension of slavery, by adding Texas to the Union-pointing out the gross violation
of our neutral obligations towards Mexico, and calling
upon the free States for renewed and increased activity to
avert the calamity with which the country was threatened. Subsequent events speedily confirmed the foresight of this address, with a single exception. The address declared that the annexation of Texas would be a
measure in such violation of the Constitution, and for a
purpose so odious and profligate, as " not only izevitably
to result in a dissolution of the Onion, but fully to justify
it."  HQW far this prediction was uttered in the spirit of
prophecy, it is yet too soon to determine.
Mr. Upshur, whose sympathies for Texas were, as we
have seen, connected with the price of Virginia negroes,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          89
was called by Mr. Tyler to the office of Secretary of State,
and, availing himself of the facilities afforded by his new
office, prosecuted with vigor the work of opening another
and most extensive slave market.
On the 13th September, 1843, he informed Mr.
Thompson of the intention of the Government to remonstrate, in a formal manner, with Mexico, unless she shall
make peace with Texas, or shall show a disposition and
ability to prosecute the war with respectable forces.
This was only another device to provoke a quarrel. The
idea of our being offended with Mexico, because she was
dilatory in killing our friends and brethren in Texas, was
too ridiculous to be seriously pressed, even by Mr. Tyler's
administration. A letter written by Upshur, a few days
before, to Murphy, our agent in Texas, reveals the true
reason why the Cabinet had indulged the thought of
bullying Mexico into la peace with Texas. On the 8th
September, he tells Murphy,.there is a rumor of a plan
in England, to raise money for the Texan government,
wherewith to abolish slavery, by indemnifying the masters,
and that the English capitalists were to take Texan land
in payment. "Such an attempt," said the Secretary,
ever anxious for the anticipated market for Virginia slaves,
"upon any neighboring nation, would necessarily be
viewed by this Government with very deep concern; but
when it is made upon a nation whose territory joins the
slave-holding States of our Union, it awakens still more
solemn interest. It cannot be permitted to succeed withous most strenuous efforts on our part to avert a calamity
so serious to every part of our country. Few calamities
could befal this country more to be deplored than the
establishment of a predominant British influence, and the
ABOLITIOIN OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY IN TEXAS."*
* Ex. Doe., 1st Sess., 28th Cong. No. 271
8*




90         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
The correspondence between Upshur and Murphy is
one of the most humiliating to a true-minded American,
of any that has ever disgraced the annals of his country.
"So far as this Government is concerned," writes Upshur,
September 22d, 1843, " we have every desire to come
to the aid of Texas in the most prompt and effectual manner. How far we shall be supported by the people, I
regret, is somewhat doubtful. There is no reason to fear
there will be any difference of opinion among the people
of-the SLAVE-IIOLDING STATEs."  Murphy, in his reply,
September 24th, 1843, takes the liberty of giving the
Secretary of State some shrewd advice,-" Say nothing
about abolition;" and again, in another letter, " Do not
offend our fanatical brethren of the north. Talk about
civil and political and religious liberty. This will be
found the safest issue to go before the world with." In
other words, go before the world with a lie in your mouth
about the rights and liberty of Texas, which is already as
free as we are, and conceal from the people of the north,
that our only object is to extend and perpetuate negro
slavery. The advice was partially followed, and the cry
of " extend the area of freedom " was raised by the slaveholders and their northern allies. But "out of the
fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh," and before long,
all disguise was set aside, and the true object boldly and
unblushingly avowed "before the world," both by the
Government and by southern legislatures and popular
meetings. The story of the contemplated pecuniary contribution in England to advance the cause of human
liberty in Texas, was unfortunately without foundation;
like a multitude of similar falsehoods in relation to the
anti-slavery interference of England, it was intended to
facilitate annexation.  On the 17th October, Upshur proposed to the Texan agent a treaty of annexation. The




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           91
Mexican Minister at Washington, aware of the intrigues of
the Cabinet, gave notice, that if Texas were received into
the Union, he must ask for his passports. Mr. Upshur
replied in an insulting tone, declining all explanation, and
treating with scorn the intimation of Mexican hostility.
In the mean time, the Texans having shown less eagerness to enter into the proposed treaty than Upshur ]lad
anticipated, he became alarmed, and thought proper to
menace even the free and independent Republic of Texas.
He wrote to Murphy (January 16th, 1844,) of course for
the information of the Texan leaders, that in case annexation should be declined by the latter, " Instead of being,
as we ought to be, the closest friends, it is inevitable we
shall become the bitterest foes;" and he warns them, that
without annexation, Texas " cannot maintain that institution (slavery) ten years-probably not half that time."
To remove all apprehension, that, if Texas should consent
to a treaty of annexation, she might be subjected to the
mortification of having the treaty rejected for want of the
constitutional majority of two-thirds of the Senate in its
favor, he hazarded, in his desperation, the following most
extraordinary- assertion:-" Measures have been taken to
ascertain the opinions and views of Senators upon the subject, and it is ascertained that a clear majority of two —
thirds are in favor of the measure!!"  Thefact that this
very Senate, whose votes Mr. Upshur professed to have
canvassed, rejected the treaty, by a majority of more than
two-thirds, throws a painful suspicion upon the personal
veracity of the American Secretary; and the more so, as
no explanation was ever given to the public of the wonderful discrepancy between his canvass and the actual
vote.
Great Britain thought proper to disavow the machinations which it had been deemed expedient by the parti



92         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
sans of Texas to ascribe to her. Our Government was, on
the 8th April, officially informed, that it was indeed well
known to the whole world that Great Britain desired the
abolition of Slavery wherever it existed, but that she
would not unduly interfere to accomplish it-that she
aimed at no dominant influence in Texas, and that, in
striving for human liberty, the Government would not
" openly nor secretly resort to any measures which can
tend to disturb the tranquillity, or thereby affect the prosperity of the American Union." This avowal, so frank
and honorable, so becoming a free and a christian people,
perhaps hurried the conclusion of the treaty, as it removed one of the pretended reasons alleged for its necessity. Four days after the British document was received,
Mr. Calhoun, as Secretary of State, to which office he had
been appointed on the death of Mr. Upshur, had the
gratification of signing a treaty with Texas, by which that
State was annexed to the American Union.
In the proud elation of feeling caused by so signal a
triumph in the cause of human bondage, Mr. Calhoun replied on the 8th April, 1844, to tie communication from
the English Minister. He declared that the President
viewed with deep concern, the desire avowed by Great
Britain for the abolition of slavery; that in his opinion,
Texas by herself, could not withstand a compliance with
this desire, and therefore "It is the imperative duty of
the Federal Government, the common representative and
protector of the States of the Union, to adopt, in selfdefence, the most efectual means to resist it;" and that,
in obedience to this obligation, a treaty of annexation had
been concluded. "And this step" (he asserted) " had been
taken as the most effectual, if not the only means of
guarding against the threatened danger."  The next day
he addressed a letter to the American Agent in Mexico,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           93
announcing the conclusion of the treaty, a step, he says,
"which was forced on. the Government of the United States
in self-defence, in consequence of the policy adopted by
Great Britain in reference to the abolition of slavery in
Texas."
The audacious mendacity of this declaration is the more
remarkable, as Mr. Calhoun's own language bears witness
to its falsity. The readers of these sheets have already
had abundant proof, that the annexation of Texas was
prompted by other motives than "self-defence" against
the anti-slavery policy of Great Britain, as manifested in
that Republic. So early as the 27th May, 1836, immediately after the rumor of the battle of San Jacinto,
and even before the official account of the victory had
reached Washington, and while Great Britain was wholly
ignorant of the existence of such a Republic as Texas,
Mr. Calhoun, in his place in the Senate, proposed the
recognition of the Independence of Texas, and her
immediate admission into the Union!! In his speech on
the occasion, he remarked, "There were powerful reasons why Texas should be a part of this Union. The
southern States, owning a slave population, were deeply
interested in preventing that countryfrom having thepower
to annoy them."*  A revolted province was in actual war
with the parent country, and, while the slain in the last
battle were still unburied, this champion of slavery proposes the instant incorporation of this province into the
Union for the benefit of the slaveholders-utterly reckless
of the wickedness of the act, trampling under foot the
obligations of neutrality, and regardless of the calamities
of war which such a measure would inevitably inflict upon
nis country.
But it is not enough that Mr. Calhoun's statement
*Cong. Globe-29th Cong., 24 Sees., p. 495




94         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
should be falsified by himself. We summon a witness far
more competent, and quite as credible as himself. General Houston may well be called the father of the Texan
Republic, having commanded its army on the field of San
Jacinto, and afterwards presided over its councils as President. The treaty with England was negotiated under
his'direction, and he was necessarily intimately acquainted
with all the foreign relations of Texas. He was, moreover, chosen by the State of Texas to represent her in the
United States Senate. On the 19th February, 1847, he
declared in his place in the Senate, "England never proposed the subject of slavery or of abolition to Texas;
England never made a suggestion to Texas which, if she
had pursued or accepted, would have degraded her in the
eyes of the purest patriot that ever lived. Captain Elliot
(British Minister in Texas) required nothing but commercial relations between England and Texas, and an interchange of her fabrics for the products of the South."* So
much for the monstrous assertion that the treaty of annexation " was forced upon the Government of the United
States in self-defence, in consequence of the policy adopted
by Great Britain in reference to the abolition of slavery in
Texas."
The treaty referred to was submitted to the Senate on
the 22d April, 1844, and was REJECTED by that body by
a vote of thirty-five to sixteen, Mr. Upshur's pledge to
the Texan Government, that two-thirds of the Senate
would approve of it, notwithstanding.
Under no circumstances could this treaty have received
the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, but the greatness
of the vote against it was owing to other causes than hostility to annexation. Mr. Tyler was the most unpopular
President that had ever occupied the Executive Chair.
* Cong. Globe-29th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 459.




REVIEW OF TB3E MEXICAN WAR.          95
He was without personal. or political influence, and his
term of office was now so nearly expired, that he had but
little patronage with vwhich to secure Senatorial votes. It
was clearly ascertained that the treaty could not be ratified even were all the friends of annexation to vote for it;
and hence many of those friends consulted their own
political views and prejudices in swelling the majority
against it, and thus thwarting the aspirations of Mr. Calhoun. A presidential election was approaching, and the
southern opponents of Mr. Calhoun were well content to
diminish by their votes the influence his zeal in the cause
of Texas was calculated to give him. Although eager
for Texas, they could not vote for a treaty so very objectionable as that made by Mr. Calhoun; whereas, had its
ratification depended on them, there is little doubt their
votes woild have been different.




96         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER XIV.
MORE ATTEMPTS TO IRRITATE MEX-ICO.
THE majority in the Senate against the Texan treaty had
taught Messrs. Tyler and Calhoun the necessity of preventing, as far as possible, any new obstacle to a measure
so near to their hearts. One great-argument for annexation was, that the war had virtually ceased between Texas
and Mexico, the latter having for years refrained from all
active hostility.  Suddenly the Cabinet was alarmed
by some threatening proclamations issued by the Mexican
authorities against Texas, couched in the usual inflated
style. Past experience had shown the inability of Mexico
to subdue lher rebellious province, sheltered, as it wos,
beneath the wing of the great republic. The threats of
the Mexicans were, indeed, idle words; but Mr. Tyler knew
that, should the war be in fact renewed, its existence
would be an argument against annexation, as that measure
under such circumstances would necessarily make the
United States a party to the war. It was, therefore,
resolved either to induce Mexico to relinquish her design
to renew hostilities, or else to goad her into war against
ourselves. Hence, on the 14th October, 1844, Mr. Shannon, who had succeeded Mr. Thompson at Mexico, in obedience to instructions, presented to the Government an
insolent remonstrance against the farther prosecution of
the war, and the sanguinary spirit in which it was to be
waged. ITe declared that the war was to be renewed for
the purpose of defeating annexation, an object which




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          97
Mr. Tyler would not permit-dwelt upon the importance
of Texas to this country, and plainly intimated that we
could not permit her to be invaded, without espousing her quarrel. We can readily conceive with what
intense indignation our own Government would receive a similar letter from a British Minister, insulting us for our barbarous mode of conducting the war
against Mexico, threatening us with vengeance unless
we made peace, and permitted the peaceful cession of
California to the British crown.  Mexico, feeble and
exhausted, could resent the insult only in words; but
they were words'full of dignity, truth, and common
sense. Mr. Rejon, the Mexican Secretary (October 20th,
1844), informed Shannon that he "' has orders to repel
the protest now addressed to his Government, and to
declare that the President of the United States is much
mistaken, if he supposes Mexico capable of yielding to
the menace which he, exceeding the powers given to him by
the fundamental law of his nation, has directed against
it." After commenting on the conduct of the United
States, he concluded, " while one power is seeking more
ground to stain by the SLAVERY of an unfortunate branch
of the human family, the other is endeavoring, by preserving what belongs to it, to diminish the surface which
the former wants for this detestable traffic. Let the world
now say, which of the two has justice and reason on
its side."
This letter was received in high dudgeon by Mr. Shannon, who haughtily demanded a retraction of the Secretary's letter, on the penalty of suspending all farther
intercourse till he heard from  Washington.  To this
impertinence, Mr. Rejon replied that he was not surprised
by Mr. Shannon's reluctance to discuss the conduct of his
Government. "In fact, to what else can be attributed




98        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
this exclusive desire to claim for himself, his nation, and
his Government, that respect denied by him to the
Mexican Republic and its Government, to which he has
so often applied the term BARBAROUS, in his note of 14th
October?   Is the Government of the United States
superior in dignity, or has its legislature any right to be
thus wanting in respect to a Government to which it has
refused the attentions due by courtesy to mere individuals? Instead of withdrawing his letter, he is ordered to
reiterate his former statements."
The manly, honest rebuke administered by Rejon to
President Tyler, naturally gave great offence to that gentleman; and on the 19th December, 1844, he laid the
correspondence before Congress with very' indignant
comments on "the extraordinary and highly offensive
language which the Mexican Government has thought
proper to employ."  But although he thought the conduct of Mexico "might well justify the United States in
a resort to any measure to vindicate their national honor,"
he abstained, through a sincere desire to preserve peace,
from recommending a resort to " measures of redress,"
and contented himself with urging " prompt and immediate action on the subject of annexation."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          99
CHAPTER XV.
ELECTION OF MR. POLK.
A SUCCESSOR to Mr. Tyler was to be chosen at the close
of 1844; but, when the treaty was rejected in June of
that year, no political sagacity could predict upon whom
the choice would fall.  Mr. Tyler's wayward course,
together with other causes, had greatly curtailed the
power of the whigs; but there was no proof that they
had lost their ascendency.
In many instances the slaveholders had boldly declared,
that no candidate opposed to annexation, should receive
their vote. This sentiment was uttered in the formal
resolves of their popular meetings, and reiterated by the
slave press. Mr. Clay was the whig candidate; and to
his influence at the South was added the cordial and
unanimous support of the whigs at the North; under his
auspices the party anticipated a decided victory.  The
democratic party presented a much less imposing front
than its rival.  Its prominent candidate was Mr. Van
Buren who, as well as Mr. Clay, had expressed a cautious
qualified opinion adverse to annexation at the present time,
and under existing circumstances; but neither had
ventured to hint an objection to the extension of slavery.
The democratic nominating convention met at Baltimore late
in May, and gave Mr. Van Buren a majority of its votes, as
the democratic candidate for the Presidency. But the
Southern members insisted and finally succeeded, that a
majority of two-thirds should be necessary to a nomination.




100       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
The two-third rule of course made those members masters
of the Convention; and it was soon found that-no candidate could be selected except the nominee of the slaveholders. Mr. Van Buren was rejected; and the northern
democracy were compelled to accept Mr. Polk in his room.
The qualifications which procured for this gentleman the
honor of a nomination, were doubtless his devotion to the
cause of slavery, his vituperation of the abolitionists and
a recent printed letter in which he advocated the IMMEDIATE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.
The Convention having thus been compelled to nominate Mr. Polk, the triumph of the democratic party, and
its possession of power and office, of course depended on
his election. To secure that election, the party were necessarily compelled to adopt as their own the policy
avowed by their candidate. Hence it became expedient
for the Convention, as the representatives of the whole
democratic party, to insist upon the immediate annexation
of Texas, and to enter the contest with these ominous
words inscribed on their banners. Many of the party
presses at the North had been loud in their denunciations
of the Texan plot; and in the northern legislatures, democrats had vied with the whigs in passing resolutions condemning annexation. But the council of Baltimore was
deemed infallible in matters of faith; and forthwith the
democracy of the North united with the slaveholders
of the South in their efforts to extend the curse of human
bondage. Mr. Polk received a majority of the electoral
votes, but not of the popular suffrage by which the Elec.
tors had been chosen.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         101
CHAPTER XVI.
ANNEXATION BY JOINT RESOLUTION.
UNTIL the refusal of the Senate to ratify Mr. Tyler's
treaty, no other mode of annexation than by treaty had
been imagined. Texas claimed to be an independent nation, and had been acknowledged as such by the United
States, France, and Great Britain. But contracts between
independent nations are treaties, and the constitution intrusts the power of making treaties to the President and
two-thirds of the Senate. Of all contracts between two
nations, none can be more important and solemn than that
which surrenders the sovereignty and domains of the one
to the other. All the territory which had been added to
the United States, had been acquired by treaty. Hence,
when Texas contemplated annexation, she proposed doing
it by treaty; and Messrs. Tyler, Upshur, and Calhoun, all
concurred at a later date in inviting Texas to enter the
confederacy by the operation of a treaty. But the slaveholders were reminded by the recent occurrences, that it
required a majority of two-thirds of the Senate to annex
a foreign territory in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution; and that, as half of the Senators represented free States, such a majority was at present unattainable. Necessity is the mother of invention; and the
truth of the aphorism now received a remarkable illustration. It was suddenly discovered, that what could not be
effected by treaty, could as well be performed by a joint
e*




102        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
resolution of the two houses of Congress. Such a resolution required only a bare majority in each branch. In
this way treaties for the future, might be dispensed with
whenever the Senate was found uncomplying; and the
foreign intercourse of the nation might be regulated, dis
puted boundaries settled, and even the conditions of peace
determined, by joint resolution. To whom is to be attributed this ingenious device for setting aside the Constitution, smothering the oaths taken to support it, and usurping the treaty-making power, is not known; but Mr. Tyler
has the credit of first announcing the discovery to the
public. Mortified and irritated by the rejection of his
treaty, he immediately appealed to the House of Repretatives, laying the dishonored document before them, and
hinting that it was possible to effect annexation by other
means than a treaty. But Mr. Tyler had so utterly annihilated the respect and confidence he had once enjoyed,
that his influence was nugatory for good or for evil. The
annexation of Texas was indeed effected, but it was effected
by other influences than those wielded by himself or by
Mr. Calhoun.
The administration of Mr. Tyler was to close, and that
of Mr. Polk to commence, on the 4th March, 1845. The
vote againt the annexation treaty the preceding June, had
convinced the partisans of Texas, of the impossibility of
effecting their favorite object in a constitutional mode, and
the friends of human liberty congratulated themselves that
the danger was passed. The election, however, of Mr.
Polk, by identifying the democracy of the North with the
policy of the South, revived the hopes, and invigorated
the efforts of the friends of Texas.' The patronage of the
government had now for the next four years been placed
at the disposal of an avowed and zealous advocate of
annexation.  Under these circumstances, it was deter



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          103
mined to make a new effort to secure Texas, regardless
of the Constitution. Nor was the expectation very unreasonable, that a majority of the very Senate that had
treated Tyler with contumely, as he was sinking below
the horizon, might do homage to the rising sun.
Mr. Polk was to be sworn into office on the 4th March;
and this circumstance afforded an excuse for the arrival at
the Capitol some weeks earlier, of the dispenser of the natinn's patronage. His presence is well understood to have
exerted a powerful influence on the votes subsequently
given. On the 1st March, 1845, the famous joint resolutions, for the annexation of Texas as one of the States of
the Federal Union, were finally passed after a severe and
aoubtful struggle.
One of the most extraordinary incidents of this most
extraordinary and calamitous legislation, was the very peculiar tenderness of conscience evinced by certain southern
Senators. The Lower House had passed a simple resolution of annexation by a majority of twenty-two. But some
of the Senators, although rabid for Texas, were troubled
by the oath they had taken to support the Constitution,
and they did not well know how to reconcile that oath
with the trickery by which it was intended to nullify the
treaty-making power. They were happily relieved by the
addition of another resolution virtually giving to the President the option of effecting annexation by resolution or
by treaty. This ingenious device of authorizing the President to respect or contemn at pleasure the requirements
of the Constitution, and throwing upon him the responsibility of the choice, relieved the scruples of these conscientious gentlemen, and enabled them alnost at the very last
hour, by the change of their votes, to carry the question
of annexation, in the Senate, by a majority of two. Should
this strange expedient for satisfying constitutional scruples




104        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
seem insufficient for the momentous effects ascribed to it,
possibly a more satisfactory cause may be found in a declaration made in a southern paper during the debate,
"We rejoice that those deserting democrats who oppose
this vital measure which Mr. Polk so anxiously desires to
be settled at this session, WILL HAVE NOTHING TO EXPECT
FROM HIS ADMINISTRATION."   As Mr. Polk was at this
time at Washington, it is not unreasonable to believe that
the editor of the Richmond Enquirer, was not the sole
confidant of his intention to withhold office from every
member who voted against annexation.
One of the gentlemen whose scruples threatened to defeat annexation-but who, on his conscience becoming enlightened, voted for the measure, and thus ensured it a
majority in the Senate-was subsequently appointed by
Mr. Polk to a foreign mission.
No time was lost by Mr. Tyler in making the choice
offered to him by the joint resolutions.  On the 3rd
March, a few hours before his term of office expired,
he despatched a messenger to the American agent in
Texas, with a letter from Mr. Calhoun, instructing him to
propose the resolution of annexation to the acceptance of
the Texan Government, very sensibly objecting to annexation by treaty, because a treaty "must be submitted to
the Senate for its ratification, and run the hazard of receiving the votes of two-thirds of the members present,
which could hardly be expected if we are to judge from
recent experience."* On the 4th July, Texas consented to
* The late Chancellor Kent, of New York, was at this time
unquestionably the most eminent Jurist in America. He thus
wrote to a member of Congress:-" I acknowledge your speech
of January last on the Annexation of Texas. I have perused it
with much satisfaction; and I deem it perfectly conclusive, that
the Annexation of Texas, by concurrent resolution of Congress,
was unwarrantable, and a usurpation of the treaty-making power;
in every view, violent, unjust, unconstitutional, and most pernicious and unprincipled, and will lead to the ruin of the Union."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          10o
be annexed, and the 22nd of the ensuing December, she
was formally received as a State into the Federal Union.
Independent of the violence done to the cause of morality in the mode by which annexation was effected, and
in the motive by which it was prompted, the measure itself was a gross and palpable violation of the neutral obligations of the United States. It is freely admitted that
Texas was at the time an independent State, and as such
had a right to form a union with the Federal Republic.
But Texas was at war with Mexico; and we have seen
that Mr. Tyler not merely acknowledged the existence of
the war, but, after his Treaty of Annexation had been
rejected, officially remonstrated with Mexico on the barbarous manner in which that power intended to prosecute
hostilities. It is impossible to deny that a neutral nation,
forming an alliance offensive and defensive with another at
the time engaged in war, by that very act becomes herself
a belligerent. But annexation was an alliance, in the strongest sense, both offensive and defensive. So sensible was
the Administration of this fact, that, as we shall see hereafter, a land and naval force was prepared to defend Texas
against the meditated assault of Mexico. If after the
commencement of hostilities between Mexico and the
United States, England or France had accepted a cession
of California fromN Mexico, the acceptance itself would
have been tantamount to a declaration of war against this
country.  Had a fleet and army been sent from Europe
to protect Mexico from our invasion, would the fact that
Mexico was an independent nation have satisfied us that
we had no cause for complaint at such an interference?
By the laws of nations, annexation was an act of war
against Mexico.
Eight years before this event, the Rev. Dr. Channing,
of Boston, in a publication against the scheme which he




106       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
well knew was entertained by the Administration-of adding Texas to the Union-uttered the following fearful
prediction, which has now for the most part become history:-" By this act (annexation) our country will enter on
a career of encroachment and crime, and will merit the punishment and woe of aggravated wrong-doing. The seizure
of Texas will not stand alone.  It will be linked, by an
iron necessity, to LONG-CONTINUED DEEDS OF RAPINE AND
BLOOD. Ages may not see the catastrophy of the tragedy
the first scene of which we are so ready to enact. Texas
is a country conquered by our citizens, and the annexation
of it to our Union will be but the beginning of conquests,
which, unless arrested and beaten back by Providence,
will stop only at the Isthmus of Darien. Henceforth we
must cease to cry-Peace, peace. Our Eagle will whet,
not gorge, his appetite on his first victim, and will snuff
a more tempting quarry, more alluring blood, in every
new region which opens southward."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAX           107
CHAPTER XVII.
ANNEXATION OF CALIFORNIA DESIGNED BY MR. POLK.
IMMEDIATELY after the final vote on the annexation of
Texas had been taken in the Senate, a senator from Florida arose in his place, and introduced a resolution declaring it expedient for the President to open negotiations
for the cession of the Island of Cuba to the United States.
No action was called for; the sole object of the resolution
being to familiarize the public mind with devices for the
acquirement of slave territory. The addition of Texas
operated but as blood to the famished wolf; and the appetite for Mexican provinces, instead of being satiated,
was stimulated to a ravenous ferocity.  Texas had been
gained virtually under Mr. Tyler's administration, and
there is reason to believe that Mr. Polk was resolved that
his should be signalized by the annexation of California.
This province had long excited the cupidity of the slaveholders, and great efforts were now made to stimulate
public opinion into unison with the designs of the President. The newspapers teemed with articles on the fertility
of California, its vast importance to the United States,
and, as a matter of course, the secret designs of Great
Britain to appropriate it to herself, either by force or by
treaty. The readerwill recollect the premature seizure
and annexationfor ever of California by Commodore Jones:
he will also call to mind that, at an earlier period, fruitless efforts had been made to purchase the province,
whole or in part. Already many of our restless wander



108        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
ing adventurers had penetrated into that distant territory;
and the opinion had been extensively propagated, that it
was a region too rich and too convenient to be left in possession of the Mexicans.  The Mexican Government,
taught wisdom by the result of Texan colonization, made
an order expelling American citizens from California.
Our Minister protested; and the ordinance was so modified as to include all foreigners deemed dangerous to the
public peace. But against this Mr. Calhoun, then Secretary of State, ordered a new protest.
Let us now attend to the confessions of our Minister,
Mr. Thompson: "Near the end of December, 1843, I
received information that the Government of Mexico had
issued an order expelling all natives of the United States
from the department of California and the adjoining departments. No attempt, however, had been made up to
that time to execute the order. A similar order had been
issued a few years before, including not only citizens of
the United States, but British subjects also; and this
order had been actually executed to the great damage
and, in some instances, ruin of the persons removed. All
the efforts of the English and American Ministers to
procure a recision of this order were ineffectual for six
months. I had the good fortune, however, after a somewhat angry correspondence, to have the order rescinded,
not, however, until I resorted to the ultima ratio of diplomacy, AND DEMANDED MY PASSPORTS-a measure which a
minister is rarely justified in resorting to without the orders
of his government.  I confess I was very much afraid
that the passports would have been sent; but' I thought
that the step was justified by the circumstances, and that
it would cut short a long discussion.  The result showed
that in this calculation I was right.  The order was rescinded, and expresses sent to all the departments, the




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           109
distance of some of which was two thousand miles. 1
confess that in taking the high ground I did, upon the
order expelling our people from California, I felt some
compunctious visitings; for I had been informed that a
plot had been arranged, and was about being developed by
the Americans and other foreigners in that department, to
re-enact the scenes of Texas." *
Mr. Thompson, in describing California, says: "Sugar,
rice, and cotton, find there their own congenial clime "p. 234. Of course the same motives which led to the
"scenes in Texas," would prompt their re-enactment in
California. We shall see hereafter that Mr. Thompson
was not misinformed.
There were two modes of acquiring California-by
negotiation and by war. The first was the most economical, the latter would probably be the most expeditious,
but, unless commenced by Mexico, would be extremely
hazardous to the popularity and stability of the Administration.
By blustering about our claims, swelling them to the
greatest possible point of inflation, and then kindly offering to waive them all in consideration of a cession of California, and throwing in a douceur of a few millions, perhaps it might be possible to worry Mexico into a surrender of the province. But the result was doubtful. Mexico
had been very tenacious of her soil, and had refused every
bribe to part' with it. War was the alternative. Mexico
was just now extremely sensitive on the subject of Texas.
Her Minister at Washington had demanded his passports
on the passage of the joint resolutions. Mr. Shannon,
after irritating the Government by his insulting demeanor,
had left Mexico, and all diplomatic intercourse between
the two countries was now suspended. Under such cir* Recollections of Mexico, p. 227-232.
10




110       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
cumstances, it would not be difficult to excite a war, and
a war would give us California. But then a war, to be
popular or even to be endured by the North, which would
share its burdens but not its spoils, must be "a war by
the act of Mexico."
It was obviously most expedient to try negotiation in
the first instance, and, if that failed, then to bring on a
war by inducing Mexico to strike the first blow. Such a
war could be waged as one of defence, not of aggression;
Mexico would of course be immediately humbled, and we
might dictate the terms of peace, one of which would be
the surrender of the coveted province. Subsequent events
have manifested that the policy we have explained was
early adopted by Mr. Polk, and maintained with unwavering pertinacity




XEvIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR            111
CHAPTER XVIII.
MISSION OF MR. SLIDELL TO MEXICO.
BEFORE an attempt could be made to acquire California
by negotiation, it was necessary to restore the diplomatic
intercourse between the two countries. For this purpose,
the American Consul in Mexico, in compliance with instructions, addressed a letter, 13th October, 1845, to the
Mexican Secretary of State, inquiring whether the Mexican Government "would receive an Envoy from     the
United States, entrusted with full powers to adjust asl
questions in dispute between the two Governments." Two
days afterwards, the Secretary personally delivered to the
Consul a reply, stating, " that although the Mexican 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 country with full powers to settle the present
dispute in a peaceful, reasonable, and honorable manner,
thus giving a new proof that even in the midst of its injuries and of its firm decision to exact adequate reparation
for them, it does not repell with contumely the measures
of reason and peace to which it is invited by its adversary." This, it will be observed, was an indirect reply to
the question put by the Consul. Instead of consenting to
receive an Envoy with full powers to adjust all questions
in dispute, the Secretary refers expressly to the dispute




112       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
about Texas, and, with a show of condescension, says
that his Government will receive the Commissioner who
may come to settle the present dispute. The language
irresistibly refers to a Commissioner who is to offer, not
to demand, reparation for a certain injury, alleged to
have been committed in " the department of Texas."
Such is the fair, and indeed, the only inference to be
drawn from the answer returned to the Consul. The
answer was not improbably dictated by that sp
REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         113
that the person now to be sent would be one "whose
dignity and prudence, and moderation, and the discreetness and reasonableness of his proposals, will tend to
calm, as much as possible, the just irritation of the Mexicans." How far the gentleman selected by Mr. Polk
endeavored to exercise a calming influence, will be seen in
the sequel.
On the 3d of December, it was reported in Mexico, that
the new Envoy had landed at Vera Cruz. On this, the
Mexican Secretary sought an interview with our Consul,
and begged him to induce Mr. Slidell to postpone, for the
present, his appearance in the Capital, as he had not been
expected before January, by which time the Government,
having collected the opinion and consent of the departments,
"it would be able to proceed in the affair with more security."
The existing administration were charged by the party in
opposition with being. too friendly to the United States.
" You know," remarked the Secretary to the Consul, " the
opposition are calling us traitors for entering into this arrangement with you;" and he declared that the Government were afraid that the appearance of the Envoy at
this time would produce a revolution against it, which
would terminate in its destruction.* The Consul immediately advanced to meet Mr. Slidell, and at Puebla acquainted him with the wishes of the Government. Far
from consulting those wishes, he pushed on to the Capital,
where he arrived on Saturday, the 6th of December, and
the ensuing Monday officially announced his arrival, and
asked for an audience for the purpose of presenting his
credentials as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States. This letter was the same
day delivered by the Consul to the Mexican Secretary of
State, who assured him that "he himself was well dis* 29th Cong., 1st Sess., Senate Documents, No. 337, p. 18.
10*




114        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
posed to have everything amicably arranged, but that the
opposition was strong, and opposed the Government with
great violence in this measure, and that the Government
had to proceed with great caution; that nothing positive
could be done until the new Congress met in January."
On Wednesday, the 10th December, Slidell was informed
that his letter must be submitted to the Council of Government before a reply could be returned. But this gentleman would not brook delay, and on Saturday sent the
Consul to inquire when an answer would be given. The
Consul was told the letter had been submitted to a Committee of the Council, and that as soon as the Committee
had reported, an'answer would be sent; that Mr. Slidell
came as a resident Minister, and not a Commissioner to
treat of Texas, as was expected. The Secretary appealed
to the Consul, that he himself knew " the critical situation of the Mexican Government, and that it had to proceed with great caution and circumspection in this affair;
that the Government itself was well disposed to arrange all
difficulties."
These assurances of the friendly dispositions of the Government, and their earnest solicitation for a little delay, till
those dispositions could be sanctioned and supported by the
Congress about to assemble, teemed to have confirmed Mr.
Slidell in his resolution to force matters to extremities; and
accordingly, without waiting for the report of the Committee, he dispatched another letter on the ensuing Monday to
the Secretary, requiring to know when he might expect an
answer to his first, and declaring, what was absolutely
false, that "c he is necessarily ignorant of the reasons which
have caused so long a delay."  The "long delay" was
precisely seven days, and within that time he had been
twice officially informed through the Consul of " the reasons" of the delay. To this letter an answer was returned,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          115
stating that the delay complained of, had arisen from certain difficulties arising from the nature of his commission,
compared with the character of a negotiator to treat on
the subject of Texas, whom the United States had proposed to send to Mexico; that the subject had.been submitted to the Council of Government, and that the result
would be communicated to him without loss of time. The
next day, 17th December, Mr. Slidell wrote to the Government at Washington, detailing the progress of the negotiation thus far. It will be observed, that up to this date
he had neither been received, nor refused, and in this very
letter he remarks that "the impression hero among the
best informed persons is, that the President and his Cabinet are really desirous to enter frankly upon a negotiation
which would terminate all their difficulties with the United
States.". The day after this letter was received at Washington, peremptory orders were sent to General Taylor to
march to the Rio Grande; and this order, necessarily calculated and obviously intended to bring on a war, has
been vindicated on the ground, that the Mexican Government had refused to treat with Mr. Slidell!
It was obvious, from what had passed, that the Mexican
administration, although pacific in its feelings, was not
strong in the confidence of the public, and it was naturally
inferred, that it would not have the power, even should
it have the disposition, to conclude a treaty for the dismemberment of the Republic by the cession of California.
Hence the determination of Mr. Polk to secure by the sword
what he now saw could. not likely be acquired by the
pen. This determination was moreover strengthened by
the following information communicated in the same lctter
from Mr. Slidell. "The country, torn by conflicting factions, is in a state of perfect anarchy, its finances in a
condition utterly desperate. I do not see where means




116        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
can possibly be found to carry on the government. The
annual expense of the army alone exceeds twenty-one
millions of dollars, while the net revenue is not more than
ten or twelve. While there is a prospect of war with the
United States, no capitalist will loan money,'at any rate,
however onerous. Every branch of the revenue is already
pledged in advance. The troops must be paid, or they
will revolt." Of course from such a government, it would
be easy to wrest California, and as much more as we
might want.
Mr. Slidell, having, as we have seen, refused to permit
the Mexican Cabinet to postpone their decision respecting
his reception, till the meeting of Congress in January,
that decision was communicated, to him on the 20th
December. He would be received as a Commissioner to
treat of the questions relating to Texas; but until that
question was arranged, he could not be received as Minister plenipotentiary.
Mr. Slidell was of course very insulting in his reply.
"The annals of no civilized nation present, in so short a
time, so many wanton attacks upon the rights of person and
property as have been endured by the citizens of the United
States from the Mexican authorities."  It is to be apprelended that this gentleman is either very imperfectly acquainted with the annals of civilized nations, or very unscrupulous in drawing inferences from them. In the excitement
of the moment, and for the sole purpose of irritation, he
paraded before the Mexican Secretary, the millions demanded by the American government as compensation
for " the accumulated wrongs" of its " much-injured citizens."  The indebtedness of Mexico, according to Mr.
Slidell was as follows, viz.:




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            117
The award under the treaty of 1839,  $2,026,139
Claims then left unsettled,       4,265,464
Claims subsequently presented,    2,200,000
8,491,603
Credit by payments made on the award,* 303,919
Balance,   $8,187,684
We have heretofore seen that the total amount of claims
presented to the board of arbitrators, was $11,850,578
The claims afterwards fabricated were, it seems, 2,200,00
Total claim from Mexico,      $14,050,578
It may here be edifying to the reader, to interrupt our
narrative for a moment, to advise him of the fate of these
modest demands, under the especial guardianship of the
Cabinet of Washington.  The Commissioners and umpire
appointed by treaty, after a judicial investigation, rejected
as spnrious, or fraudulent, claims' to the amount of.
$5,568,975. The unliquidated claims, after deducting the
award made under the treaty, amounted to $6,455,464.
Of these, by the treaty of peace, the American Government assumes and promises to pay such as may be found
valid by its own Commissioners, not exceeding, however,
in amount $3,250,000.    This sum deducted from   the
balance above, leaves no less than $3,205,464, absolutely
and irrevocably abandoned and repudiated by the Federal
Government, while the Government of Mexico is by treaty
* It will be recollected that a convention concluded by Mr.
Thompson, the interest on the whole award was to be paid on
the 30th April, 1843, and the principal in twenty instalments,
one every three months. The Interest was punctually paid, as
were the three first instalments. The money for these payments
was raised by forced loans, so anxious was the Mexican government to meet its engagements, notwithstanding its financial
embarrassments. The measures adopted by our own government in reference to the annexation of Texas, together with the
state of the Mexican treasury, delayed, and finally prevented the
other payments.




118        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
stipulation released from all obligation to pay them! The
sum thus abandoned, added to the sum rejected by the
arbitrators and umpire, makes the very respectable amount
of $8,774,439. But this amount is yet to be greatly enlarged. The unliquidated claims are those preferred at
the eleventh hour, when the government was striving to exaggerate the sufferings of our citizens, for the purpose of
bullying Mexico out of territory, and when it was hoped that
the greater the amount of claims, the more ready would
the nation be for war. The best claims were undoubtedly
those first presented. We here find that of those which
were investigated five-sevenths were found spurious. On
the very unreasonable supposition that the remaining
claims are not more worthless than the first, less than two
millions will remain to be paid for by the government. In
all human probability, one million will be more than sufficient to meet every equitable demand; and thus of the
14 millions of claims about 11 will have proved in the
end to be fictitious.  Of this base currency Mr. Slidell, as
we have seen, took 6 millions with him to Mexico. The use
he was to make of it, is thus specified in his instructions:
"Fortunately the joint resolution of Congress for annexing Texas to the United States, presents the means of
satisfying these claims, in perfect consistency with the interests as well as the honor of both republics. It has
reserved to this government the adjustment of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments.
This question of boundary may therefore be adjusted in
such a manner between the two republics as to cast the
burden of debt due to American claimants on their own
Government, while it will do no injury to Mexico."*
* The instructions to Mr. Slidell were called for by the House
of Representatives; but the President refused to communicate
them. A copy, however, was surreptitiously obtained, and was
published in the newspapers: its authenticity has never been
questioned.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          119
In other word, Mr. Slidell is to buy territory, and
these fraudulent claims are to form part of the consideration. He is authorized to offer the claims and $5,000,000
for New Mexico, and the claims and $25,000,000 for both
New Mexico and California. Thus we see the envoy was
sent on a land-jobbing mission, armed with claims to the
amount of eight millions to bully, and with twenty-five mil.
lions of dollars to bribe, the Mexicans to dismember their
republic.
Mr. Polk was determined to have Mexican territory,
peaceably if he could-forcibly if he must. If he could
not buy, he intended to oonquer. Ience, the moment the
Cabinet learned from Slidell's letter, that he had not been
immediately received, although the question of reception
was still undecided, the army was ordered to the Rio
Grande. A few days after the decision was made known
to Slidell, the Mexican administration was changed, and
Paredes, the head of the belligerent party assumed the
reins of government. On this change becoming known at
Washington, Slidell was ordered to present his credentials
to the new Cabinet, and demand his recognition; and this
very order was avowedly given to facilitate war. "On
your return to the United States, energetic measures
against Mexico would at once be recommended by the
President, and these might fail to obtain the support of
Congress, if it could be asserted that the existing Government had not refused to receive our Minister."*  The
demand was accordingly made, and, as was foreseen, refused, and Mr. Slidell came home.
It was, it seems, the intention of Mr. Polk, on this last
refusal, to invoke Congress to declare war (take "energetic measures ") on the ground that Mexico by refusing
* For the Slidell Correspondence, see Senate Documents, 29th
Cong., 1 Sess.




120        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to receive his Minister Plenipotentiary, compelled us to
seek payment of our claims by the sword. On further reflection, this design was abandoned. A recommendation to
commence the work of human butcheryfor such a cause,' might fail to obtain the support of Congress."  It
was thought more expedient first to provoke hostilities,
and then to call on Congress to raise armies to DEFEND
the country. Hence, although Congress was in Session
when the President received intelligence of Mr. Slidell's
final rejection, he did not "recommend energetic measures against Mexico," as Mr. Buchanan said he would.
A course had been taken which left but little to the discretion of the Legislature. Before we proceed to describe
that course, it will be necessary to examine the claim on
which it was founded, viz., that the Rio Grande was the
western boundary of the United States.




REVIEW 01'THE MEXICAN WAR.         121
CHAPTER        XIX.
WESTERN BOUNDARY OF TEXAS.
WHATEVER may have been the original limits of the
region which ancient discoverers and geographers named
Texas, the boundaries of the revolted Mexican province of
that name, are no more necessarily identical with those,
limits, than are the boundaries of the State of Louisiana
with the limits once assigned to the vast territory bearing
the same name. The State of Texas was carved by
Mexico out of her domains, and, in union with Coahuila,
was entitled to a common legislature, and a representation
in the Mexican Congress. In 1833, Texas, as already
mentioned, dissolved her union with Coahuila, but laid no
claim whatever to any portion of the territory of her late
associate. The limits of the State of Texas were well
known, and defined on maps. Its boundary commenced
at the mouth of the river Nueces, in Corpus Christi bay;
and followed that river to its source, thence to the line of
New Mexico, near the Gaudaloupe mountains, thence
easterly to the southern branch of the Colorado, and along
that branch to the main stream, and with that to and
along the boundary line of the United States to the Gulf
of Mexico. The country between the Nueces and Rio
Grande was embraced in Coahuila and the Northern district of Tamaulipas. A map of Texas, published in 1831,
gives the Nueces as its southern limit; and in a description of Texas, published in the same year, by a visitant, it
11




1j2       flREVIEW O0 TiHE MEXICAN WAR.
is said that the province is bounded by "the Nueces,
which divides it from Tamaulipas and Coahuila."
In 1833, Benjamin Lundy travelled extensively in Texas
and Mexico; and his diary, published since his death, contains entries whichr show most conclusively what was then
considered by the Texans as the southern or southwestern boundary:-" 1833, October 11th. We proceeded this morning over some delightful plains, on a good
level road. At half-past nine, we reached and crossed
the river Nueces, which is the western limit of what is
called Texas. Of course we are now in Coahuila."
"February i, 1833. Laredo is a poor-looking place.
It contains about 2200 inhabitants.  The people look
like mulattoes. They are friendly and clever, but not one
of them can speak English. Laredo is the first settlement
that I have seen in Tamaulipas."   Life of Benjamin
Lundy, pp. 57, 95.
In 1836, as we have seen, President Jackson laid before
Congress the report of his special agent, Mr. Moffit, who
was sent to Texas to acquire information for the Government. The agent reported that " the political limits of
Texas proper (that is, the Mexican State of Texas),
before the last revolution, were the Nueces river on the
West," &c.
In 1837, was published a map of Texas, " compiled by
Stephen F. Austin, from surveys by General Teran of the
Mexican Army;" and here again we have the Nueces
for its western boundary. So late as June 28th, 1845, Mr.
Donaldson, American Charg6 d' Affaires to Texas, declared,
in an official letter, that Corpus Christi "is the most western
point now occupied by Texas."  The Mexican Government
always insisted, that the territory on the Rio Grande, had
never belonged to Texas. The Mexican commissioners appointed to treat of peace, were, by instructions, authorised




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR           123
to acknowledge the independence of Texas; but, to avoid
mistake, it was added, " by Texas is understood the territory
known by that name after the treaties of 1819, when it
formed part of the State of Coahuila and Texas, and not by
any means the territory between the Nueces and the Bravo,
which the Congress of the pretended Texans claimed to
belong to it."  On the 18th March, 1846, Gen. Mejia, the
commandant at Metamoras, in a proclamation announcing
Taylor's invasion, to prove that the Americans intended to
seize territory not included in Texas, remarked, "the
limits of Texas are certain and recognised; never have
they extended beyond the river Nueces."
It is, therefore, beyond all doubt, that no point of the
Mexican State of Texas came in contact with the Rio
Grande.  In what manner, then, had the R'epublic
of Texas acquired the immense extent of territory
she claimed? As it came neither by purchase, nor by
treaty; the title, if any, must have been conferred
by the sword. On the 2d March, 1836, the Mexican
State of Texas, bounded, as we have seen, by the Nueces,
declared its independence.  This declaration, while it
changed the political relations of Texas, had no effect on
its territory. On the 21st April of the same year, the
victory of San Jacinto secured the separation of Texas
from Mexico; but it was a victory obtained over Mexican
troops in the heart of Texas, not a conquest of Mexican
territory. It was a victory, however, which emboldened
the Texans to claim for the purpose of occupying at
pleasure, whatever land they thought might be convenient.
We find from the official report of General Jackson's
agent, laid before Congress by the President, that almost
on the battle-field, " immediately after the battle of San
Jacinto," it was the intention of the Texan Government
"to have claimed from the Rio Grande, along the river to




124        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
the 30th degree of latitude, and then West to the
Pacific"! It was, however, on reflection, thought this
was more than was necessary; and so, on the 16th December of the same year, the Texan Legislature voted
themselves parts of New Mexico, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, about equal in extent to the whole of Texas itself.
This additional territory is bounded by the Rio Grande,
and hence, and in virtue of this act of the 16th December, 1836, when the Texan Government did not own or
possess jurisdiction over one inch of land on the Rio
Grande, Mr. Polk ordered General Taylor, 15th June,
1845, to hold himself in readiness to march his troops into
Texas, where " you will select and occupy, on or near the
Rio Grande del Norte, such a site as will consist with the
health. of the troops, and will be best adapted to repel
invasion, and to protect what, in the event of annexation,
will be OUR WESTERN FRONTIER."
The act of the Texan Legislature, of course, no more
deprived Mexico of her right to Santa F6, than it could
have deprived us of our right to Oregon.  Mr. Polk, in
claiming thus early the Rio Grande as the western boundary of the United States, and ordering a military force
to take possession of it, acted in his capacity of chief
magistrate, and either with or without authority. As the
claim he advanced to this boundary, and his measures to
enforce that claim, led to hostilities, it is important
to inquire how far this gentleman was authorised by the
laws of his country, to involve it in the calamity of war.
It was only in the event of annexation, that Mr. Polk
claimed the Rio Grande as the western boundary of the
United States. Hence it becomes important to ascertain,
if the act of annexation did indeed transfer to the United
States the territories voted to itself by the Republic of
Texas. The Tyler treaty of annexation was silent as to




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          125
boundaries; and why? Let Mr. Calhoun, who negotiated
it, answer. No sooner was the treaty signed, than the
Secretary officially informed the Mexican Government,
that the United States had " taken every precaution to
make the terms of the treaty as little objectionable to
Mexico as possible; and, among others, has left the boundary of Texas without specification, so that what the line
of boundary should be might be an open question, to be
fairly and fully discussed and settled according to the
rights of each."
Notwithstanding this letter, it was objected to the
treaty in the Senate, that the very absence of all specification of boundary might be regarded as an implied sanction of the ridiculous pretensions of Texas. Mr. Benton
who, as we have seen, was one of the earliest advocates
of annexation, indignantly rejected the idea, that Texas
could confer upon the United States title to territory she
never owned. In his speech against the ratification of
the treaty, he used the following language: " I wash my
hands of all attempts to dismember the Mexican tepublic by seizing her dominions in New Mexico, Chihuahua,
Coahuila, and Tamaulipas. The treaty, in all that relates
to the boundary of the Rio Grande, is an act of unparalleled outrage on Mexico. It is the seizure of two thousand miles of her territory, without a word of explanation
with her, by virtue of a treaty with Texas to which she
is no party. By this declaration, the thirty thousand
Mexicans in the left half of the valley' of the Rio del
Norte are our citizens, and standing, in the language of
the President's Message, in a hostile attitude towards us,
and subject to be repelled as invaders. Taos, the seat of
the Custom-house, whepe our caravans enter their goods,
is ours; Santa Fe the capital of New Mexico is ours —
Governor Armijo is our Governor, and subject to be tried
11*




126        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
for treason, if he does not submit to us; twenty Mexican
towns-and villages,* are ours, and their peaceful inhabitants cultivating their fields and tending their flocks, are
suddenly converted by a stroke of the President's pen
into American citizens or American rebels.
"I therefore propose, as an additional resolution, applicable to the Rio del Norte boundary only, the one
which I will read, and send to the Secretary's table, and
one on which I shall at the proper time ask the vote of
the Senate. This is the resolution:
"Resolved, that the incorporation of the left bank of
the Rio del Norte into the American Union, by virtue of
a treaty with Texas, comprehending, as the said incorporation would do, a part of the Mexican departments of
New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, would
be an act of aggression on Mexico, for all the consequences
of which the United States would stand responsible."
There can be no doubt the resolution would have passed,
had not the rejection of the treaty prevented a vote
being taken. Mr. Silas Wright, a distinguished democratic
Senator from New York, afterwards vindicating his vote
against the treaty, asserted, " I believed that the treaty,
from the boundaries that must be implied from it, if
Mexico would not treat with us, embraced a country to
which Texas had no claim, over which she had never asserted jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede."
* The following are some of the Mexican towns and settlements along the east border of the Rio Grande, which according
to Mr. Polk, are on our side " the boundary line of the United
States," but in which, at the time of the invasion, was not to be
found one single magistrate holding a commission either from
the Federal Government, or the State of Texas-viz Taos,
Peuris, Gramnpa, Embudo, Namba, San Juan, Vitior, San Domingo, San Branilla, San Aux, San Dios, Albuquerque, San Fernanda, Valencia, Fonclara, Las Nutrias, Alamillo, San Pasqual,
Christobal, Las Pepuallas, Presidio, Dolores, Loredo, and Point
Isabel.




REVIEW OF TIIE MEXICAN WAR.         127
It thus appears that, in 1844, Messrs. Tyler and Calhoun
admitted the boundary of the Rio Grande to be an oven
question; while Messrs. Wright and Benton, and probably
a great majority of the Senate, disclaimed and repudiated
all right whatever to what Mr. Polk terms' our western
frontier."
On the 3rd March, 1845, Congress passed an act allowing drawback on goods exported to "Santa F6 in
Mexico."  But according to the Texan Act of 16th De-.cember, 1836, Santa Fe was in the Republic of Texas.
Here, then, we have, on the part of the Congress of the
United States, a distinct repudiation of the paper boundaries set up by the victors at San Jacinto. We had,
moreover, a Consul at Santa Fe, recognized not by the
Texan but the Mexican Government. Yet it was after
this act was passed, and before we had acquired a title to
a foot of Texan land, that Mr. Polk took measures to
seize by force of arms the territory on the Rio. Grande, in
case of annexation.
Falsehood is ever inconsistent with itself. Mr. Polk, in
his Message, 8th December, 1846, speaking of the actual
separation of Texas from Mexico previous to annexation,
uses the expression, " No hostile foot finding rest within
her territory for six or seven years."  Yet all this time,
Mexican villages east of the Rio Grande were governed
by Mexican laws and magistrates, and the Secretary-atWar, in ordering General Taylor to advance to that river,
warns him of the Mexican military establishments on this
side of it. If no hostile foot had found rest in Texan territory for six or seven years, then most certainly the Rio
Grande territory was not in Texas.  Mr. Polk, moreover,
tells Congress that, in December, 1836, a Texan law declared "the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source to
be their boundary, and by the said act they extended




128       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
their civil and political jurisdiction over the country up to
that boundary;" and yet in this very same Message he
announces to Congress that, "by rapid movements the
province of New Mexico, with Santa Fe, its capital, has
been captured without bloodshed."  But Santa Fe was on
the East of the Rio Grande, and far below its source, and
therefore, according to the President, included within the
Territory of Texas.  And why was it captured if no hostile foot rested in it?
Let us now inquire with what boundaries we received
Texas.. The terms of the joint resolutions were, " Congress doth consent that the territory properly included
within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas,
may be erected into a new State to be called the State of
Texas, &c.; "said State to be fornmd, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundaries
that may arise with other governments."  Here is no sanction of the act of 16th December, 1836, no claim of title
founded on it, but an indirect admission that Texas has
made unfounded claims, and we mean to take not what
she claims, but what she rightfully owns; and this we
will settle with Mexico of course by treaty, the President
and Senate being " this Government" mentioned in the
resolution. The resolutions embracing this language were
officially approved of by Mr. Polk, immediately on his
accession to the Presidency; and yet, notwithstanding
they thus rejected all title to territory founded on Texan
claims, reserving to the President and Senate the decision
of what should be " our Western frontier," Mr. Polk resolved not merely to decide that question of his own will
and pleasure, but to maintain his decision at the point of
the bayonet, without any consultation with the Senate,
and without waiting to discuss it with Mexico. For many
years a question existed between Great Britain and the




REVIEW OF TIHE MEXICAN WAR.         129
United States, respecting the North-eastern boundary of
the latter. No President assumed the responsibility of
plunging the country into war by taking military possession of the disputed territory, and the question was finally
settled by treaty.  Mr. Polk, on his accession to the
Presidency, found another and most important question of
boundary pending between the same parties respecting
the territory of Oregon.  He expressed, in his inaugural
address, the opinion, that the title of the United States to
the whole of that vast region up to 54~ 40' of North
latitude, was clear and unquestionable; and he refused
all offers of compromise, and all reference of the question
to arbitration. Yet he sent no army to defend what he
declared to be our Northern frontier.  On the contrary,
he entered into negotiation with Great Britain, and surrendered five degrees and forty minutes of territory, which
he had himself asserted belonged to us "by irrefragable
facts and arguments," by a treaty which General Cass
declared in the Senate was "prepared by the British
Government," and which was ratified by the Senate without " the crossing of a t, or the dotting of an i, untouched
and unchanged."  Great Britain was a powerful nation,
and Mexico a feeble one; the territory surrendered was
in the North, and would for ever be free-that which was
seized was in the South, and was intended to be for ever
a slave region.




130        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER XX.
OOMMENCEMENT OF WAR AGAINST MEXICO BY GENERAL
TAYLOR.
MR. Polk, having decided on war, in case California could
not be had by negotiation, commenced his preparations for
waging it, even before the annexation with Texas was consummated. On the 8th July, 1845, the Secretary of War
wrote to Taylor, "This department is informed, that
Mexico has some military establishments on the east side
of the Rio Grande, which are, and for some time past
have been, in the actual occupation of her troops. In
carrying out the instructions heretofore received, you will
be careful to avoid any acts of aggression, unless a state
of war should exist. The Mexican forces at the posts in
their possession, and which have been so, wilr not be disturbed so long as the relations of peace between the United States and Mexico continue." An invading army is
sent into a territory in military possession of Mexico; territory which had never been out of her possession since its
conquest from the aborigines.  But no attack is to be
made on the Mexican forts; let the first blow be struck
by the Mexicans, and then the war will be one of defence,
and therefore more popular. On the 6th August, Taylor
is informed that the seventh regiment of infantry and three
companies of dragoons have been ordered to Texas, and
10,000 muskets, and 1,000 rifles. A few days after he is
told, he will have "a force of four thousand men of the
regular army."  In addition to these regulars, requisitions
were made upon the Governors of Alabama, Mississippi,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           131
Louisiana, Tennessee, and Kentucky, to furnish Taylor
with as many volunteers as he might require. The Secretary of War, in thus calling for an indefinite number of
troops, makes the following candid and extraordinary confession: " It is proper to observe, that the emergency rendering such assistance from the militia of your State necessary, does not ap2pear to have been foreseen by Congress,
and consequently no appropriation was made for paying
them."  Truly indeed Congress had not foreseen that Mr.
Polk meant to invade Mexico, and had made no provision
for the intended war.
The President having thus made, on his own responsibility, ample provision for the commencement of the war, instructed Taylor how he might bring it on in case Mexico remained passive.  On the 30th August, he was told, " The
assembling a large Mexican army on the borders of Texas,
and crossing the Rio Grande with a considerable force, will
be regarded by the Executive as an invasion of the United
States (!) and the commencement of hostilities.  An attempt to cross the river with such a force will also be considered in'the same light. In case of war, either declared
or made manifest by hostile acts, your main object will be
the protection of Texas; but the pursuit of this object will
not necessarily confine your action within the territory of
Texas. Mexico having thus commenced hostilities, you
may in your discretion cross the Rio Grande, disperse or
capture the forces assembled to invade Texas, defeat the
junction of troops uniting for that purpose, drive them
from their positions on either side of the river, and, if
deemed practicable and expedient, take and hold possession of Metamoras and other places in the country."
Thus we find the President in time of peace, and without
the knowledge or expectation of Congress, ordering the
invasion of a territory in the actual and exclusive posses



132        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
sion of Mexico, a territory'having Mexican villages under
the authority of Mexican magistrates, a port of entry,
a custom-house, and various " military establishments."
Should the Mexicans, prompted by the natural dictates
of patriotism and self-defence, assemble a body of troops
which in General Taylor's discretion might be deemed
"large," and attempt to cross the river to reinforce their
military establishments, to protect their villages, to secure
the collection of their customs, to watch the motions of the
invading army, then General Taylor is to regard their
conduct as AN INVASION OF THE UNITED STATES, and is
to begin a war of defence, although not a Mexican shot
has been fired, and is to capture the city of Metamoras,
and to carry the war into the interior of Mexico.*
So confident was Mr. Polk of the success of his plan,
that, as we have seen, the Governors of no less than five
States were ordered to supply Taylor with an unlimited
number of troops to commence the intended campaign
with eclat.
The pretended apology for this most unwarrantable assumption of power in thus plunging the country into an
unexpected, unprovoked, and unnecessary war, was that
Texas was in danger. None were more sensible than the
administration of the utter inability of Mexico to wage an
offensive war against the United States. Since the commencement of the Texan rebellion, the Mexican Government had been uttering inflated threats against its revolted
province, yet no hostile force had entered it since the di* The following from the Union of the 11th Sept., 1845, the
official paper of the Administration, shows how well the editor
understood the designs of his employers, "If Arista (the Mexican
General at Metamoras), dares to carry out his braggart threats,
if he ventures to cross the Rio Grande with reinforcements to any
little armed posts, which the Mexicans may occupy on the east
side of the river, General Taylor will attempt to prevent himblood must flow-war WILL ENSUE."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          133
sastrous conflict at San Jacinto: A vast desert extended
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande; and in the districtalong the east of that river not one Texan dwelling
was to be found. The population of the country invaded
by Taylor, was exclusively Mexican. There was no human probability that Mexico, feeble, disorganized, and
distracted as she was, would dare to invade Texas, now
protected by the whole power of the American confederacy, when nine years before a handful of adventurers
had destroyed her army, and taken captive her President.
The pretence was no less absurd than false; and, had
danger been indeed apprehended, there was no necessity
to send an army 200 miles in advance of the Texan settlements, when no hostile movements of the Mexicans indicated an intention to cross the intervening desert, and
enter Texas. The falsity of the pretence is evinced by a
remarkable confession made by the government so late as
16th Oct., 1845. The Secretary of War, writing to Taylor, says, "The information we have, renders it probable
that no serious attempts will at present be made by
Mexico to invade Texas, although she continues to
threaten incursions."*  General Taylor, instead of proceeding immediately to the Rio Grande agreeably to his
instructions, stopped at Corpus Christi at the mouth of the
Nueces, the extreme point of Texas proper, and Oct. 4th,
1845, wrote to the Secretary, "Mexico having as yet
made no positive declaration of war, or committed any
overt act of hostilities, I do not feel at liberty under my
instructions, particularly those of July 8th, to make a forward movement to the Rio Grande without authority from
the war department."  He alluded to his instructions to
take a position on the Rio Grande to repeq invasion, but
* For correspondence, &c., with Taylor, see Senate Doc.,
29th Cong., 1st Sess.
12




134       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to avoid acts of aggression unless an actual state of war
existed. As there was no invasion to repel, and as his
march into the Mexican territory in time ofpeace would
be an act of aggression, he prudently waited for further
orders.
Under these circumstances, and considering that all was
now ready for commencing hostilities, the administration
deemed it on the whole most prudent to wait the result
of the proposed negotiation to be opened at Mexico, measures for that purpose having already. been taken. If our
claims could be bartered for California, it would not be
necessary to compel Taylor to march to the Rio Grande.
We have seen that the order to Taylor to invade the territory of the Rio Grande, the requisitions upon five States
for troops, and the instructions to Taylor how and on what
pretences to commence the war, and to capture Metamoras, &c., were all previous to the appointment of Slidell;
and therefore, that the actual march to the Rio Grande
and the war that ensued, were only the resumption of a
policy that had merely been suspended to allow time to
ascertain whether California could possibly be obtained by
negotiation. The suspension, however, was brief. We
have already noticed the avowal of Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, that in case of the refusal of Mexico to receive Mr. Slidell, "nothing can remain but to take the
redress of the injuries of our citizens, and the insults to
our Government, into our own hands," in other words,
to go to war. On the 12th January, 1846, the first
dispatch was received from Slidell, from which it appeared probable that, although the Government had not
yet refused to receive him, it would enter into no negotiation with himl, except in reference to Texas. Of course
there was no hope of a cession of California; and the very
next day peremptory orders were sent to Taylor to ad



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          135
vance to the Rio Grande; an order unquestionably dictated by the avowed determination we have mentioned.
It seems, therefore, that the Government resolved ojp
war professedly for two causes; 1st, The injuries to our
citizens, all of which were estimated in dollars and cents.
To collect a few millions of alleged debts, it acknowledges
it willingness to commence the work of human slaughter,
and that, too, at the very moment when no less than six
States of the Union were indebted in the prodigious
amount of $52,000,000, of which they paid neither principal nor interest. The very idea of collecting two or three
millions of dollars by spending a hundred or more in murdering the debtors, is so utterly absurd and diabolical,
that we must be excused from believing Mr. Buchanan
when he pretends that such was the intention of the Cabinet. The second cause assigned is little less credible.
The insults to our Government which were to be revenged
by killing Mexicans, are the imputations of bad faith cast
by their rulers upon the Government at Washington for
its conduct towards Texas; imputations which, however
disagreeable, were unhappily supported by facts, and
which had already been most abundantly repaid with insult and injury. The acquisition of California, and the
extension of slavery, afforded motives for war which the
pretended causes assigned by Mr. Buchanan failed to
supply.
It was not sufficient that Taylor should march to the
Rio Grande; the Secretary tells him, "points opposite
Metamoras and Mier, and the vicinity of Laredo, are suggested for your consideration." The object was to provoke a collision, and, if possible, induce the Mexicans to
attack our forces; and hence the American standard was
to be insultingly displayed in the immediate vicinity and
in full view of these Mexican towns. It would be hard




136       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
indeed if our troops, stationed in the suburbs of these
three places, did not bring on a quarrel, and thus enable
Mr. Polk to announce to Congress that "War existed by
tile act of Mexico."
General Taylor, in pursuance of orders, commenced his
march into the Mexican territory. Not an American, not
a Texan was to be found South of Corpus Christi. After
proceeding through the desert about one hundred miles,
he met " small armed parties of Mexicans who seemed
disposed to avoid us."
On approaching Point Isabel, a Mexican settlement, and
the site of a Mexican Custom House, he found the buildings inflames. At the same time he received a protest
from the " Prefect of the Northern District of Tamaulipas'"
against his invasion of a territory "which had never belonged to the Colony seized upon" (Texas), an invasion of
which no notice had been given to the Government of
Mexico, and for which no reason had been assigned. The
protest concluded with assuring Taylor that, so long as
his army " shall remain in the terrritory of Tamaulipas,
the inhabitants must, whatever professions of peace you
may employ, regard you as openly committing hostilities,
and for the melancholy consequences of these they who
have been the invaders must be answerable in the view
of the whole world."  The inhabitants of Point Isabel
fed before the invaders, and sought refuge in Metamoras.
Taylor announced to his Government, that he considered
the conflagration of Point Isabel " as a decided evidence of
hostility." To understand the purport of this declaration
of opinion, it must be recollected that in his orders of the
13th January, 1846, he was instructed that, should Mexico assume the character of an enemy "by a declaration
of war, or any open act of hostility towards us, you will
not act merely on the defensive."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.              137
On the 28th March, Taylor, without having met with
the slightest opposition, planted his standard on the bank
of the Rio Grande. On the 6th April he wrote'home
that the guns of his battery " bear directly upon the public square of Metamoras, and within good range for demolishing the town; their object cannot be mistaken by the
enemy;" and he tells the Secretary of War, "the Mexicans still retain a hostile attitude, and have thrown up
some works to prevent us from crossing the river."*  No
declaration of war had been issued on either side, and the
* During the progress of this invasion, and while the army
was before Metamoras, various letters from the officers found
their way into the public journals. A few extracts from these
will be found instructive. "West of the Nueces the people are
all Spaniards. The country is uninhabitable excepting the
valley of the Rio Grande, and that contains a pretty dense population, and in no part of the country are the people more loyal
to the Mexican Government."
" Camp opposite Metamoras, April 19th, 1846. Our situation here
is an extraordinary one. Right in the enemy's country, and actually occupying their corn and cotton fields, the people of the
soil leaving their homes, and we with a small handful of men
marching, with colors flying, and drums beating, right under
the very guns of one of their principal cities, displaying the starspangled banner as if in defiance under their very nose, and
they with an army twice our size at least, sit quietly down, and
make not the least resistance, not the least effort to drive the
invaders off. There is no parallel to it."  Capt. Henry, the
writer of this letter, seems not to have been aware that he was
in the United States, and that the people of the soil were his fellow-citizens.
Another officer writes, 21st April, " Our flag waves over the
waters of the Rio Grande, and we have a battery of eighteenpounders that can spot anything in Metamoras." To understand this last operation, it must be recollected, that the city
was on one bank, and the American fort on the other. Captain Henry, of the U. S. Army, in his " Campaign Sketches of
the War in Mexico," says, that on the evening of the day the
army reached the river opposite to Metamoras, " I walked down
to the bank, and found it lined with citizens (on the other side),
attracted, no doubt, by the arrival of so many strangers. Stroiling along, and seeing some genteel-looking young ladies upon the
bank, I took off my hat, and saluted them with' Buena Senoritas.'
The river at this point was so narrow, that I could have thrown a
stone across it."-p. 68.
12*




138       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
Mexicans, although they saw their country invaded, and a
battery planted within good range for demolishing the
principal city in that part of their Republic, had not fired
a musket, yet General Taylor chooses to style them " the
enemy," and asserts that they retain a hostile attitude.
Five days after our arms bad thus threatened and insulted Metamoras, General Ampudia reached the city
with reinforcements, and immediately addressed a letter
to the American General, complaining that his advance to
the Rio Grande had "not only insulted but exasperated
the Mexican nation," and requiring him within twentyfour hours to remove his camp, and retire beyond the
Nueces; adding, "If you insist on remaining upon the
soil of the department of Tamaulipas, it will clearly result
that arms, and arms alone, must decide the question."
As Taylor jlad been sent to Tamaulipas expressly to produce this very result, he took occasion of this letter to
hasten the desired crisis. The Mexicans had shown a forbearance amounting almost to pusillanimity. Should this
forbearance continue, and the enemy remain on the other
side of the river, how could the war be commenced? He
must wait for some pretext for crossing the river to attack
them. The fact that the inhabitants of Point Isabel had
fired their own houses, would hardly justify him in bombarding Metamoras. He chose therefore to consider Ampudia's notice to quit as an hostile act, but not one to be
resented with powder and shot. He therefore resorted
to an expedient which would compel Ampudia to fire
the first shot, and thus, according to the wishes of the
Cabinet, to make the intended war, one of defence, "a
war by the act of Mexico."  There were two American
armed vessels at Brazos Santiago, and these he ordered to
blockade the mouth of the Rio Grande, thus cutting off all
commuication with Metamoras by sea. Soon after a ves



REVIEW OF TIIE MEXICAN WAR.          139
eel with a cargo of grain for the city, was prevented by
the squadron from entering tile river, and in consequence
of the alarm excited by the blockade, flour rose, as stated
in the papers, to forty dollars a barrel. Taylor, with a
frankness bordering on indiscretion, thus avows his reason
for ordering the blockade: "It will at any rate compel
the Mexicans to withdraw their army from Metamoras
where it cannot be sustained, or to assume the offensive on
this side of the river.'"*
Yet in this very letter he reports that since his last
of the 15th, "the relations between me and the Mexicans
have not changed," that is, the Mexicans had not commenced hostilities.  Notwithstanding the blockade, the
Mexicans did not attack Taylor; whereupon he determined, it seems, not to remain any longer idle. Accordingly, the very day on which he informs the Secretary
that the relations between himself and the Mexicans remained the same, and when not a single shot had been
fired by the latter, he reports, "with a view to check the
depredations of small parties of the enemy on this side of
the river, Lieutenants Dobbins of the 3d Infantry, and
Porter, 4th Infantry, were authorized by me a few days
since to scour the country for some miles with a select
party of men, and capture and destroy any such parties
that they might meet. It appears they separated, and
that Lieutenant Porter at the head of his own detachment
surprised a Mexican camp, drove away the men, and took
possession of their horses."  In this affair, Porter and one
man were killed-whether any, or how many Mexican
lives were sacrificed, does not appear.
Thus it seems, that notwithstanding all the contrivances of the administration to compel the Mexicans to
strike the first blowv, it was in fact given by ourselves.
* Letter to Secretary of War, April 23, 1846.




140        REVIEW OF TIHE MEXICAN WAR.
The idea of small parties committing depredations, is a
paltry apology for commencing a war. There were no
Americans, no Texans, except the American army in the
country, upon whom these small parties could commit
depredations. What were the depredations complained
of, and who were the sufferers, the General did not think
proper to specify. But, moreover, the detachments were
not authorized to arrest the depredators, but to capture
and destroy ANY small parties they might meet, guilty or
innocent. The General was instructed not to molest " the
military establishments" on this side of the river; yet he
resolves that any small parties from these establishments
who might leave their barracks, were to be captured and
destroyed. His next letter, 26th April, reports, "that a
party of dragoons sent out by me on the 24th instant to
watch the course of the river above on this bank, became
engaged with a very large force of the enemy, and, after
a short affair in which some sixteen were killed and
wounded, appear to have been surrounded and compelled
to surrender." The very peculiar phraseology used to
express this battle, "became engaged," was not perhaps
accidental. Did the party of dragoons gallantly attack
the very largeforce of the enemy, and were they in consequence of their rashness taken prisoners after losing sixteen in killed and wounded? Or did the large party
commence hostilities by attacking the dragoons?  To
these very natural inquiries no response is found in the
General's despatch.  The particulars of the case were,
however, disclosed in letters from the army, and published
in the newspapers. It appears that Thornton the commander of the party, discovering a small body of Mexicans on the summit of a rising gracnd, "immediately
charged'upon them;" but the main body who were on the
other side of the hill, and therefore unseen, coming up,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          141
captured the assailants.* Another letter, published in the
Philadelphia Inquirer, says, "Captain Thornton, when
about twenty-five miles above the army, discovered some
Mexicans on a hill, when he immediately charged upon them.
When he got to the top of the hill, he found himself in a
trap. The Mexicans were on the opposite side of the hill
in a field."t
General Taylor, after mentioning the affair in the words
we have given, announces to the Cabinet the attainment
of the long desired result. "HOSTILITIES MAY NOW BE
CONSIDERED AS COMMENCED."   Upon the strength of this
despatch, the President announced to Congress and the
world, "MEXICO IAS PASSED THE BOUNDARY OF THE
UNITED STATES, hJAS INVADED OUR TERRITORY AND SIIED
AMERICAN BLOOD UPON THE AMERICAN SOIL.     She has
proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the
two nations are now at war."  How far the unqualified
assertions contained in the first sentence of the passage
quoted, are in accordance with truth, those who have
read the preceding pages are qualified to judge for themselves. The following facts may tend to test the veracity
of the last averment.
General Arista arrived at Metamoras on the 24th April,
and finding the supplies intended for the army cut off by
the blockade of the river, the great square of the city
commanded by Taylor's cannon, American parties scouring the country, breaking up Mexican camps, and seizing
their horses, he gave notice that he considered, as well he
might, hostilities commenced, and that he should prose* Sec New Orleans Picayune, May 2d, 1846.
t Nearly a year after the commencement of the war, Thornton's official report of this affair was made public. It differs
in some particulars from the newspaper accounts, but the fact
of the charge is admitted, though under the plea of self-defence.
The charge was made before the Mexicans had fired a shot.




142        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
cute them. He thus plainly disavowed commencing the
war.   How far 4yista's declaration, that he considered
hostilities commenced by the.Americans, justifies Mr.
Polk's solemn asseveration that Mexico had "proclaimed
that hostilities had commenced, and that the two nations
are now at war," the reader will decide. Should the notice of the 24th April, fail to establish the veracity of Mr.
Polk's announcement to Congress, the friends of that gentleman call to his defence an order issued by the President of Mexico on the 18th April, more than a month
after Taylor had left Corpus Christi, and commenced his
invasion of the Mexican territory; " From this day," says
the order, "begins our defensive war, and every point of
our territory attacked or invaded shall be defended." As
the invasion continued, a proclamation was issued by the
Mexican President on the 24th April in which he says,
" The flag of the stars waves on the left bank of the Rio
Bravo del Norte, opposite to the city of Metamoras, after
taking possession of the river with their ships of war.
The town of Laredo was surprised by a party of their
troops, and a picket of ours on the watch was disarmed.
Hostilities then have been commenced by the United States
of America, in making new conquests upon our territories
within the boundaries of Tamaulipas and New I^on. I
have not the right to declare war. It is for the august
Congress of the nation, as soon as they assemble, to take
into consideration all the consequences of the conflict in
which we are involved. But if, during this interval the
United States should without notice, attack our sea coasts
on the Texan frontier, then it will become necessary to
repel force by force, and a beginning once made by the
invaders, to make fall upon them the immense responsibility of disturbing the peace of the world."
It will be observed that in no instance is the annexation




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           143
of Texas cited as an evidence of the existence of hostilities; but solely the invasion of the Rio Grande, and the
acts of General Taylor connected with the invasion.
General Taylor lost no time in prosecuting the war with
his utmost energy without waiting for further orders. On
the 17th of May, only four days after Congress had declared, "that war existed by the act of Mexico," and of
course before he had received advices that the war he had
commenced had been recognized by either government,
General Arista'sent a flag of truce to him requesting an
armistice for six weeks, giving as a reason, his wish to
communicate with his own government.     But General
Taylor was too well acquainted with the designs of his
own government to accept a proposition so much in accordance with the dictates of humanity, and which possibly might have led to the restoration of peace.  The
armistice was rejected; and the'next day he crossed the
river and took possession of the city of Metamoras.*
In the fierce strife of contending factions, the awful
guilt of commencing an offensive and unnecessary war,
will be imputed to different parties; but the punishment
due to guilt so enormous will be awarded by a tribunal
before which all hearts will be open, and from which no
secrets will be hid.
* General Taylor, informing the War Department of his rejection of this proposal, states, that he replied to Arista, " I was
receiving large reinforcements and could not now suspend operations which I had not initiated nor provoked-that the possession
of Metamoras was a sine qua non." It is to be supposed that the
General reconciled this extraordinary declaration to his conscience, on the principle of qui facit per alium, facit per se, and
that, being a mere instrument, the war was initiated and provoked, not by himself, but the President.




144        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR
CHAPTER XXI.
SEIZURE OF CALIFORNIA.
BEFORE proceeding to detail the part taken by Mr. Polk
and Congress, on the receipt of Taylor's announcement
that hostilities had commenced, we will call the attention
of the reader to the early and provident measures devised
to secure, as speedily as possible, the object of these hostilities, the ACQUISITION OF CALIFORNIA. On the 24th
June, 1845, by order of Mr. Polk, "secret and confidential" instructions were given to Commodore Sloat, commanding the United States naval forces in the Pacific. "If
you ascertain with certainty that Mexico has declared war
aogainst the United States, you will at once possess yourself of the port of Saint Francisco, and blockade and occupy such other ports as your force may permit."* This
naval force consisted of five vessels, and for months it was
kept on the California coast, ready to make the coveted
prize at a moment's warning, and without waiting for advices from home. The Commodore with his own and
another vessel were waiting at Mazatlan, at the entrance
of the Gulf of California, two more were stationed off
Monterey, and the fifth was at St. Francisco. So admirably had all been arranged for an immediate conquest. On
the 7th June, and of course within less than four weeks
after the declaration of war by Congress, the Commodore
* See documents submitted by the President, in obedience to a
call from the House of Representatives, for instructions to officers
in California and the Pacific, communicated Dec. 22d, 1846
App. to Cong. Globe; 2 Sess. 29 Cong., page 45




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          145
heard of Taylor's conflicts on the Rio Grande. The long
expected moment had arrived, and the next day he weighed
anchor and sailed for Monterey. On the 7th July, that
place was once more, without resistance, seized by our
forces, and Sloat, like his predecessor, Jones, forthwith
distributed his proclamations in English and Spanish.
Where or when they were prepared, and whether they
were in manuscript or print, does not appear. Two days
after, St. Francisco was likewise in our possession. Sloat's
proclamation reflected the determination of his employers
-"flenceforward California will be a portion of the
United States."
On landing at Monterey, the Commodore addressed a
general order to his men in which he told them, "It is
not only our duty to take California, but to preserve it
afterwards as a part of the United States, at all hazards.*
It is the duty of commanders to make conquests, but notto anticipate the terms of a treaty of peace. Yet here
we find a naval captain solemnly proclaiming that the conquest he has made is never to be restored. He foresees
and proclaims the annexation of California, without apparently knowing the wishes and intentions of his own government,.or without speculating on the fortunes of war.
On the 13th August, Pueblos des los Angelos, the capital
of the province was taken, and on the 17th August, Commodore Stockton, who had succeeded Sloat, and who
styled himself "Commander-in-Chief and Governor of
the Territory of California," announced in a proclamation,
"The flag of the United States is now flying from every
commanding position in the Territory, and California is
entirely free from Mexican dominion.  The territory of
California now belongs to the United States." On the
* For the documents here quoted, see Ex. Doc. 29 Cong, 2
Sess. House of Rep., No. 4.




146       REVIEW OF TIIE MEXICAN WAR.
28th of the same month, he wrote home, " this rich and
beautiful country belongs to the United States, and is FOR
EVER free from Mexican dominion."  All this, it must be
admitted, was quick work. On the 7th July, Monterey
was taken, and in six weeks the object of the war was
accomplished, "( the rich and beautiful country belonged
to the United States." Not a life appears to have been
lost in the conquest. The Mexican government had made
no declaration of war, and its whole attention was engrossed by the defence of its territory on the Rio Grande.
The inhabitants of California were utterly unprepared for
war, and were as ignorant as Commodore Sloat himself of
the action of Congress.
The rapidity with which the conquest of California was
effected!, was not however, entirely owing to the adroit
measure of stationing armed vessels on different points of
the coast, ready to make their descent the moment Taylkr
had succeeded in provoking hostilities on the Rio Grande.
It will be recollected that the Mexican Government had
been alarmed some years before at the ingress of Americans into that province, and had passed an order requiring
their departure. Nor will it be forgotten that, intimidated
by the bullying demeanor of Mr. Thompson, and his
threat to demand his passports, the order had been
revoked. The reader will call to mind that gentleman's
confession of his " compunctious visitings" on the occasion, well-knowing that these foreigners were intending to
re-enact the Texan game.  The alarm of Mexico was
well founded. The conquest of the province was prepared
and facilitated by the treasonable course of the American
settlers previous to their knowledge of the existence of
the war. The history of the rebellion in California is but
imperfectly known. The only information respecting it,
disclosed by the Cabinet at Washington, is contained in




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          147
the report of the Secretary of War, made 5th December,
1846, and from this document we gather the following
narrative. In May, 1845, shortly before " the secret and
confidential" instructions were given to Commodore Sloat,
Captain Fremont, of the United States Army, was despatched by Government on a tour of scientific exploration beyond the Rocky Mountains. He had sixty-two
men under him; but the Secretary declares that the
expedition was not of a military character, and that the
attendants did not belong to the army. On reaching the
frontier of CalifQrnia, the Captain proceeded alone to
Monterey to solicit permission from the Commandant,
General Castro, for himself and party, to pass through'a
portion of the province.  The desired permission was
granted, but after the party had entered California, Fremont received information from Americans, that Castro
was preparing to attack him with " a comparatively large
force of artillery, cavalry and infantry, upon the' pretext
that, under the cover of a scientific mission, he was exciting the American settlers to revolt." This was indeed marvellous intelligence, and most marvellous means did the
scientific Captain take to remove the groundless suspicions
of the Californian General. Instead of.making his way
out of the province as fast as he could, and proceeding
upon the business entrusted to him by his Government,
"he took a position on a mountain overlooking Monterey
at a distance of about thirty miles, entrenched it, raised
the flag of the United States, and with his own men
sixty-two in number, awaited the approach of the Commandant-General." But the Captain, however valiant, did
not depend solely on his sixty-two men to resist the artillery, cavalry, and infantry of Castro; for the Secretary
tells us, " the American settlers were ready to join him at
all hazards, if he had been attacked;" and hence we




148        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
discover h  -F-ntive for taking a military position at a convenient distance from Monterey.  This was in March,
1846. After waiting some time for the anticipated attack,
but nothing occurring to furnish a pretext for commencing hostilities, he proceeded, without the slightest molestation from the Government, on his route to Oregon.
In Oregon, he was annoyed by hostile Indians, who, as
the Secretary informs us, but without condescending to
furnish a particle of proof, " had been excited against him
by General Castro."  Again the Captain received alarming intelligence, but from what source does not appear,
"that General Castro, in addition to his Indian allies, was
advancing against him with artillery and cavalry at the
head of four or five hundred men!"  He also heard
that " the American settlers in the valley of Sacramento were comprehended in the scheme of destruction,
meditated against his own party."-" Under these circumstances (continues the Secretary), he determined to
turn upon his Mexican pursuers, and seek safety both for
his own party and the American settlers, not merely in
the defeat of Castro, BUT IN THE TOTAL OVERTHROW OF
THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA, AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT IN THAT
EXTENSIVE DEPARTMENT."
Here let us pause a moment, to reflect on the utter
atrocity and profligacy of a design which the Secretary
of War ostentatiously parades before the world.'Admitting the truth of the ridiculous rumors said to have
reached Fremont, it is very evident, that he was perfectly
confident that the combined strength of his own party
and that of the American settlers, was abundantly sufficient for their own protection, since he relied on it to
overturn the Mexican authority and to establish an independent Government. He, a commissioned officer of the




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         149
United States, without any known authority from his own
Government abandons the object of his mission, and
returns from  Oregon into California, for the express
purpose of organizing a rebellion and wresting from
Mexico with whom   we were at peace, an "extensive
department." It is certainly a remarkable coincidence,
that while we had a squadron off the ports of California
with orders to seize them at a moment's warning, Captain
Fremont was opportunely exciting rebellion and a civil
war in the interior. The Secretary himself foolishly puts
the stamp of iniquity upon this adventure by declaring,
" it was on the 6th of June, and before the commencement
of the war between the United States and Mexico could
have been knbwn, that this resolution was taken, and by
the 5th July it was carried into effect by a series of rapid
attacks by a small body of adventurous men under the
conduct of an intrepid leader."  We are told that on the
11th June, a convoy of two hundred horses for Castro's
camp with an officer and fourteen' men, were surprised
and captured by twelve of Fremont's party. On the 15th,
the military post of Sanoma was also surprised and
taken, with nine brass cannon, two hundred and fifty
stand of muskets, and several officers and some men,
with munitions of war. "Leaving a small garrison in
Sanoma, Colonel Fremont went to the Sacramento to
rouse the American settlers; but, scarcely had he arrived
when an express reached him that Castro's whole force
was crossing the bay to attack that place. On the morning of the 25th, he arrived with ninety riflemen from the
American settlers in that valley. The enemy had not yet
-appeared —scouts were sent out to reconnoitre, and a
party of twenty fell in with a squadron of seventy dragoons, attacked and defeated it. The country north of
the Bay of San Francisco being cleared of the enemy,
13*




150        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
Colonel Fremont returned to Sanoma on the evening of
the 4th July, and on the morning of the 5th called the
people together, explained to them the condition of
things in the province, and recommended an immediate
declaration of independence. The declaration was made,
and he was selected to take the'chief direction of affairs."
The new-born Republic of California existed but for the
brief period of four days, being then strangled by its
parent, on receiving, as the Secretary tells us, "the
gratifying intelligence " of the war with Mexico. Fremont
and his followers, together with the American settlers,
immediately co-operated with the naval forces, and, on the
departure of Commodore Stockton, the captain of the
scientific exploring party beyond the Rocky Mountains,
became Governor of the AMERICAN TERRITORY OF CALIFORNIA.
Such is the account the American Government thought
proper to give of the Californian rebellion, throwing the
whole responsibility of this atrocious affair on Fremont.
Fortunately for the character of that officer, transactions
which the Secretary did not deem it expedient to report
have since come to light.  On his return to the United
States, Colonel Fremont presented certain pecuniary
claims growing out of the conquest of California.  The
subject was investigated by a committee of the Senate,
and their report dissipates much of the mystery which
had hitherto rested on Fremont's extraordinary conduct.*
It seems that, on the 3rd Nov., 1845, after Taylor had
been ordered to the Rio Grande, and while he was waiting with the army at Corpus Christi, five States having
been required to furnish him with whatever troops he
might need, a messenger was despatched by the Cabinet
to Fremont. This messenger was Lieutenant Gillespie of
* See Report, Senate Doc, No. 75. 30th Cong., Lst Sess.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          151
the navy. He was sent to Vera Cruz, and thence travelled through Mexico to Mazatlan, in California, in the disguise of a merchant. After an interview with Commodore
Sloat at Mazatlan, he proceeded to Monterey, having
been intrusted at Washington with a letter of instructions
to the American Consul. The contents of this letter have
been withheld from the public, and no doubt for sufficient
cause, since we find from Gillespie's own confession that,
before landing in Mexico, he destroyed the letter, having
first committed it to memory.  This letter to the Consul
he was instructed to communicate to Fremont also.
Hence we find that Gillespie was charged with instructions of such a character, that he deemed it imprudent to
carry the paper about his person, and that these instructions, although addressed to the Consul in Monterey, were
equally intended for Fremont. After reciting to the Consul the commands from Washington, the agent penetrated
into Oregon in pursuit of Fremont, and found him a little
beyond the California frontier. He delivered to him a
note from the Secretary of State, composed in perfect
keeping with the fictitious character assumed by the
bearer. It consisted of a few lines, addressed to J. C.
Fremont, Esquire, and telling him that Mr. Archibald H.
Gillespie, about visiting the North-west coast of America
on business, had requested a letter of introduction to him;
a request with which the Secretary complies, because the
bearer was a gentleman of worth and respectability, and
worthy of Mr. Fremont's regard. This, it must be confessed, was a novel mode of introducing an officer of the
navy to another of the army. But as one party was for
the time being a travelling merchant, and the other a
man-of science, it was proper the introduction should be
adapted to the parts they were playing. Of course, the
note was to accredit Gillespie as a confidential agent of




152       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
the Government, and to intimate to Fremont that he was
to obey the instructions orally communicated to him.
Gillespie, in his examination before the Committee, remarked, "I was directed by Mr. Buchanan to confer
with Colonel Fremont, and make known my instructions,
which, as I have previously stated, were to watch over
the interests of the United States, and counteract the influence of any foreign agents who might be in the coun 
try with objects prejudicial to the United States.  I was
also directed to show Colonel Fremont the duplicate of
the despatch to Mr. Larkin, Consul at Monterey, and telling him it was the wish of the Government to conciliate
the feelings of the people of California, and encourage a
friendship towards the United States."
The Government, of course, knew as well as Mr.
Thompson that the Californian settlers were anxious to
re-enact the Texan game.  It is not to be supposed that
so much secrecy and pains were taken to have agents on
the spot to watch over our interests, and encourage friendship towards us, without intimating the means to be used
in effecting their object.  An independent republic in
California, composed of American citizens, would, should
peace continue with Mexico, inevitably result in annexation: should war ensue, it would greatly facilitate the
conquest of the territory.
The messenger from Washington reached Fremont on
the 9th May. Immediately all his scientific pursuits were
abandoned, and he and his party, together with Gillespie.
hastened to'he American settlements in California.
These were reached. on the Sacramento River in thirteen
days. And now opened another scene in the plot. The
gentleman "about visiting the North-west coast of America on business" proceeded down the river to Saint
Francisco, off which port a United Stato.-' ship-of-war




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          153
was lying, ready to seize upon the place at a moment's
warning. The American commander, Gillespie tells us,
"with great kindness, promptness, and energy, furnished
me with all the supplies he could spare from his vessel,
as also having supplied Captain Fremont with a small
sum of money." What these supplies were we are not
told, but may readily imagine, especially as they were
sent in the ship's barge, under the command of a lieutenant. Gillespie accompanied the supplies up the river,
and on the 13th rejoined Fremont.  He found that the
insurrection had already commenced, the settlers rising,
as he says, "to save themselves and their crops from destruction."
On the 16th, Captain Merritt, one of the settlers, "arrived with a small escort, bringing with him General Vallejo, Colonel Salvador Vallejo, and Colonel Prudon, prisoners; a party of forty of the settlers having surprised
and taken Sonoma, the first military garrison in that part
of the country."  Thus we see a war against the Californians was commenced after the arrrival of Fremont, and
without one single act of hostility having been committed
against them. Of course, we have assertions in abundance
of the intentions of General Castro, the commanding officer, while the result proved his utter inability even to
defend himself. Fremont and his party zealously cooperated in the war, and were presently masters of that part
of the country. The force at his disposal was a battalion
of 224 men, and on the 5th July he raised the standard
of the REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA.
On a calm review of the facts before us, it is impossible
to resist the conviction, that Fremont was given to understand, but in a way not to compromit the Government,
that the abandonment of his exploration in Oregon for the
purpose of exciting and aiding an insurrection in California,




154        REVIlW OF TIIE MEXICAN WAR.
would not expose him to censure. On no-other supposition would it be possible for him to escape the personal
application of the principle laid down by General Jackson,
that " any individual of any natibn making war against the
citizens of another nation, they being at peace, forfeits his
allegiance, and becomes an outlaw and a pirate." If he
acted, as there is little reason to doubt, as the agent of the
President, and in accordance with his wishes, upon that
officer rests the perfidy and turpitude of secretly instigating this rebellion and civil war, while professing friendly
intentions towards Mexico, and soliciting a renewal of
diplomatic intercourse with her. Had Mexico paid all our
claims to the last cent, had she yielded the Valley of the
Rio Grande without a murmur, and had there consequently been no war, still, Fremont's "Republic of California," like Houston's " Republic of Texas," would have
become ours by "joint resolutions" of annexation, and
Mr. Polk, or some other President in his words would
have congratulated Congress that " This accession to our
territory," like that of Texas, " has been a bloodless achievement. No armed force has been raised to produce the
result.  The sword has had no part in the victory."
It is curious to observe with what wonderful clairvoyance the naval officers in California understood and executed their instructions, long before they were received.
It appears officially* that the despatch of the 13lt May,
1846, announcing the declaration of war, did not reach
the Squadron till about the 28th of August; and of course
up to that time these officers had been acting on their own
discretion. Let us now see what instructions were sent to
them after the war, and how exactly they had been anticipated before their receipt.
* Report of Secretary of Navy, 19th Dec., 1846 Appendix to
Cong. Globe for 29th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 46.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.              155
On the 15th May, two days after war was declared,
Commodore Sloat was directed to " consider the most important object to be, to take and hold possession of San
Francisco."  On the 19th July, San Francisco was taken,
and the inhabitants were informed by proclamation, that
"henceforth California will be a portion of the United
States."
The next despatch, June 8th, instructs Sloat to " take
such measures as will best promote the attachment of
the people of California to the United States."   Sloat,
in his proclamation, dated 7th July, assures the Californians that "peaceable inhabitants will enjoy the same
rights and privileges as the citizens of any other portion of that territory (the United States), with all the
rights and privileges they now enjoy, together with the
privileges of choosing their own magistrates and other
officers for the administration of justice among themselves,
and the same protection will be extended to them  as to
any other State in the Union."   Thus the proclamation
had already annexed them to the United States.
On the 12th July, Sloat is told, "The object of the
United States is, under its rights as a belligerent nation, to
possess itself entirely of Upper California," and if,* at the
*That this hypothetical statement was mere affectation, is evident
from the indiscreet disclosures of the intentions of Mr. Polk,
contained in the instructions to Stockton, of 11th January,
1847: " At present it is needless, and might be injurious to the
public interests, to ngitate the question in California, how long
those persons who have been elected for a prescribed time, will
haveofficial authority. If our right of possession shall become
absolute, such an inquiry is needless. And if by treaty or
otherwise, we lose the possession, those who follow us will govern
the country. The President, however, anticipates no such result. On the contrary, he foresees no contingency in which
the United States will ever surrender or relinquish the possession of
Calofornia."  Of course Mr. Polk had thus early, and without
consulting the Senate, determined at all hazards to make the
cession of California the sine qua non of a treaty of peace.




156        REVIEW 0F THE MEXICAN WAIt.
conclusion of peace, "the basis of the uti possidetis shall
be established, the Government expects through your
forces to be found in actual possession of Upper California. This will bring with it the necessity of a civil administration-Such a Government should be established
under your protection." Sloat had retired on account of
ill health, and been succeeded by Commodore Stockton
who, long before the receipt of this despatch, issued a
proclamation making " Known to all men," that the territory known as Upper and Lower California, is a territory
of the United States, under the name of the territory of
California. " I do, by these presents," continues the proclamation, " further order and decree, that the Government of the said territory of California shall be, until
altered by the proper authority of the United States, constituted in manner and form as follows;" and then follows
a form of Government consisting of a Governor, Secretary, Legislative Council, &c.
On the 17th August, Commodore Shubrick was sent to
relieve Sloat, from whom not a word had yet been received. He was ordered to take immediate possession of
Upper California, especially of the three ports of San
Francisco, Monterey, and San Diego, if not already captured,-and also, " to take possession, by an inland expedition, of Pueblos de los Angelos." All four places were
captured before a line was received from Washington, and
Pueblos de los Angelos was taken by an inland expedition four days before the date of the instructions. Shubrick was farther directed that "all United States vessels
and merchandize must be allowed by the local authorities
of the ports of which you take possession, to come and go
free of duty; but on foreign vessels and goods reasonable
duties may be imposed."  But CornmodQre Stockton had
already anticipated this instruction two days before it was




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          157
written. On the 15th August, he had imposed a duty
of fifteen per cent. ad valorem on all goods imported from
foreign ports, and a tonnage duty on foreign vessels of
fifty cents per ton, but no duties were imposed on American vessels and merchandize.
On finding these various instructions so exactly anticipated, so minutely fulfilled by officers who had not received one line of intelligence from their government subsequent to the commencement of the war, it is impossible
to resist the conviction, that the seizure of California had
long before been deliberately planned, and that the intentions and wishes of the Government had been fully made
known to the officers, the plan of proceeding agreed on,
and the squadron stationed off the Californian ports, awaiting news from the Rio Grande as a signal for instantly
seizing and securing the prize for which the war was to be
commenced on the Rio Grande.
14




158       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER XXII.
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST MEXICO.
THE receipt of Taylor's letter of the 26th April, relating
to the capture of Thornton's party which had, as we have
seen, " become engaged " with the Mexicans by attacking
them, gave the administration its first intelligence that the
march to the Rio Grande had led to its intended result.
The letter reached Washington on Saturday the 9th May.
Its contents were speedily made known, and on Sunday
evening a meeting of members of Congress, partisans of
the President, was held, and WAR was decided on.*  On.Monday morning, the President sent a war message to
Congress, which from its lengtht must either have been
written on the day devoted by the Creator to holy rest,
or else prepared some time before in anticipation of the
success of Taylor's mission. In this message, after adverting in the usual style to the grievous wrongs perpetrated by Mexico upon our citizens throughout a long period of years, he closed the mournful catalogue by announcing to the representatives of the nation, "MEXICO
HAS PASSED THE BOUNDARY OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS
INVADED OUR TERRITORY, AND SHED AMERICAN BLOOD UPON
THE AMERICAN SOIL. SHE HAS PROCLAIMED THAT HOSTILITIES HAVE COMMENCED, AND THAT TIIE TWO NATIONS
* Speech of C. J. Ingersoll. App. to Cong. Globe, 29th Cong.,
2 Sess., p. 125.
t Occupying six pages in print.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          159
ARE AT WAR."   "I invoke," said Mr. Polk, "the prompt
action of Congress to recognize the existence of the war,
and to place at the disposition of the Executive the means
of prosecuting the war with vigor, and thus hastening the
restoration of peace (/)"  Thus emulous was this gentleman of the blessing promised to the peace-maker.
Let us now see how this invocation to make peace by
commencing with vigor the work of human slaughter, was
received by the American Congress. This body was the
grand inquest of the nation. The President appeared before them as a prosecuting officer, accusing the Government of Mexico of high crimes and misdemeanors, and
demanding from his auditors a judgment which would be
equivalent to a sentence of death against thousands and
tens of thousands of human beings, including multitudes
of their own countrymen. We might suppose that Congress, impressed with the awful responsibility thus imposed upon them, would apply themselves with calm,
patient, and prayerful consideration to the duty before
them; that they would rigidly scrutinize the evidence
submitted to them, and most earnestly seek for expedients to rescue their own and a neighboring country from
the tremendous calamities impending over them. They
were informed by the President, that a party of Americans and Mexicans had " become engaged," and sixteen of
the former had been killed and wounded. Thus a collision had occurred. But such a collision does not amount
to war. A British frigate had some years since assaulted
an American national ship, killed a portion of her crew,
and forcibly impressed another portion. No war ensued;
buto explanations were given, and redress made.  Still
later an American steamboat was seized in our own waters
by a British force, and destroyed, and one of the crew




160        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
killed. Still no war ensued. An examination of the testimony submitted by Mr. Polk might possibly show, that
the recent collision was accidental, or provoked on our
part, or unauthorized by Mexico.  Explanations, if demanded, might lead to a pacific result, and the effusion
of blood be prevented. Of all crimes, the commencement of an unnecessary war is the most atrocious, the
most deserving the wrath of God, and the execration of
mankind.
Melancholy and humiliating is the fact, that the American
Congress passed a decree which they knew would occasion wide-spread wailing and lamentation, and woe and
death, with a recklessness, a precipitation, and a disregard
of evidence, which no court of judicature in our land
would dare to manifest in consigning to the penitentiary a
manl charged with petit larceny. Shocking as is such an
assertion, its truth is still more so. The Message of the
President was accompanied with manuscript copies of the
conrespondence between the Government and Mr. Slidell
and General Taylor; and this correspondence contained
the evidence on which he rested his momentous charges
against Mexico; the testimony on which alone Congress
could pronounce on the truth or falsehood of the charges.
We will let one of the members relate the proceedings of
the House of Representatives on Monday the 11th May,
1846, on the receipt of the message. "It was proposed
by a whig member (Mr. Winthrop), that the documents
accompanying the Message be read. By a strict party
vote this MOTION WAS REJECTED. The House went im,
mediately into a committee of the whole. The Committee rose in a very short time, and reported a bill acoording to the President's wishes.  The previous question
(preventing all debate), was called and carried, and the




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           161
House brought to a vote, without one word of explanation, proof, or argument on the amendment which asserts
the existence of war by the'act of Mexico.' On this
question the vote stood-ayes 123, to 67 noes.   The
amendments having been gone through, and the bill engrossed, the question came, on its final passage. Again
the previous question was moved and seconded; and,
after some ineffectual efforts on the part of various members to enter their protest against this very preamble, the
vote was forced under the gag, and the bill carried by
ayes 174, nays 14. The whole proceeding from beginning to end occupied but a small portion of a single day.
The previous question was applied at every step and all
debate, explanation, and every attempt to get information, was put down by party votes of the dominant
party."* In the Senate, the Message was referred to a
Committee, which the next day, instead of reportingfacts,
contented themselves with reporting the bill from the
House, and this was passed by a vote of 50 to 2. "t We
had not," said Mr. Calhoun, alluding to this precipitate
action, "a.particle of evidence that the Republic of Mexico
had made war against the United States."f This bill
declaring that war exists by the act of Mexico, placed
the army and navy at the disposal of the President, provided for the employment of fifty thousand volunteers,
and-appropriated ten millions of dollars for the prosecution of the war. Thus was a system of human butchery
commenced without argument, without examination, with* Speech of Mr. Pendleton of Virginia, 22d Feb. 1847. See
App. to Cong. Globe, 29th Cong., 2 Sess., p 112.
t See speech, 24th Feb., 1847. Cong. Globe, 27th Feb. 1847.
The preamble of an act of the Mexican Congress raising supplies, thus repudiates the idea that the war was commenced
by the Republic: " The Mexican nation finds itsdf in a state of
war with the United States of America."
14*




162        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
out listening to one word of the evidence offered, and
without even the pretence of a desire to avoid or delay
the awful calamity.
Whatever opinion may be entertained of the lawfulness
of defensive war, the moral sense of mankind, irrespective of religious creeds, condemns as most iniquitous an
offensive and aggressive one. Such a war differs from
murder and robbery only in the stupendous enormity and
extent of the crime.. The vast military power and
resources confided to the President, were to be employed
not in enforcing rights, not in obtaining redress for injuries. Congress disclaimed, by their acts and the preamble
of their bill, all idea of commencing hostilities. A motion
to declare war was rejected by an overwhelming majority,
It was deemed expedient to declare, that it already existed
by the act of Mexico, thus representing to the nation and
the world, that the war was on our side purely a defensive one, undertaken to repel an invading enemy.
And what was the power that had dared to invade the
United States, and by its assault had thrown this great
confederacy into such imminent danger, that Congress
found it necessary to provide fifty thousand troops in
addition to the regular army, in such haste as not to
allow them time eren to read the despatch announcing the
invasion?
The Republic of Mexico had long been the prey of
military chieftains, who, in their struggles for power and
the perpetual revolutions they had excited, had exhausted
the resources of the country. Without money, without
credit, without a single frigate, without commerce, without union, and with a feeble population of seven or eight
millions, composed chiefly of Indians and mixed breeds,
scattered over immense regions, and for the most part
sunk in ignorance' and sloth, Mexico was certainly not




REVIEWV OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          163
a very formidable enemy to the United States.* It was
impossible for any Mexican force to reach us by sea; and
to reach us by land, her armies would have been obliged
to cross an uninhabited desert nearly two hundred miles
in breadth, before they arrived at the Nueces, the boundary of Texas. The people of that revolted province had
for years maintained their independence in spite of
Mexico, and no doubt can be entertained that their militia were amply able to drive back any army Mexico might
send into her territory. There was not a female in our
country whose slumbers were broken, through apprehension of the pretended invasion of the United States. Not
a Mexican soldier had trod on soil owned by an American
citizen —not a shot had been fired within a hundred miles
of an American dwelling.
The apparent panic, therefore, under which Congress
voted fifty thousand additional troops for defence, was not
real but feigned. The war, as we have seen, was not
commenced to recover the amount of our claims, and
procure redress of grievances, but avowedly for defence;
a motive so palpably false and absurd, that, although
officially professed by the President, and in the preamble
of the Act of Congress, but one single member of
Congress, it is believed, had the hardihood to urge
it in justification of his vote.  The true object of the war
* The following particulars are gathered from the work on
Mexico, by Brantz Mayer:
Population.
Indians,  -    -   -   -       4,000,000
Whites,  -   -     -            1,000,000
Negroes,   -   -   -   -    -      6,000
All other casts, -   -    -     2,009,509
-,015,509
Exports from Mexico in 1842, exclusive of
Gold and Silver, - --              $1,500,000
National debt,  -       -              85,000,000
— " Mexico as it was, and as it is."




164        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
was thus frankly stated by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, as Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, in a report
he presented February, 1847:  "Complaints of the resort
to territorial conquests from Mexico are disarmed of
reproach by the undeniable facts, that Mexico, by war,
constrains t.e United States to take by conquest what,
ever since the Mexican independence, every American
administration has been striving to get by purchase; and
that the executive orders, and military, and naval execution of them for the achievement of conquest, have conformed not merely to the long established policy of our
Government but wise principles of self-preservation indispensable to all provident Government."   This official
language of the report was but a repetition of sentiments
advanced by the chairman, in a speech in the House, 19th
January, 1847:  "War as often waged," said Mr. Ingersoll, " is a theme of copious lamentation; and so it should
be. But what the old women of both sexes are given to
deplore as the calamities of war, where have they been
yet felt in these hostilities with Mexico? Never was the
country more prosperous, or so powerful as at present. I
mean to show unanswerably that all parties in the United
States, all administrations of this Government since
Mexico ceased to be a Spanish Province, have united in
the policy of getting from her by fair means precisely
those territories which, and only which, she has now constrained us to take by force, though even yet we are disposed to pay for them, not by blood merely, but by
money too."*  In other words, if Mexico will yet consent
to sell us these coveted territories-at our own price, we
will cease to murder her citizens in order to acquire them.
This avowal explained the extreme and apparently ludicrous solicitude expressed by Mr. Polk for peace. The
* App. to Cong. Globe, 1847, p. 125.




REVIEW OF TIE MEXICAN WAR.          165
war being waged solely for territory, the more vigorously
it was prosecuted, the sooner would Mexico be compelled
to purchase peace by making the desired cession. The
dismemberment of another, not the defence of its own
country, was the object of the American Government.
Why such dismemberment was desired, will be seen
in the sequel.
The object we have assigned for the war, does not
explain why of two hundred and forty members of Congress, only sixteen were found who voted against a bill
containing in its preamble an assertion unsupported by
proof, and appropriating great supplies for defence when
no danger threatened.
Few, if any, of the Northern members had a direct
interest in the conquest of California; but all were interested in the ascendency of one or the other of the two
great political parties. Mr. Polk and his Cabinet were
the leaders and representatives of the democratic party,
and the dispensers of the vast patronage wielded by the
Federal Government. To vote against the war would
have been, in the democratic members, an act of rebellion
against their own party, and an exclusion' of themselves
for the future from all participation in the favors of the
administration.  It would, moreover, alienate the Southern Democrats from their Northern brethren, and by the
division thus occasioned would most probably, at the next
elections, transfer the political power of the nation, with
all its emoluments, into the hands of the rival party.
Not a solitary democratic vote in either House was given
against the war.
The Whig party was placed under very different circumstances. They were in the minority, and were striving to gain the seats occupied by the present incumbents.
Hence it was their policy to cast the utmost odium upon




166        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
the administration, and to represent its measures as unwise and dishonest, and injurious alike to the interests
and the morals of the country. Hence no denunciations
of the course by which the administration had involved
the nation in the calamaties of war, were too violent or
too unmeasured. The conduct of Mr. Polk, in particular,
was all that was false, base, and wicked. The war was
the President's war; and the assertion, that it was the act
of Mexico, a palpable falsehood. But the multitude are
ever fascinated with military glory, and ever ready to
enjoy the spoils of war. It was, therefore, deemed most
politic to make a distinction between the war and its authors.  The latter were, if possible, to be hurled from
office for commencing an iniquitous war; but the patliotism of the Whig party was to be manifested in their
vigorous prosecution of this same iniquitous war, for the
glory of the nation. Had the Whigs voted against supplies after they were told that war existed, they might
have been charged at the polls with dereliction to the
cause of their country. It was, therefore, deemed more expedient to concur in sending fifty thousand men to rob
Mexico, and murder her citizens, than to hazard the loss
of votes at the approaching elections. The excuse generally made by the Whigs for supporting the war bill was,
that General Taylor and his army were in danger of being
destroyed or captured by the Mexicans.   The excuse
was not only false, but it was palpably ridiculous. The
very despatch in which Taylor announced that hostilities had commenced, demonstrated his entire security.
After stating the calls he had made on the governors of
Texas and Louisiana for troops, he adds, " This will constitute an auxiliary force of nearly five thousand men,
which will be necessary to prosecute the war with energy,
and carry it, as it should be, into the enemy's counrtry."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          167
So that, at the very moment he wrote, instead of being in
danger of captivity, he was making preparations for advancing into Mexico, and for this purpose, he deemed onetenth of the force so liberally allowed him by the Whigs,
amply sufficient.  Seven days after the fifty thousand
men had been voted, Taylor, without even waiting for the
five thousand for which he had called, entered the city of
Metamoras, the Mexican army flying before him.
But had Taylor indeed been in danger, the Whigs well
knew that his fate would be decided long before a corporal's guard raised under the act could possibly reach him.
They were, moreover, told by the President himself, in
his Message, that Taylor was authorized to call for and
accept volunteers from no less than six of the nearest
States. The Administration. foreseeing and intending the
war, had already, without any authority from Congress,
most amply provided for Taylor's security. Well was it
said on the floor of Congress, in reply to this pitiful apology, "Compare the provisions of the bill with the object
avowed of affording relief to General Taylor and his
army; and what a picture does it present?  The bill
provides that the militia, army, and navy of the United
States, together with fifty thousand volunteers, shall be
placed at the disposal of the President for the purpose of
prosecuting the war to a speedy and successful termination.
Thus upon the face of the bill is its object clearly, distinctly, and explicitly set forth and declared." The assertion, therefore, made by the Whigs, that their vote was
given for the protection of General Taylor, is of a similar
character with that which they so bitterly denounced in
the preamble of the bill, that war existed by the act of
Mexico. Their apology for voting for this assertion, which
they acknowledged to be a falsehood, was, that they had
first voted against it. However consistent such an apology




168        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN VAR.
may be with the morals of politics, it will certainly not be
deemed satisfactory by those who regard the Scriptures as
the standard of ethics. The vote of the Whig members
was probably the most extraordinary and humiliaJng exhibition of moral cowardice ever witnessed in the national
Legislature; nor did it escape exposure and castigation.
Sarcasms and reproaches, which it was impossible to elude
or to answer, were showered upon the Whim members
without stint by their opponents.  Tie following is a
sample of the rebukes they received: Mr. Brockenborough of Florida thus exposed the false and unhappy
position in which the Whigs had placed themselves by
their unscrupulous calculations of expediency —"The
very term'unjust war' involves rapine and bloodshed,
robbery and murder. Every step is infamous, a crime for
which the country should shroud itself in mourning. But
you rejoice and glory in it. You send forth the poor
soldier, for whom you affect such sympathy,-and tell him
to slay-but it is murder: to fall fighting valiantly-but
it is a felon's death. You bid the American mother send
forth her child at her country's call, to stain himself with
crime-to return a robber, red and reeking with innocent
blood. You call your soldiers heroes, and write on their
monuments'rapine, murder.'   You vote swords and
thanks, and medals and land, and money and pensions,
for what you say is crime; and crime so black that individuals committing it, without your sanction, receive only
ignominy, a prison, or a halter.
{We (democrats) believe, before God and the world,
that the war is just on our part. If we err, we err after
full deliberation and argument, with the best judgment
Heaven has vouchsafed to us, in the belief that we are
discharging a patriotic duty redounding to the honor and
character of our country. If there is any infamy-any




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         169
crime, it is not ours. Gentlemen claim it all. We have
no intention of wickedness. We act throughout as we
profess. But you declare war and denounce it-as infamous,
but vote all supplies, and urge its vigorous prosecution.
You preach that it is murder, and boast how many Whigs
there are in it-how many friends, how many constituents
you have in it, who volunteered to go.
"You charge that it is a crime, and complain that
more Democrats than Whigs have been appointed to
carry on the villainy, and speak of the chief man in the
gang (General Taylor) for the Presidency. You vote
monuments to the dead-trophies, thanks, emoluments,
bounties -to the living-to entice people to imbrue their
hands in blood-in infamy.
" If this war is unjust, gentlemen are not absolved by
the cry of' Mr. Polk's war.' They voted for it. Declamation against Mr. Polk will not screen them from their own
denunciations of the horror, the sin, and crime, and murder, of unjust war.  If crime and infamy, the record
bears conviction of the actors upon its face, and there it
will stand, indelible and imperishable, as the Republic itself
It will adhere, like the shirt of Nessus, to its authors,
Like the garment.Media wove for Jason, it will cleave and
burn into the flesh until they perish.  Enhancing the
crime, they only invoke more fearful Punishment upon
themselves."
Rarely, indeed, has any deliberative body listened to
sarcasm so withering, or invective so powerful and so just,
Still the leaders of the Whig party in Congress clung
with fearless tenacity to a policy which, although immoral,
they believed to be advantageous. They continued through
the whole existence of the war to denounce it as unjust,
wicked, and unconstitutional, but nevertheless evinced
their patriotism, by voting the supplies required by the
15




-170       REVIEW OF THE!'MEXICAN WAR.
President for ensuring a criminal triumph. It is, however, due to the party at large to acknowledge, that its
submission, especially at the North, to this policy of its
leaders, was partial and reluctant. The American Review,
a very able journal devoted to the interests of the party,
thus honorably confessed and condemned the motives
which actuated the Whig members of Congress who voted
for the war; " The vote for fifty thousand volunteers and
ten millions of dollars was all but unanimous. The resolution asking for these means were preceded by a lying
preamble, which imputed the war to the act of Mexico.
The resolution, preamble and all, was eagerly swallowed.
So much more solicitous seemed even the VWhigs about
personal popularity, which might be jeoparded by what
would be represented as an abandonment of the cause of
a gallant but beleaguered army, in refusing or delaying to
vote for this bill, than for the cause of TRUTH and RIG.HT.
The Whig Legislature of Massachusetts emphatically
rebuked the course pursued by some of the Whig representatives from that State in Congress, by adopting a
resolution declaring: " That such a war of conquest, so
hateful in its objects, so wanton, unjust, and unconstitutional in its origin and character, must be regarded as a
war against freedom, against hutnanity, against justice,
against the Union, and against the free States; and that
a regard for the true interesfs and highest honor of the
country, not less than the impulses of Christian duty,
should arouse all good citizens to join in efforts to arrest
this war, and in every just way aiding the country to
retire from the position of aggression which it now occupies towards a weak, distracted neighbor and sister Republic."
That only sixteen members out of two hundred and
forty should have voted against the war, while a very




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            171
large minority admitted its injustice, and the falsehood of
the assertion that it had been commenced by Mexico, is a
melancholy proof that moral courage and independence
were not characteristics of the American Congress of
1846. And yet these qualities invariably attract confidence, esteem, and influence, even from those against whom
they are exercised.  " I admire," said one of the leaders
of the war party, "I admire the sincerity, I reverence
the consistency of the immortal. FOURTEEN (in the House
of Representatives) who voted against the declaration of
war.   Their judgment was convinced that the war was
wrong, and they voted as their judgment dictated. They
violated the laws neither of God nor of man.  But he
who denounces the war as unjust, and yet votes for it,
violates God's holy law and every principle of ethics."
Let the names of these honest, consistent men, who feared
God more than man, and looked rather to the Day of
Judgment than to the day of election, be borne upon the
affectionate remembrance of the Christian community.
They were:
SENATE.*:
Thomas Clayton,.          Delaware.
John Davis...... Massachusetts.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
John Quincy Adams,...
George Ashmun,..
Joseph Grinnell,.... Massachusetts.
Charles Hudson,....
Daniel P. King,..
Henry Y. Cranston,.. Rhode Island.
Erastus D. Culver,..        New York.
* It is due to justice to mention, that Mr. Corwin, a Senator
Prom Ohio, afterwards publicly condemned and regretted the
vote he had given for the war.




172        REVIEW OF THIE MEXICAN WAR
Luther Severance,.... Maine.
John Strahan..... Pennsylvania
Columbus Delano,..
Joseph M. Root....
Daniel R. Tilden,...     Ohio.
Joseph Vance,...
Joshua R. Giddings, 




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          173
CHAPTER        XXIII.
THE WAR PROSECUTED FOR CONQUEST.
Il utter disregard of the multiplied proofs to the contrary, Mr. Polk thought it expedient, in his Message to
Congress of the 8th December, 1846, to hazard the extraordinary assertion, "THE WAR HAS NOT BEEN WAEBD
WITH A VIEW TO CONQUEST"! He added, "But having
been commenced by Mexico, it has been carried into the
enemy's country, and will be there vigorously prosecuted,
with a view to obtain an honorable peace, and thereby
secure ample indemnity for the expenses of the war, as
well as to our much-injured citizens, who hold large
pecuniary demands against Mexico." We have seen Mr.
Polk's early and persevering efforts to secure California,
and his official declaration, in the instructions to Stockton,
that he could foresee no contingency in which the United
States would ever surrender or relinquish that province.
What abuse of language can be greater than to fight for
territory with the declared intention of holding it for
ever, and yet to pretend that we fight not for conquest
but indemnity? But, independent of this most wretched
quibbling about a word, let us pause for a moment to
consider the avowal made by the President of the United
States to a Christian people.  It is no longer pretended
that the war is one of defence. We are, it seems, to continue fighting till we are paid for our trouble in slaughtering.  We killed Mexicans on the Rio Grande; but,
receiving no pay, we bombarded Vera Cruz, and killed.5*




174       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
more. This swelled our demand for compensation. Not
receiving it, we marched hundreds of miles to the City of
Mexico, and killed some thousands more. This added
another and a heavy item to our bill; and thus we were
to proceed, spreading misery and death, till we were fully
indemnified for the money, and trouble, and blood, we
had expended in filling a sister Republic with wailing,
and lamentation, and woe. The idea of thus killing other
people, and sacrificing the lives of our own citizens, for
the purpose of getting pay for fighting, is original with
Mr. Polk; at least, he finds no precedent for such policy
in the history of his own country. Our revolutionary
fathers rejoiced to lay down their arms the moment the
object for which they had been taken was accomplished.
Not a voice was heard recommending a continuance of
hostilities till Great Britain indemnified us for fighting her
the last seven years. In 1815, we again rejoiced in making peace with Great Britain, without asking any indemnity for killing Englishmen, capturing British vessels, and
carrying the war into Canada. -It is only poor, feeble,
exhausted Mexico, who must bleed on, till she pays us
for letting blood.
But we are to continue the work of slaughter, not only
till we are paid for our powder and shot, &c., but also
till Mexico discharges a debt of a few millions, which she
is said to owe certain of our citizens. And thus, at a day
when it is deemed inhuman even to imprison an insolvent,
Mr. Polk recommends that Mexican bonds shall be steeped in human gore, and that we shall proceed to collect
our debts by murdering the debtors. And all this to
indemnify our "much-injured citizens."  But how will
Mr. Polk indemnify the vast multitude of women and
children whom his policy has made widows and orphans'?
What tariff will he establish for broken hearts and blasted




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WA.R.         175
hopes? What indemnity would he claim from Mexico
for all the crimes and blasphemies, for all the horrors of
the hospital and the battle-field, for all the desolation and
misery in this life, and in that which is to come, engendered by the war?
In justice to Mr. Polk, we acquit him of the horrible
atrocity of wishing to continue the slaughter of the Mexicans for compensation for the cost of killing them, and of
the consummate folly of expending a hundred millions of
dollars in collecting three or four of alleged debt. Politicians often think it wise to conceal their real motives by
assigning false ones. The war was to be continued, not
to obtain a reimbursement of its expenses, not to collect a
paltry debt, but solely for cONQUEST. We have already
seen that it was the President's determination to annex
California to the Union. Let us now listen to a few of
the frank avowals of the partisans of the war in Congress.
Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee, declared that, "The annexation of California to the United States, was the great
measure of the age."*
Mr. BEDINGER, of Virginia-" Was this to be a war of
conquest? He answered, yes; trusting in Heaven, and
on the valor of their arms, this should be a war of coNQUEST."t
Mr. SEVIER, of Arkansas, speaking of the territories to
be acquired from Mexico, observed, "He supposed no
Senator would think that they ought to be less than New
Mexico and Upper California. He did not suppose that
a treaty of peace with less than this would ever pass that
body.",
Mr. GILES, of Maryland-" I take it for granted, that
we shall gain territory, and must gain territory, before we
* Cong. Globe, 10th Dec., 1846, p. 23.
t Cong. Globe, Bth Jan., 1847, p. 126.: Cong. Globe, 2d Feb.. 1847, p. 306.




176        REVILE   OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
shut the gates of the temple of Janus. We must have it.
Every consideration of national policy calls upon us to secure it. We must march right out from ocean to ocean.
We must fulfil what the American poet has said of us,
from one end of this confederacy to the other,'The broad Pacific chafes our strand,
We hear the wide Atlantic roar.'
We must march from Texas straight to the Pacific
ocean, and be bounded only by its roaring wave. We
must admit no other government to any partition of this
great territory. It is the destiny of the white race, it is
the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race; and, if they fail to
perform it, they will not come up to that high position
which Providence, in his mighty government has assigned
them."*
In January, 1847, a resolution was offered in the House
of Representatives, declaring that the war "is not waged
with a view to conquest;" but the House was too candid
to endorse the words of the President, and rejected the
resolution. In the same Session, it also rejected, by a
vote of 126 to 76, the following amendment proposed to
the supply bill, viz.; " Provided farther, that these appropriations are made with no view of sanctioning any prosecution of the existing war with Mexico for the acquisition
of territory to form new States to be added to the Union,
or for the dismemberment of Mexico."
These disclaimers of all intention of making conquests
came from the Whigs, who were unmeasured in their denunciations of Mr. Polk's obvious policy.
In his next message of December, 1847, that gentleman
adroitly revenged himself upon his opponents, by reminding Congress, that only sixteen members had voted against
the war; and that Congress, including, of course, the Whig
members with the exception of the sixteen, "could not
* Cong. Globe, 11th Feb., 1847, p. 387.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          177
have meant, when in May, 1846, they appropriated ten
millions of dollars, and authorized the President to employ the military and naval forces of the United States,
and to accept the services of FIFTY' TH(OSAND volunteers
to enable him to prosecute the war; and when at their
last Session, and after our army had invaded Mexico,
they made additional appropriations, and authorized the
raising of additional troops for the same purpose-that
no indemnity was to be obtained from Mexico at the conclusion of the war."  It was impossible for the Whigs to
elude the force of this sarcasm. If the war "was not
waged with a view to conquest," with what view did they
vote for an army of fifty thousand men?
Puerile as is the distinction made by Mr. Polk between
conquest and territorial indemnity, it appears from his own
showing, that it is a distinction without a difference; a
mere quibble on words. The President, informing Congress what territories he had claimed of Mexico as conditions of peace, remarks, " as the territory to be acquired
by the boundary proposed, might be estimated to be of
greater value than a fair equivalent for our just demands,
our Commissioner was authorized to stipulate for the payment of such additional pecuniary consideration as was
deemed reasonable."  Here we see that Mr. Polk meant
to take more territory, than he even pretends we are entitled to for indemnification. And how did he mean to acquire it? By conquest? Oh no, but by a forced sale,
negotiated by a Commissioner at the head of a victorious
army, ready to enter the city of Mexico; and for this surplus territory he would pay such a price as he deemed
reasonable, and, if the Mexicans refused to make the bargain on his terms, they refused at the peril of their lives,
and the loss of their capital; their blood was to flow,
till they accepted, for territory to which we had no just
c!lims, the price we might plea:-e to pay.




178        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER XXIV.
EXTENT OF TERRITORY REQUIRED FROM MEXICO.
WE have already admitted that Mr. Polk's frequent and
earnest asseverations of his desire for peace were sincere,
because in his mind the term peace included the acquisition of all the territory he wanted. The pbace he desired,
was not a just, and therefore an honorable one, but a bold,
rapacious spoliation. If we use strong terms, it is because
they are warranted by strong facts. After we had obtained military occupation of the country on the Rio Grande
and all the sea-ports on the Atlantic and Pacific; after
the Mexican armies had been routed in three general engagements; after the efforts of the Mexicans had failed
to protect their capital, and General Scott was ready to
enter its gates, peace was again offered Mexico. In the
time, place, and terms of this offer; we can see no indication of generosity, no desire for justice, no feeling of
honor. Mexico, utterly prostrated, could obviously make
no successful resistance, and it was certainly within the
power of the United States to take military possession not
merely of the capital, but of every city and strong place
in the republic. Such, however, was not the desire or
the interest of the Administration, or of the country. To
hold the entire of Mexico by force of arms, would occasion
an expenditure of treasure and an imposition of taxes
which would soon hurl Mr. Polk and his partisans from
office. Nor would a continuance of the war give us that
quit-laim to the coveted territories which was required,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           179
to enable us to convert them with facility into slaveholding States with a representation in Congress. The object
of the war could be most advantageously obtained by a
treaty of peace, giving us undisputed possession of New
Mexico and California. Hence the desire for peace; and
the prostrate condition of Mexico induced the hope that
she. would be compelled to make the cession we demanded. And what was that cession? Why, all the
territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, together with the whole of New Mexico, and all California,
both Upper and Lower! An inspection of the map of
Mexico will show that these demands, exclusive of Texas
proper, are estimated at upwards of eight hundred thousand square miles, while the whole area of the Republic
is supposed to contain one million six hundred thousand.
Thus did Mr. Polk seek for a "just and honorable peace"
in the seizure of one half of Mexico!*
Such was the territorial indemnity we attempted to
extort from a vanquished and almost unresisting enemy.
Napoleon, in the career of conquest, never indulged in
wilder rapacity. Mexico, humbled and disabled, offered
to cede all Texas proper, beyond the Nueces, and all of
New Mexico and California North of the 37th degree of
latitude; an extent of territory equal to nine States of the
size of New York! It is true, that in the Mexican projet
of a treaty containing this proposed cession, there was a
stipulation for compensation for injuries done by the American troops, a mere matter of discussion, but not represented as a sine qua non. The negotiation was broken
off not on account of that or other exceptionable proposals,
but because Mexico refused to cede the whole of New
* These estimates are taken from an official statement of the
areas of the different provinces, published by the Mexican
Government, and attached to Disturnell's map of Mexico.




180       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WI,,r.
Mexico and California. Mr. Polk, in his Message to Congress, declared, "the boundary of the Rio Grande, and
the cession of the States of New Mexico and Upper California constituted an ULTIMATUM which our Commissioner
was under no circumstances to yield."  It may seem
strange that Mr. Polk refused to accept the proffered cession. The solution is easy, and will be given in the subsequent chapter.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          181
CHAPTER XXV.
MOTIVE FOR ACQUIRING TERRITORY.-THE WILMOT PROVISO.
-HE possessions of the United States extended from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the 49th to the 30th
degree of latitude. Independent of the thirty States,
comprising the Federal Union, the national territories embraced 1,335,398 square miles-an area equal to about
half of all Europe. The American Republic, anterior to
the Mexican war, possessed one of the largest regions in
the world under one Government, and at the same time
one of the most thinly inhabited. It will not, therefore,
be pretended, that additional territory was required for
the convenience of our population. It is said a port was
wanted on the Pacific. The portion of California north
of the 37th degree of latitude, which Mexico offered to
cede, contains the harbor of St. Francisco, the best and
most capacious on the Pacific. Mr. Polk had officially
declared, that our title to the whole of Oregon was " clear
and unquestionable;" yet, with the consent of southern
Senators, he surrendered to Great Britain no less than 5~
40' of what he insisted was territory belonging to the
United States. Why give away northern territory which
is ours, and lavish blood and treasure for the conquest of
southern territory to which we have no title? It was
known, that from natural and other causes, slavery would
be for ever excluded from the territory yielded to Great
Britain, but would find in California and New Mexico a
genial soil and climate; and that these States, when sub16




1  REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
divided and annexed, would give to the slaveholding interest a predominating and resistless influence in the Federal
Government.
Were other proofs wanting of the real object of the
war, it might be found in the avowals of the southern
press: "We trust," said the Charleston Patriot, "that
our southern representatives will remember that this is a
SOUTHERN WAR."   Said the Charleston Courier: "Every
battle fought in Mexico, and every dollar spent there, but
insures the acquisition of territory which.must widen the
field of southern enterprize and power for the future.
And the final result will be to adjust the whole balance
of power in the Confederacy, so as to give us the control
over the operations of the Government in all time to
come."
The Federal Union, a Georgia paper in the interest of
the administration, remarked, " The Whigs of the North
oppose the war, because its legitimate effect is, as they
contend, the extension of southern territory, and of southern slavery. It is true, this is a war in which the South
is more immediately interested. Its vast expenditures
must be made within her limits. During its continuance,
New York, the great emporium of commerce, must be
shorn in part of her greatness. Exchange, usually in her
favor, must now be reversed, and in favor of New Orleans,
where the supplies are furnished for the army. Let the
SOUTIH now be true to herself, and the days of her vassalage are gone, and gone for ever."
Said the Mobile Herald: " The natural tendency of the
slaves under our humane policy is. to increase. The effect
follows, that, if we have no outlet for them, no soil to put
them on, they will be huddled within the extreme southern limits of the Union."  After showing that insubordination, and loss of profit, would result from a too crowded




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           183
slave population, the editor proceeds, " These evils may
be avoided by taking new territory in the direction of
Mexico. The profitable existence of slavery is by no
means incompatible with a more temperate region, but it
is incompatible with a very dense population. We need
plenty of soil to render it profitable."
As the war was waged only for territory, Mr. Polk was
anxious to secure its object as speedily as possible; and,
thinking it probable that money judiciously distributed in
Mexico might hasten the cession of California, recommended to Congress, August 8th, 1846, an appropriation
of two millions of dollars, to be placed at his disposal, for
the purpose of facilitating a peace. The very proposal
utterly destroyed the pretext upon which he first justified
the war, that it was one of defence. " Millions for defeuee, not a cent for tribute," was once the proud rallying cry of the Republic. Now he proposed two millions
to buy a peace. Had it not been known that the money
was to be employed in gaining territory, the very proposition would have excited universal abhorrence and indignation. A bill granting the desired sum was introduced
into the Lower House, but to the extreme mortification
and alarm of the administration, and the pro-slavery party,
was passed with a proviso offered by Mr. Wilmot, excluding slavery from all territory that might be ceded by
Mexico, The bill was reported to the Senate on the last
day of the Session, and, for want of time, no question was
taken upon it. At the ensuing Session, Mr. Polk asked
for three millions for the same purpose, and a law was
passed appropriating this sum " to enable the President
to conclude a treaty of peace, limits and boundaries, with
the Republic of Mexico, to be used by him in the event
that said treaty, when signed by the authorized agents of
the two Governments, and duly ratified by Mexico, shall




184        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
call for the same, or any part thereof." It will be observed that the law contemplated not merely a treaty of
peace, but of limits and boundaries, in other words, a
treaty ceding California and New Mexico. The condition
of the appropriation is unexampled in the history of diplomacy. The money is to be paid not when the treaty is
consummated, but as soon as Mexico consents to the terms
Mr. Polk may demand. Mr. Tyler found that a contract
entered into by the authorized agents of two Governments,
did not constitute a treaty without the ratification of the
Senate; but, in this most extraordinary law, such a ratification is wholly disregarded. As soon as Mexico binds
herself to cede territory, the money is to be paid, never to
be returned, whether the Senate reject or confirm the bargain. Never before, probably, did a civilized nation stipulate to perform in advance, a condition required by an
unratified and therefore unobligatory treaty. Viewing
the appropriation in the least offensive light, it is an offer
to pay the consideration money of a purchase in advance,
whether the title-deed may prove valid or not, with permission to retain the money, although the deed should be
refused. There must have been some weighty reason for
this procedure. The credit of the United States was not
so low, that it was necessary to pay in advance. Louisiana and Florida had been purchased by treaty; but the
consideration money in neither case had been paid before
the treaties were ratified. The departure in the present
case from the ordinary course of negotiation was caused
by the burning desire to acquire additional slave territory.
The war was expensive, and might prove hazardous to
the popularity of the administration. Mr. Polk had no
wish to kill Mexicans, provided they would surrender their
lands. It was hoped our invasion, and the fearful array




RE-VEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         185
of fifty thousand men, would have instantly frightened the
enemy into the desired cession of her territories; but, in
the language of the administration presses, Mexico was
" mulish," was " obstinate." It was thought a large sum
of money, judiciously distributed, might be more successful than intimidation had proved. The Mexican leaders
were supposed to be mercenary; the army was known to
be necessitous. Three millions distributed among the
officers and soldiers, either secretly as bribes, or openly
under color of an instalment in advance for the purchase
of territory, might induce the Mexican Congress through
military coercion, to consent to the dismemberment of
the Republic. This payment in advance of so large
a sum, might be useful, also, in compelling the American
Senate to ratify the treaty. If they declined, the money
paid would be lost, and the responsibility of sacrificing the
people's money would rest upon the Senators, who should
dare to vote against the treaty. The attempt to re-annex
the Wilmot proviso to this bill, and the long debate it
occasioned, rent asunder the transparent veil with which
the pro-slavery party had attempted to conceal the true
object of the war, and provoked the southern members
into unusual frankness.
The northern Democrats had long justified the character
given to them, of being " the natural allies" of the slaveholders. Anti-slavery sentiments had recently made rapid
progress at the north, and the tone of the elections in
various States, warned them that their devotion to slavery,
was undermining their own power. The grant of three
millions, afforded them an opportunity of strengthening
their waning popularity at home, without, as they contended, dissolving an alliance, from which they had
derived so many pecuniary and political advantages. As
Democrats, they were bound to support the war, and
16'




186        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to give the President the appropriation he had asked for.
But to this appropriation, they attached the Wilmot proviso. This now famous proviso was in these terms: "Provided always, that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, in any territory on the continent of
America, which shall hereafter be acquired by or annexed
to the United States by virtue of this appropriation, or in
any other manner whatsoever, except for crimes whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted."  To this was
added, a provision for the return of fugitive slaves found
in such territory.  In this attempt to prevent the extension of slavery, the northern Democrats endeavored to
shelter themselves from the reproaches of their southern
friends by calling their proposal "the Thomas Jefferson
proviso,"* its language being copied from the ordinance
for the Government of the North-Western territory, originally drafted by Mr. Jefferson, in 1784.t The northern
Whigs gave the proviso their cordial support. It may, however, be asked with what propriety they could vote for an
appropriation even with the proviso, which they themselves
contended, was to be used -for the purposes of bribery and
corruption. To this question they gave a far more satisfactory answer, than they ever returned to the question why
they voted for a war which they denounced as iniquitous.
Mr. Stewart of Pennsylvania, thus ably vindicated the policy
and duty of voting for the appropriation with the proviso:
" As a friend of peace, present and prospective, I am in
favor of this proviso. The object of this war being the
acquisition of southern territory, as long as there is a hope
of accomplishing this object, there will be no peace. Put
an end to this hope; and you at once put an end to the
war, by defeating its object. The moment the President
finds this proviso accompanying this grant of money, he
* Speech of Mr. Brinkerhoff, Feb. 10, 1847. Cong. Globe.
t See Journal of Cuingress, April 19, 1784.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           187
will be for making peace, and so will all the South. They
want no restricted territory. If the restriction is imposed,
and the territory acquired is to be free, from that moment
the President would pay Mexico to keep her territory,
rather than bring it in on such conditions. I am for the
proviso, therefore, because it will bring us PEACE. Impose this restriction, and Mr. Polk will say he wants no
territory, the South will say they want none; we say,
agreed, we want none. Then, if Mexico is to lose no
territory, she will be for peace; and, if we are to acquire
none, what are we fighting for? Then impose this
restriction, and the war will be promptly ended to the
great benefit and joy of both Republics."
The avowals of southern members, the messages of
southern Governors, the action of southern Legislatures,
and the language held by slaveholders assembled in
popular meetings, all bear witness to the wisdom, foresight,
and truth, of Mr. Stewart's remarks.
The alarm and irritation of the south caused by the
introduction of the proviso, was greatly augmented by
the circumstance of its originating with the northern
democracy; with that party which had heretofore cheerfully sacrificed the right of petition, and the freedom of
debate, and had consented to the annexation of Texas,
through subserviency to southern interests. The slaveholders felt that they were now in their utmost need
deserted by the friends, who had hitherto professed devotion to their cause.*  In their exasperation they, for the
* In 1843, Mr. Buchanan, Senator from Pennsylvania, opposed
the ratification of the treaty with Great Britain settling the
North-East boundary, because it did not provide compensation
for certain slaves liberated in the West Indies. He remarked:
" All christendom is leagued against the South, upon the question of domestic slavery. They have no other allies to sustain
their constitutional rights, except the DEMOCRACY OF THE
NORIH. In my own State, we inscribe upon our party banners
hostility to abolition.  It is there one of the cardinal principles
of the democratic party."




188        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR
first time, avowed the real object of the war to be, the
conquest of territory for the extension of slavery.
Mr. SEDDON, of Virginia, declared the proviso a " gross
and offensive proposition, outraging the whole scope and
spirit of the Constitution. The South never would, never
could prosecute conquests which were to be made -the instruments of direct attack upon her institutions. - She
never would acquiesce in the acquisition of territory from
which her sons, with their property, were to be wholly
excluded. In contrast with the effects of that law (the
proviso), the question of the prosecution of the war, of the
acquisition of the most extensive territories, shrinks into
insignificance. It is to involve the momentous issue of the
Union of these States."
Mr. DARGAN, of Alabama, was exceedingly frank:
"Say to the South that they are only fighting to make.R1iE. T'RRITORY,, that it is only for this& that the brave
men of Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, are periling their
ives,; and they will demand the settlement of this question now,. preliminary to anyfurther prosecution of the war."
S:aid Mr. LEARKE of Virginia: " If the present attempt
to impose limitation with respect to the nixTESisrOn OF
SLAVERY should be persisted in, and should prevail, the
South must stand in self-defence; for they could not and
would not submit to it."
Mr. TIBBATTS, of Kentucky, was equally frank with Mr.
Dargan: " If the people of the South are to be told that
in acquiring territory, for which their blood is to be spilled
and their treasures expended, they are realizing benefits
for others in which they are to have no share, and that
they are, in effect, to be excluded from territory which
their own blood and treasure have helped to win, then I
am against keepiing one foot of Mexican territory-I am
opposed to carrying on this war on such terms,"




REVIEW OF TIE MEXICAN WAR.          189
Mr. CALHOUX, in great excitement, exclaimed: < I am
a Southern man and a slaveholder, a kind and merciful
*one I trust, and none the worse for being a slaveholder.
I say for one I would rather meet any extremity upon
earth than give up one inch of our equality-one inch of
what belongs to us as members of this great Republic.
What'! acknowledge our inferiority! The surrender of
life is nothing to sinking down into acknowledged inferriority."
Yet this kind and merciful slaveholder had devoted the
energies of his life to keeping in acknowledged inferiority,
ignorance, and degradation, millions of his fellow-men and
fellow-countrymen, and was at this very moment opposing
an effort to prevent immense regions being peopled with
beasts of burden in human form.
Mr. BAGBY, of Alabama, averred, "If the time should
come when tliis principle was to be acted upon, that no:more territory was to be acquired lest Southern institutions should exist in such territory, he would say, AWAY
WITH THE UNION. "  This gentleman, the more effectually
to secure the object of the war, introduced into the Senate
i resolution declaring that, "If territory is hereafter acquired by the United States, either by treaty or conquest,
it shall not be competent for the treaty-making power or
Congress to exclude SLAVERY from such territory, either
by treaty, stipulation, or by act of Congress."
Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, "Would, before God,
warn gentlemen, if the South was to be regarded and
treated with inequality, they would tear up the instrument (the Constitution) to which they had subscribed in
good faith:"
Mr. KAUFFMAN, of Texas, declared "Should the proposed amendment be adopted, all hopes of acquiring territory in that quarter are gone for ever. The South would




190        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
never consent, under such a state of things, to add any
territory to what we now possess."
Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi, denouncing the proviso,
affirmed that its passage would be the DISSOLUTION OF
THE UNION.
Mr. MANGUM, of North Carolina: "There are now
three millions of slaves penned up in the slave States, and
they are an increasing population, increasing faster than
the whites. And are the slaves to be always confined to
their prison States?"
Thus we find from their own avowals that the acquisition of SLAVE TERRITORY was the sine qua non on which
the slaveholders would continue the war; and that for
such acquisition they were ready, if necessary, to dissolve
the Union.  Hence, the honor of the nation, the grievances of the claimants, the shedding of American blood
upon American soil, were hollow, and false pretexts for the
war, its true andtsole object being the extension of human
bondage.
To the confessions of the slaveholders may be added
the following decisive testimony of General Cass, then a
member of the Senate, given in a private letter of 19th
February, 1847, but which found its way into the newspapers: "The Wilmot Proviso will not pass the Senate.
It would be death to the war-death to all hopes of getting an acre of territory-death to the Administration,
and death to the Democratic party."
The reference made by the slaveholders to the Missouri
compromise, and their alleged willingness to apply that
compromise to the conquered territories, utterly stultified
their argument against the constitutionality of the Proviso.
If Congress had a right to exclude Slavery from territory
purchased of France, and conquered from Mexico, north
of 36~ 30, they had surely an equal right to exclude it




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          191
from every part of New Mexico and California.  By the
Constitution, Congress is constituted the Legislature of
the territories, and of course possesses the same power
over slavery in them, that a State legislature does within
its own jurisdiction.
The bill appropriating three millions of dollars was,
after a severe struggle, carried in the House of Representatives, with the Proviso, by 115 to 106. In the Senate,
the Proviso was stricken out 31 to 21.  The whole influence of the Government, and all the appliances of party
discipline, were now put in requisition to induce the House
to concur with the Senate, and the Proviso was finally
rejected, 102 to 97. It will be observed that the total
vote on the adoption of the Proviso was 221, and on its
rejection 199. Of course no less than 22 members found
it convenient to be absent at this important crisis, and
six who had supported the Proviso found motives for
changing their votes.
The Proviso had indeed been rejected for the present,
but it might be renewed at the next session; and, even
should it fail in the Senate, yet a treaty, ceding an immense territory to be consecrated to slavery, might not
command in that body the vote of. two-thirds necessary
to its ratification. The very possibility of thus losing the
prize for which the war was conimenced, exasperated and
alarmed the South, and vigorous efforts were made to
induce the North to abandon the position it had taken in
behalf of human liberty, by the usual threats of dissolving the Union, and by appeals to the interests of selfish
politicians. Many of the governors of the slaveholding
States brought the subject before their respective Legislatures. The Governor of Virginia, in his Message, remarked that it was "unquestionably true that, if our
slaves were restricted to our present limits, they would




192        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
greatly diminish in value, and thus seriously impair the
fortunes of their owners. The South never can consent
to be confined to prescribed limits. She wants and must
have space, if consistent with honor and propriety."
The Governor of South Carolina objected to the restriction as tending to diminish the political influence of
the South, in the Federal Government, and insisted on
strenuous resistance. The Legislature of Virginia, setting
at defiance the power of Congress, "Resolved unanimously, that under no circumstances will this body
recognize, as binding, any enactment of the Federal Government which has for its object the-prohibition of slavery,
in any territory, to be acquired either by conquest or
treaty."  The Legislature of Georgia resolved, " That any
territory acquired by the arms of the United States, or
by treaty with a foreign power, becomes.the common
property of the several States composing this confederacy; and whilst it so continues, it is the right of each
citizen of each and every State, to reside with his property of every description, within such territory."
The Legislature of Alabama "Resolved, That under
no circumstances will this body recognize as binding, any
enactment of the Federal Government which has for its
object the prohibition of slavery in any territory, to be
acquired either by conquest or treaty, south of the line of
the Missouri compromise."
A public meeting in Richmond, Virginia, declared not
only the right of slaveholders to carry their slaves into
all territories hereafter to be acquired south of 36~ 30',
"but also that we will, by all peaceable means, and
this failing, by ARMS, if necessary, sustain such of our
fellow-citizens as may elect to settle within such territory hereafter acquired, in the maintenance of their
rights thus to settle, and take with them their SLAVES."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         193
A meeting in Charleston, S. C., declared it would be dishonorable and debasing to submit to the prohibition of
slavery, " beyond what is already yielded by the Missouri
compromise."
But it was not enough to threaten the North with a
dissolution of the union, and with civil war. These are
evils which, when they occur, will not fall exclusively
upon the people of the free States. It was thought advisable to threaten the politicians of the North with the
loss of political power and emolument-a menace far more
influential than any other. A Presidential election was
approaching, and northern aspirants were warned that no
opponent to the extension of slavery should receive the
votes of the South. A similar warning had secured the
annexation of Texas, and the election of Mr. Polk.
The Legislature of Georgia " Resolved, that the people
of Georgia, at the ensuing Presidential election, should
not and will not support any man for the Presidency or
Vice-Presidency, who favors the principle of the Wilmot
proviso."  The determination thus officially announced,
was reiterated by various meetings and on various occasions, and had a sensible and immediate effect in cooling
the zeal of northern politicians in behalf of the proviso.
General Taylor was a cotton planter, and, the owner of
numerous slaves; and the popularity he had acquired by
his victories, pointed him out as a most available southern
candidate. He was accordingly early nominated, and his
interests were so thoroughly identified with slavery, that
it was deemed unnecessary to demand from him any
pledge of opposition to the Wilmot proviso. Said the
Richmond Whig:-" Why ask pledges of him on the
subject of slavery, when the fact that his whole estate
consists of land and negroes, and that when they go, he
17




194        REVIEW  OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
must be a beggar, is the very strongest pledge he could
possibly give?"
The frankness and determination of the southern Whigs
left to their northern brethern the alternative of uniting
with them in raising General Taylor to the Presidency,
or of resigning to their political opponents the favors of
official patronage. They adopted the former, and General Taylor received the nomination of the party.
The northern Democrats claimed a candidate selected
from among themselves. The claim was a'lowed by their
southern brethren, on condition of a satisfactory pledge
against the Wilmot proviso. Four prominent northern
Democrats entered the lists, to bid against each other for
the votes of the slaveholders. General Cass's bid was
accepted, and he was duly nominated, having declared
the proviso unconstitutional.
Notwithstanding the hostility of the South to the proviso, they anticipated the possibility of being compelled
to yield to the'North, so far as to renew the Missouri
compromise, and to consent to the exclusion of slavery
north of 36~ 30'-and here we'find a solution of Mr.
Polk's rejection of the cession proposed by Mexico.
Great and valuable as was that cession, it was chiefly
north of the qompromise line, leaving space for scarcely
more than two slave States. The territory offered was
not far enough south to secure the object of the war, and
hostilities were to be continued for conquests, below the
Missouri line.
In August, 1847, negotiations were opened for peace,
and Mr. Trist was appointed by the President to conduct
them on the part of the United States. The Mexican
Commissioners were instructed to procure a stipulation,
by which "The United States shall engage not to permit
slavery in that part of the territory which they may ac



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          195
quire by treaty." It is to be presumed that Mr. Trist
was well acquainted with the views of the Cabinet at
Washington, on this subject. In an official despatch to
the Secretary of State, of 4th September, 1847, he thus
de'scribes his conference with the Mexican Commissioners,
on this point of their instructions: —" In the course of
their remarks on this subject (exclusion of slavery), I
was told that, if it were proposed to the people of the
United States to part with a portion of their territory, in
order that the INQUISITION should be therein established,
the proposal could not excite stronger feelings of abhorrence than those awakened in Mexico, by the prospect of
the introduction of slavery in any territory parted with by
her.
" I concluded by assuring them that the bare mention of
the subject in any treaty to which the United States was
a party, was an absolute impossibility: that no President
of the United States would dare to present any such
treaty to the Senate; and that, if it were in their power to
offer me the whole territory described in our project, increased ten-fold in value, and in addition to that, covered
afoot thick all over with pure gold, upon THE SINGLE CONDITION TTAT SLAVERY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED therefrom, I
could not entertain the offer for a moment, nor think even
of communicating it to Washington."




196       REVIEW Or TiHE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER XXVI.
UNWORTHY EXPEDIENTS FOR FACILITATING CONQUESTS.
GENERAL SANTA ANNA had been one of the ablest and
most popular of the Mexican chieftains.  A  political
revolution had deprived him of power, and driven him
into exile-and he had taken refuge in Havana. Shortly
before the commencement of hostilities, an officer of the
United States navy was despatched to that city. The
object of his mission has not been officially disclosed; but
it was asserted in the newspapers, and generally believed,
that it was to confer with the Mexican General. An
American squadron, in anticipation of the war, had for
some time been stationed off Vera Cruz, and the very day
war was declared, " private and confidential"* orders were
sent to the commander not to obstruct the return of
Santa Anna to Mexico. The distinguished exile, it was
well-known, had wrongs to resent; and it was no doubt
taken for granted, and perhaps expressly stipulated, that,
being indebted to Mr. Polk for the opportunity of wreaking his vengeance, he would foment an insurrection, kindle
the flames of civil war, recover his former power, and
exercise it in concluding a peace with the United States,
* "United States Navy Department,
May 13th, 1846.
"Commodore.-If Stnta Anna endeavors to enter the Mexican
ports, you will allow him to pass freely.
"Respectfully yours,
"GEORGE BANCROFT."
"Commodore DAVID CONNER,
Commanding Home Squadron."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          197
by the cession of California. He did return through
favor of Mr. Polk's order,* and, as was expected, effected
a revolution, and assumed the reins of Government; and,
by his wonderful energy and perseverance in behalf of
his country, rebuked the artifice of the American President.
To aid in fomenting the civil dissensions which, it was
hoped, would result from Santa Anna's sudden appearance in Mexico, General Taylor was required to distribute
a proclamation prepared for him at Washington. In this
strange document, the General is made to tell the
Mexicans, "Your Government is in the hands of tyrants
and usurpers. They have abolished your State Governments; they have overthrown your Federal Constitution;
they have deprived you of the right of suffrage, destroyed
the liberty of the press, despoiled you of your arms, and
reduced you to a state of absolute dependence upon the
power of a military dictator. We come to obtain indemnity for the past, and security for the future.  We come to
overthrow the tyrants who have destroyed your liberties, but
we come to make no war upon the people of Mexico, nor
upon any form of free Government they may choose for
themselves. It is our wish to see you liberated from
despots, to drive back the savage Camanches, to prevent
the renewal of their assaults, and to compel them to restore
to you from captivity your long-lost wives and children!"
Not satisfied with forcing General Taylor to distribute this
mendacious proclamation as his own act, he was expressly
instructed (9th July, 1846), to pursue a course of deceit
and fraud. He was directed by the Secretary of War,
" to take occasions to send officers to the head-quarters of
the enemy for the military purposes real or ostensible
* Commodore Conner announcing to the Secretary of the
Navy the arrival of Santa Anna at Vera Cruz, added: "I
have allowed him to enter without molestation."
17*




198        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
which are of ordinary occurrence between armies, and in
which opportunity may be taken to speak of the war
itself as only carried on to obtain justice, and that we had
much rather procure that by negotiation than by fighting."  Here, we may observe, is an awkward admission,
that the war is not a defensive but an aggressive one.
Again: " A discreet officer who understands Spanish, and
who can be employed in the intercourse so usual between
armies, can be your confidential agent on such occasions,
and can mask his real under his ostensible object of
a military interview. You will readily comprehend
that in a country so divided into races, classes, and
parties as Mexico is, and with so many local divisions
among individuals, there must be great room for operating
on the minds and feelings of large portions of the inhabitants, and inducing them to wish success to our invasion,
which has no desire to injure their country, and which, in
overthrowing their oppressors, may benefit themselves.
Between the Spaniards, who monopolize the wealth and
power of the country, and the mixed Indian race who
bear its burdens, there must be jealousy and animosity.
The same feelings must exist between the the lower and
higher orders of the clergy, the latter of whom have the
dignities and revenues, while the former have poverty and
labor. In all this field of division, in all these elements
of social, political, personal and local discord, there must
be openings to reach the interests, passions, or principles,
of some of the parties, and thereby conciliate their good
will, and make them co-operators with us in bringing about
an honorable and a speedy peace. The management of
these delicate movements, are confided to your discretion."
There is no evidence that General Taylor ever engaged
in these " delicate movements."  He bravely fought the




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          199
Mexicans; but there is no reason to believe that he ever
condescended to corrupt them.
It was very true that Mr. Polk would rather acquire
territory by negotiation than by fighting; and hence
it was his aim to disqualify the Mexicans from fighting, bypromoting treason and rebellion; and hence Taylor was
instructed to encourage the departments to declare themselves independent of the central Government. Hence
also Commodore Sloat.was instructed (June 8th, 1846),
" to encourage the people of that region (California), to
enter into relations of amity with our country."  Hence,
General Kearney, four days after entering Santa Fe,
informed the inhabitants by proclamation (22d August,
1846), that it was the "wish and intention of the United
States, to provide for New Mexico a free Government,
with the least possible delay, similar to those in the United
States."  He moreover required those who had in loyalty
to their country " left their homes, and taken arms
against'the troops of the United States, to return forthwith to them, or else they will be considered as enemies
and TRAITORS, subjecting their persons to punishment, and
their property to seizure and confiscation."  But these
Mexicans who were to be punished as traitors for resisting
the iavaders of their soil, owed the same allegiance to
their Government, as the General did to his. To remove
this difficulty, the Brigadier assumed the prerogative once
exercised by the Papal See. "The undersigned," continued the proclamation, " hereby ABSOLVES all persons
residing within the boundary of New Mexico, from all
further allegiance to the Republic of Mexico, and hereby
CLAIMS them as citizens of the United States."
The absolution and the claim were of equal validity.
The General had been instructed to establish a temporary civil Government, " therein abolishing all arbitrary re



200        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
strictions" and well knowing the ultimate purpose for which
his conquest was made, he ordained that the right of
suffrage in New Mexico, should be exercised by " every
free male,' thus preparing the inhabitants for the arbitrary restrictions of the peculiar institution to be hereafter
introduced. From Santa Fe, this gentleman proceeded
to California, and there again assumed the powers of the
Roman Pontiff and the American Congress. Addressing
the Californians in a proclamation of 1st March, 1847, he
declares: " The undersigned, by these presents, ABSOLVES
all the inhabitants of California, of any further allegiance
to the Republic of Mexico, and regards them as CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES." Not content with wielding the
attributes of ecclesiastical and civil sovereignty, he
assumes those of a prophet: "The stars andestripes now
float over California; and, as long as the sun shall shed
his light, they will continue to wave over her, and over
the natives of the country, and over those who shall seek
a domicile in her bosom; and under the protection of this
flag, agriculture must advance, and the arts and sciences
will flourish like seed in a fertile soil. Americans and
Californians, form henceforth ONE PEOPLE."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          201
CHAPTER XXVII.
CONDUCT OF AMERICAN OFFICERS IN MEXICO.
WAR, being always waged for the immediate purpose of
inflicting misery and death, necessarily calls into action
the malignant passions of our nature. It is impossible
that those who are contriving the ruin and death of their
enemies, should exercise towards them that love, and kindness, and forgiveness enjoined by Christianity. Hence the
profession of arms has a strong tendency to blunt the sensibilities of the soldier, and to render him'callous to the
sufferings of his victim. Military glory, which is the prize
that stimulates the ambition of the soldier, founded, as it
is upon his bravery, skill, and success in destroying his
enemy, and totally disconnected from all reference to the
justice of the cause in which his victories are achievedhas necessarily an unhappy influence in perverting the
moral sense. In those qualities which twine the laurel
around the brows of the warrior, there is no one element
of moral goodness; nothing which has not been often exhibited by the most depraved of mankind. It has been
well said, that when the soldier has vigorously assaulted
the enemy, when though repulsed he returns to the conflict, when being wounded he continues to brandish his
sword till his grasp relaxes in death, and he falls on the
field "covered with glory," he has attained to the moral
rank of a bull-dog. Hence the thirst for military fame,
by diverting the mind from the contemplation and pursuit
of objects really virtuous, renders the soldier peculiarly




202        REVIEW OF THE MF-XICAN WAR.
exposed to the allurements of vice. His ordinary life,
moreover, is on various accounts unfavorable to the cultivation of those benevolent and virtuous affections which
adorn and bless society. Banished from the softening
and humanizing influences of domestic associations, exiled
from wife and children, without other occupations than
the monotonous routine of the camp or the barrack, and
with no companions but such as are subjected to similar
privations, both his mind and his heart are left without
wholesome aliment. It is -true that the army has had its
saints; some good men have passed through its furnace
without the smell of fire on their garments, but the attention excited by their wonderful deliverance attests the
greatness of the peril they escaped.
The officers of an army are, with few exceptions, far superior in education and refinement to the privates, and are
therefore rarely guilty of that vulgar motiveless ferocity
which too often marks the conduct of the common soldier. Nevertheless, it would be unreasonable to expect,
that their education and.refinement should generally shield
their hearts from the indurating influence of their profession.
The foregoing remarks are, it is believed, founded on
the acknowledged principles of human nature; they are
most abundantly verified by all military history; and the
conduct to which we will now call the attention of the
reader, proves that they are applicable to American, as
well as to other armies.
During the horrible bombardment of Vera Cruz, and
after a day of indiscriminate slaughter of men, women,
and children, the French, Spanish, and English Consuls in
the city, addressed on the evening of the 24th March,
1847, a joint note to General Scott asking a suspension
of hostilities for a time "sufficient to enable their respec



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR,          203
tive compatriots to leave the place with their women and
children, as well as the Mexican women and children."
How far the emergency of the case justified this application, may be learned from the report of the chief of the
artillery, made the same evening to the General —"We
have been restrained from the want of shells from throwing more than one every fice minutes during the day;" he
adds that a full szp2ply would be sent to the batteries that
night for the ensuing day. The next day the 25th, General Scott sent to the consuls a peremptory refusal of
their request-the neutrals might have left the place
previous to the bombardment; and as to the Mexican
women and children, his summons to the city had been
disregarded, and now no truce would be allowed apart
from surrender.  Some excuse for this stern denial of
mercy to foreigners, and to innocent women and children,
might have been found if the capture of the city would
have been hazarded by the intermission for a few hours of
the fiery deluge which was overwhelming it. But Scott
well knew that he had it in his power to reduce the whole
city to one mass of ruins. So also, had a reinforcement
of Mexicans been approaching, a motive would have existed for compelling a surrender before their arrival; but
the beleaguered city had no hopes of relief, and the position and force of the American army precluded the possibility of succor. Scott's army, moreover, were so safely
ensconced in their entrenchments, that he had no reason
to fear, that the boon that was asked would prove injurious to the assailants; since in his operations against the
castle and city, his total loss, out of 10,000 men,'did not
exceed sixty-five killed and wounded. Before replying
to the Consuls, he wrote to the Secretary of War the same
day, "ALL THE BATTERIES ARE IN AWFUL ACTIVITY this
morning. The effect is no doubt very great, and I think




204        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
the city cannot hold out beyond to-day."  Hence, by his
own confession, and by the fact that the city did surrender on the 26th, the slaughter of women and children occasioned by the awful activity of his batteries during the
whole of the 25th, there being then a "full supply" of
shells, was utterly unnecessary. To the horrors of this
bombardment we may advert hereafter, and at present
only offer the following as a commentary on General
Scott's refusal: "I heard a great many heart-rending
tales which were told by the survivors with breaking
hearts; but I have neither the inclination nor the time
to repeat them. One, however, I will name. A French
family were quietly seated in their parlor the evening
(night of the 25th), previous to the hoisting the white flag,
when a shell from one of our mortars penetrated the
building, and exploded in the room, killing the MOTHER
AND FOUR CHILDREN, and wounding the residue."*
Truly, indeed, said Sir Harry Smith, in a speech at a
late military dinner in London, "It must be confessed,
gentlemen, that ours is a damnable profession."
The refusal of General Taylor to accede to the request
of the Mexican General for an armistice, before he knew
that either Government had recognized the war he had
commenced, has been already mentioned.  During the
attack on Monterey, the Governor sent a flag of truce to
the General, stating that "thousands of victims who, from
indigence and want, find themselves now in the theatre of
war, and who would be uselessly sacrificed, claim the rights
which, in all times and in all countries, humanity extends."
He asked that orders might be given that families might
be respected, or else that a reasonable time might be
granted them to leave the city. The General refused to
permit any to leave the city; and, however much we may
*Letter published in the Alton Telegraph.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           205
lament his decision, it must be acknowledged, that owing
to the circumstances in which he was placed, his refasal is
not open to the same animadversions as that of Scott.
It is an impulse of our nature to regard scenes of suffering and of cruelty with aversion; but war, by the importance it attaches to victory, renders such scenes sources
of pleasure, when their subjects are enemies. General
Lane, in his despatch (22d October, 1847), thus describes
his night attack upon Allixco: "I ordered the artillery
to be posted on a hill near the town, and overlooking it,
and open its fire. Now ensued one of the most beautiful
sights conceivable. Every gun was served with the utmost
rapidity, and the crash of the walls and the roofs of the
houses when struck by our shot and shells, was mingled
with thie roar of our artillery.  The bright light of the
moon enabled us to direct our shots to the most thickly
populated part of the town."
This beautiful scene, so gratifying to the taste of General Lane, was most horrible to the inhabitants of this little
town. The morning sun beheld, amid the ruined dwellings and encumbered streets, two hundred and nineteen
mangled corpses, while three hundred of its men, women,
and children, were suffering from  wounds.   "After
searching the next morning," says the General, with wonderful coolness, "for arms and ammunition, and disposing
of what was found, I commenced my return." As he
makes no other allusion to the result of his search, we infer he had no reason to be proud of the trophies acquired
by this beautiful moonlight massacre.
Several of the general orders, issued by American officers in Mexico, are palpably unjust, and exhibit a painful
disregard for human life. Of this nature is the following
given by Colonel Gates at Tampico, Nov. 29, 1847: "As
the guerilleros or armed enemies are employed by orders
18




206       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to rob all persons who may be engaged in the lawful purpose of trading with the inhabitants of this town, instruct
tions have been given to all officers of the United States
army or navy within this department, to take or KILL every
person of that character found so employed against the
peace of the community." Tampico was occupied by a
detachment of the invading army. For Mexicans to supply the place, while so occupied, with provisions and
the necessaries of life, would indeed be doing what Mr.
Polk charged upon the Whigs, " giving aid and comfort to
the enemy." The guerillas, or armed militia, had therefore a perfect right by the laws of war to seize and confiscate all supplies on their way to the enemy. It was
doing no more than was constantly done by the Americans in the Revolution, when their cities were occupied by
the invader. These "armed enemies" might indeed be
killed in battle; but Colonel Gates's order has no reference to fighting. In the plenitude of his power, he gives.every naval and military officer the option of capturing or
slaying any armed Mexican who may bejfound attempting
to intercept supplies for Tampico.
Unhappily the conduct of Colonel Gates was sanctioned
by high authority. The Commander-in-Chief, seated in
the conquered Capital of the Republic, issued an order on
the 12th December, 1847, which adds no honor to his
character as a man or a soldier. The baggage trains of
the army had often been attacked by guerillas, in the long
route between Vera Cruz and the city of Mexico, and
the General now attempted to keep open his communication with Vera Cruz, from which place alone he could
receive ammunition, &c., by a system of severity towards
those who had scarcely any other method left of annoying
the invaders. The preamble to his prder betrays not only
his object, but his consciousness that some apology was




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.        207
needed for his sanguinary decree. "The highways used,
or about to be used by the American troops, being still
infested in many parts by those atrocious bands called
guerillas and rancheros who, under instructions from the
late Mexican authorities, continue to violate every rule of
warfare observed by civilized nations, it has become necessary to announce to all, the views and instructions of
General Head Quarters on the subject." We are then
informed, "No quarter will be given to known murderers
or robbers, whether guerillas or rancheros, and whether
serving under Mexican commissions or not." Offenders of
this character " accidentally falling into the hands of American troops, will be momentarily held as prisoners, that
is, not put to death without due solemnity." This due
solemnity is to be the sentence of three or more officers
who are to sentence to death or lashes, on proof that the
prisoner belonged to any gang of murderers or robbers,
or had murdered or robbed any one belonging to or following the American army. By murder, is here obviously
meant, killing any of the guard accompanying a baggage
train, and by robbery, carrying away any property belongto the enemies of Mexico.. The vigor displayed in these orders by " General Head
Quarters" was far surpassed by one of his subalterns.
Colonel Hughes, civil and military Governor of Jalapa, on
the 10th December, 1847, issued the following order, viz:
"All persons who may in any way attempt to prevent
supplies from reaching this port, will be sent to a military
Commission for trial, and if convicted of that offene, wil
be SHOT." Here we find a capital offence which is not
alleged to be either robbery or murder. Any Mexican,
priest or layman, who by persuasion or force, or in any
other way, attempts to prevent his countrymen from committing the crime of furnishing supplies to the enemy, is to




208       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
be SHOT-to be put to death in cool blood by American
soldiers, at the command of an American officer! We
greatly doubt whether the history of modern warfare records an order so utterly at variance with the plainest dictates of patriotism, justice, and humanity.
We now turn to another melancholy but forcible illustration of the remarks in the commencement of this chapter. A large number of Irish emigrants to the United
States bore arms in the invading army. These men were,
of course, mere mercenaries. They fought, as others of
their countrymen have labored on our canals and railroads, for money. They knew and cared nothing about
the claims of " our much-injured citizens," nor did they
trouble themselves about " our western boundary." On
reaching Mexico, they discovered that they had been hired
by heretics to slaughter brethren of their own church.
The Mexicans, moreover, published appeals addressed
directly to their consciences, in which was set forth, in
strong language, the sin they were committing in fighting
against men who had never injured them, and who were
united with them in a common faith; and liberal offers
were made of land and money, if they would abandon the
American standard. A portion of the emigrants accepted
the invitation; and it is reasonable to suppose that they
were influenced both by religious and by pecuniary motives. Upwards of fifty of these men were taken prisoners
in battle. They had unquestionably committed a crime in
violating their pledged faith, and by the ordinary rules of
war, were justly liable to punishment. A few of these
men escaped death on account of some technical objections, and a few others on account of some unspecified
mitigating circumstances; but a general order of the 22d
of September, 1847, contained the appalling announcement: " After every effort of the General-in-Chief to save,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR,          209
by judicious discrimination, as many of these miserable convicts as possible, FIFTY of them have paid for their treachery by an ignominious death upon the gallows."
*We have here a most extraordinary confession. The
Commander of a victorious army acknowledges his inability
to rescue from death one of these fifty men. Instances
have occurred of whole regiments going over to the enemy
on the field of battle. In such a case would General Scott
feel himself constrained to hang a thousand men, if again in
his power? Was he ignorant, that where large numbers
had rendered themselves amenable to punishment, where
policy demanded an example, and where humanity forbade
a general slaughter, others had resorted to decimation and
the lot? The death of five or ten of these men, and the
corporal punishment of the rest, would have answered the
sternest demands of military policy. It seems that the
execution of thirty out of the fifty was intrusted to a
Colonel Harney. According to the newspapers, he had
them brought out with halters around their necks, and
arranged them under one common gibbet in sight of
the Mexican fortress of Chepultepec, which the American
troops were about to storm. He then told them that they
should live till they saw the American flag raised upon
the battlements. The fortress was carried, the flag at
last appeared, and the doomed men expired. This act of
Harney's has been characterized by a foreign writer, as " a
refinement of cruelty, and a fiendish prolongation at once
of the ecstacies of revenge and the agonies of despair."
Desertion is a crime which, in military ethics, it is lawful for each party to encourage and reward in the other,
but to denounce as atrocious, and to punish with death,
when committed against itself. General Scott, in his
orders, spoke of the Irish deserters as " deluded wretches
-miserable convicts."  Says the correspondent of the




210        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
New   Orleans Picayune, "The clergy of San Angel
pleaded hard to save the lives of these men, but in vain.
General Twiggs told them that to Ampudia, Arista. and
Santa Anna did these men owe their deaths, for they
stooped to the low business of soliciting desertion from
our ranks, and had succeeded in seducing from duty and
allegiance the poor wretches who had to pay so dearly
for their crimes." This was in September. On the 13th
of the next month, we have an official despatchto General
Scott, from Colonel Childs, dated at Puebla, in which he
says, "I should be unjust to myself, and the SPY CQMPANY under Captain Pedro Aria, if I did not call the
attention of the General-in-Chief to their invaluable services. From them I received the most accurate information of the movements of the enemy, and the designs of
the citizens; through them I was enabled to apprehend,
several officers and citizens in their nightly meetings, to
consummate their plans for raising the populace. The
Spy Company fought gallantly, and are now so compromised, that they must leave the country when our army
retires."  Says the New Orleans Picayune, " The Mexican Spy Company is described as a rough-looking set of
men. They fight with ropes about their necks, as the
saying is, and therefore they fight gallantly. We understand that we have altogether about 450 of this description of men in our pay."  Thus it appears, we had in our
army a corps of Mexican scoundrels-and, as the newspapers state, organized and taken into pay by order of
General Scott himself. These men joined the invaders of
their native land-betrayed their fellow-citizens into the
hands of a foreign enemy-went with that enemy into the
battle, and gallantly aided them in slaughtering their
neighbors and countrymen, and all this for p ay! " They
tight with ropes about their necks." Should any of them




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          211
be hereafter suspended by these ropes, may they not
be told that they owe their death to the General, who
" stooped to the low business of seducing them from duty
and allegiance?"  Fifty Irish deserters are hanged as
miserable convicts; but a gang of 450 Mexican spies,
traitors, and murderers, are recommended by an AmericaU
Colonel to the attention of the Commander-in-Chief, for
their " invaluable services."  Such are the honor and morality of war.
In May, 1848, during the armistice, and while negotiations for peace were pending, a party of American
officers and soldiers, ten in number, were arrested for
the crime of burglary and murder, committed in the city
of Mexico. It was probably owing to the peculiarly disgraceful character of the outrage, and its perpetration
during a suspension of hostilities, that it was deemed expedient to institute a judicial inquiry. Four lieutenants,
two corporals, and one private were tried and convicted
by a court-martial, and sentenced to be hung. A fifth
officer "belonging to one of the old infantry regiments,"
is said to have been implicated in the affair, but he eluded
arrest. On the conclusion of the peace, all the culprits
were pardoned by the commanding officer, and set at
liberty. It is not surprising that so large an assembly of
men as an army, should include some thieves and murderers. This case is important only because, with multitudes
of others, it tends to dispel the popular illusion, that there
is some mysterious undefined connection between gallantry
and honor, and that a brave soldier must be both honest
and merciful. One of these four officers was, it seems, a
graduate of the West Point military academy; and of
another, a newspaper says, " It is a fact worthy of notice,
that Lieutenant Hare was one of the most valiant spirits
of the army, during' the battles of the valley,' and that




212        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
on account of his unconquerable courage, he was selected
by the commanding officer to command one of the' forlorn
hopes,' at the storming of the Castle of Chapultepec.
He was allowed to select fifteen men to accompany him.
and out of these fifteen, only five escaped the deadly fire
of the enemy; and the Lieutenant conducted himself
throughout with the utmost coolness and high-toned
courage." And yet his brother-officers who composed the
court-martial,' adjudged him to be a thief and a murderer.




REVIEW O'THE MEXICAN WAR          213
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE AMERICAN ARMY IN MEXICO.
THE remarks already made respecting the general immoral tendency of the military profession, are of course
more peculiarly applicable to the rank and file of an
army. A prudent, intelligent, industrious, pious recruit
is a prodigy. The great mass of all armies, it is well
known, is collected from the ignorant, reckless, and
vitous. When such men are brought into close contact
with each other, and at the same time removed from the
restraining influences of domestic life and social observation, their vicious propensities are of course strengthened
by mutual example and countenance.   Discipline may
prevent the commission of some gross crimes, but can in
no degree improve, or even guard the moral character.
If it be, indeed, true, that the profession of a soldier is
peculiarly hazardous to his well-being, exposing him and
those within his influence, to crime in this world, and to
misery in the next, we discover a new item of the awful
responsibility which rests upon those who involve their
country in war. In our contest with Mexico, 80,000 or
more Americans, and probably three times as many Mexicans, have been exposed to the moral and physical injuries of military service. Could we follow the survivors
on their return to their homes, what a mass of wretchedness should we discover, caused by the habits they had
acquired, and the moral contamination of their example.
All experience bears witness to the fidelity of the'picture
drawn long since, of the discharged recruit, who




214         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
--    " His three years of heroship expired,
Returns indignant to the slighted plough.
He hates the field in which no fife or drum
Attends him;-drives his cattle to a march,
And sighs for the smart comrades he has left.'Twere well, if his external change were all;
But with his clumsy port, the wretch has lost
His ignorance and harmless manners too.
To swear, to game, to drink, to show at home
By lewdness, idleness, and Sabbath-breach,
The great proficiency he has made abroad:
To astonish and to grieve his gazing friends;
T: break some maiden's and his mother's heartTo be a pest, where he was useful once,
Are his sole aim, and all his glory now."
There is little reason for believing that American
soldiers are more or less addicted than others to vice
and outrage.   The conduct of the soldier is governed
more by discipline than by national character. A large
portion of the American force in Mexico consisted of a
class improperly called volunteers, since, where there is no
conscription, every enlistment is voluntary. These volunteers, being enlisted for a short period, and being permitted to choose their officers, their discipline was probably
less perfect than that of the regular army; and hence it
is, that the journals of the day have teemed with accounts
of their atrocities.
Of the 50,000 volunteers called into service, none perhaps have afforded a more instructive commentary oh
military patriotism and.morality than the MASSACHUSETTS
REGIMENT. These men belonged to a State surpassed by
none for the intelligence, industry, and orderly deportment of its citizens. They had, moreover, responded to
the official assurance of the Governor of the State, that it
was the dictate of patriotism and humanity to save blood




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            215
and money by volunteering to shoot Mexicans.* Passing
by, therefore, the conduct of volunteers from other States,
we shall confine our notice to these reputed descendants
of the Puritans.t  Although nothing has been heard of
their martial achievements, a few extracts from the journals of the day will prove that they have attracted a
large share of the public attention.
"For some days past, a strife has existed between a
portion of the officers of the MASSACHUSETTS REGIMENT
on the one side, and nearly all the privates on the other.
That eternal disturber of order, John Barleycorn,' stirred
up the muss.'   The officers alleged that the privates
drank to intoxication, became disorderly and unfit for
duty; and to put a stop to the evil, they advised closing
the coffee-houses.  The privates, on the other hand, say
they drank to no greater excess than did the officers in
question. The war thus commenced raged fiercely with
various success.  At one time, we thought the men defeated, from the number of prisoners we saw marched
off; but they managed to escape, and in turn swung up
the leader of their enemies as high as Haman-i. e., his
effigy. The guards were dismissed from the postern, the
defences put up to keep out the Mexicans,levelled to the
earth, and the deuce played generally."-Metamoras Flag.
"Major Abbott, by sundry acts, has made himself
* "Whatever," says the Proclamatipn calling for volunteers,
" may be the difference of opinion as to the origin or necessity
of the war, the constitutional authorities of the country have
declared that war with a foreign country does exist. It is alike
the dictate of PATRIOTISM and HUMAN.ITY, thalt every means
honorable to ourselves and just to our enemy should be employed to bring said war to a speedy and successful termination,
and thus abbreviate its calamities and save the sacrifi e of human life
and the wasting of public treasures. "  The best comment we
can make on the logic and morality of this gubernatorial dictum
is to exhibit the character of the men who obeyed the dictates of
patrzotism and humanity, as officially explained,
t The author deems it just to say, that he has heard it asserted that many of these volunteers were foreigners.




216        REVIEW OF THE MEXICANV WAR
odious among the Americans in this place. They hoot
him whenever he passes them, and last night they went
so far as to hang him in effigy.  He had three privates
whipped last night."-Letter from Metamoras, N. O. Bee.
"ESCAPED. —The MASSACHUSETTS VOLUNTEER, who
some week or.two since stabbed to death with a bayonet
the partner of Mr. Sinclair of our city, because he refused
to give him what he had not-a glass of intoxicating fluid
-escaped fiom the guard-house a few nights since.  It
is thought the sentinels on duty permitted him to escape."
-ifetamoras Flag.
Another paper mentions that three MASSACHUSETTS
VOLUNTEERS had deserted, and a fourth had been marched through the streets of Metamoras encased in a whisky
cask with the word " drunkard" written on it.
The New Orleans Delta announces the arrival at that
city of "a select lot of murderers, thieves, and villains of
every dye," sent home by order of General Taylor, including "three MASSACHUSETTS VOLUNTEERS."
" ANOTHER MANLY ACT.-On Wednesday evening last,
after nightfall, several MASSACHUSETTS VOLUNTEERS entered the dwelling of a Mexican near the Upper Plaza, and
demanded whisky. A female who officiated remarked
that she kept nothing but beer. After some remonstrance,
one of the gentlemen drew a bayonet, which he wore in
his belt, and stabbed the woman to the heart."-Metamnoras Flag.
It appears from the report of the Secretary of War,*
that the deserters from this regiment, up to 31st Dec.,
1847, numbered 105.
" Head Quarters, Vera Cruz, 15th October, 1846.
"The following named men (sixty-five in number) of
1st Regiment MASSACHUSETTS Infantry, being incorrigibly
* Ex. Doc., 1st Sess., 30th Cong., No. 62, p. 72.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          217
mutinous and insubordinate, will of course prove cowards
in the hour of danger, and they cannot of course be permitted to march with the column of the army. They are
disarmed and detached from the Regiment, and will report to Brevet Major Bachus, for such duty in the Castle
of San Juan De Ulloa, as may be performed by soldiers
who are found unworthy to carry arms, and are a disgrace and a nuisance to the army.
"By order of Brig. Gen. CUSHING."
The following notices of these men, on their return, are
taken from the periodicals of the day.  A Boston paper
says: "More than one-third of these, though never in a
battle, were dead or missing before their return."  The
Editor of the Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, through
which city they passed, says: " We spent some hours in
conversation with these poor fellows, endeavoring to understand the meaning of such overwhelming squalor,
want, and misery; for we -do not exaggerate when we
say, that we never beheld its parallel except at the Irish
emigrant sheds in Canada last summer. The condition of
these poor creatures was outrageously offensive to every
human sense, as well physical as moral." Another editor,
after their arrival in Boston, remarked: "A more pitiable
set of human beings we scarcely ever saw-with unshaven
beards, unshorn hair, ragged and dirty clothes of all
shapes, fashions, colors, and conditions, pale and sunken
faces, and a careless, unambitious saunter. They were
truly objects of pity." A Boston editor, after visiting
their quarters, exclaims:' We must confess that the
condition of the men struck us with astonishment; it was
wretched beyond conception. Rags and dirt were to be
seen in abundance. Scarcely a man had a whole pair of
pantaloons on, and none a second shirt. Without any
19




218        REVIJEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
offence to the soldiers, we must candidly cofess, tey are
not fit to be seen in the streets of Boston."
To form a comprehensive view of the evils of war,:and
of the tremendous responsibility of those who commence
it, we must consider its various and complicated assaults
upon human happiness and virtue. The miseries we have
inflicted upon Mexico will form the subject of a future
chapter. We will now advert to the retributive justice
thus far meted out to the immediate agents by whom
those miseries have been inflicted.
The groans of the conquerors themselves are usually
drowned in the shouts of victory, and the glare of the
illumination fails to reveal the horrors of the battle-field,
or the more prolonged agonies of the hospital.  Eighty
thousand American soldiers, abandoning the comforts of
home and the pursuits of ordinary life, have been subjected to all the. privations, sufferings, and evil influences
of military service in a foreign land. When we recollect
their long marches, some of them of a thousand miles
under a burning sun, and not unfrequently exposed to the
deadly vomito, we may readily believe that many lives
have been lost through disease and casualties as well as
in battle.  Owing to the imbecility and ignorance of the
Mexicans, the American loss in the field has been astonishingly small, not exceeding 5000 in killed and wounded
in twenty-eight battles, as appears from official reports.
But who can count the number who have died in military
hospitals, and of others who, worn down by disease and
vice, have found a premature grave in their own country?
From very partial reports from some of our military hospitals in Mexico, it appears that the deaths exceed those
that occurred on the field of battle.
A New Orleans paper, noticing the return of the Ten,
uessee Regiment to tbat city, remarks: "Just one year




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          219
ago there passed through our streets as noble and splendid a body of men as ever went forth to battle.  They
were about nine hundred strong.  On Friday last, the
whole of this gallant regiment arrived in our city. It
numbers just three hundred and fifty-about one-third
the force with which it left; and this loss it has sustained
in a twelve months' campaign! It has lost on an average
fifty men a-month."
Of the Second Regiment of Mississippi Rifles, one hundred and sixty-seven died of disease.  Said Mr. Hudson
in Congress: " Our late associate, Colonel Baker, declared
in his speech on this floor, that of his regiment about one
hundred had left their bones in the Valley of the Rio
Grande, and that about two hundred more, worn down
by hardships, and emaciated lr disease, had been dismissed to perish by the way, or to find their graves with
their friends at home; that all this mortality had taken
place in about six months, and that this regiment had
never seen the foe. He also informed us, that what was
true of his regiment was generally true of other regiments
of volunteers. We are informed by the answer of the
Adjutant-General to a resolution of this House, that in a
period of from sixty to ninety days after the volunteers
had joined the arrmy in the field, their numbers were reduced by disease six hundred and thirty-seven, and by
discharges, in consequence of sickness and disability, between two and three thousand.  This estimate does not
include the sick which remain with the army." *
" I call the attention of this body and of the country to
the immense sacrifice of human life now making to carry
on this war. The official documents before us show that
twenty-three thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight
Speech. Feb. 13, 1847. App. to Cong. Globe, p. 869.




220        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
officers and men entered the service during the first
eight months of this war; that fifteen thousand four hundred and eighty-six remained in service at the close of
that time; that three hundred and thirty-one had deserted; that two thousand two hundred and two had
been discharged, leaving FIVE TIOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
AND NINETEEN unaccounted for."*
The Rev. Mr. McCarty, a chaplain in the army, wrote
friom the city of Mexico: "I have now in the regular
army eleven hospitals to visit, with one in the Quartermaster's department, which requires a great deal of my
time. The number on the sick report in this city exceeds
three thousand men!"  " We all know," said Mr. R. Johnson in the Senate, " that at the commencement of the last
Session of Congress, theW were actually buried on the
banks of the Rio Grande, of those who had died of
disease, twenty-five hundred men."t  Col. Childs, in his
official report, 13th Oct., 1847, states that on taking command of Puebla, the hospitals were "filled with 1,800
sick." A New Orleans paper, noticing the return of the
3d and 4th Tennessee regiments, says that they lost 360
by death, although neither regiment had been in action.
The same paper declares, that of 419 men composing the
Georgia battalion, 220 died in Mexico.
We could fill sheets with extracts from the public journals, giving mournful details of the ravages of disease in
our Mexican army.   Let the following from a southern
paper, and an advocate for the war, suffice. "At Perote
there were 2,600 American graves, all victims of disease,
and at the city of Mexico the deaths were most of the
time 1,000 a-month.  The first regiment that went out
from Mississippi buried 155 men on the banks of the Rio
* Speech of Mr. Giddings, Feb. 3,1847. Cong. Globe, p. 405
t Cong. Globe, Dec. 30, 1847.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         221
Grande before it went into battle, and finally brought back
less than half of its number. Two regiments from Pennsylvania went out 1,800 strong, and came home with
about 600. Two regiments from Tennessee without being in any battle, lost 300 men. Capt. Naylor, of Pennsylvania, took down a company of 104 men, and brought
back 17. He went into the battle of Contreras with 33,
and came out of it with 19. But the most frightful in:
stance of mortality was in the Georgia battalion. It went
to Mexico 419 strong; about 230 actually died; a large
number were discharged with ruined constitutions, many
of them doubtless gone long since to their graves, and
thus the battalion was reduced to 34 men fit for duty!
On one parade when a certain company, once'mustering
more than 100 men, was called the call was answered by
a single private, its only living representative. From officers of many other regiments we have received details
very similar to the above, which may be taken as a pretty
fair average of the losses in the volunteer regiments-the
regulars did not suffer to the same extent."
Mr. CLAY in a public speech, estimated the loss of our
countrymen in the first eighteen months of the war as
equal to one half the whole loss sustained in our seven
years' revolutionary struggle!
Mr. CALHOUN declared on the floor of Congress that
the mortality of our troops could not be less than twenty
per cent.
If then we estimate the total mortality of our troops
including these slain and such as afterwards died of their
wounds, and those who have expired in Mexico and at
home of diseases contracted in camp, at TWENTY THOUSAND, we shall be in little danger of exaggerating the
amount. If we next turn our regards to the wives and
children and relatives of these twenty thousand, we find
19'




222'       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
a still expanding mulkitude upon whom. the war has
brought lamentation and woe.
Once more follow in imagination the survivors, on their
return home. Mark the germinating seeds of moral and
physical disease implanted by war in their constitutions,
and about to bear bitter and deadly fruits.
In that approaching day when the Judge of quick and
dead shall make inquisition for blood, those who have kindled the flames of war, will be called to justify the numberless and immeasurable evils both spiritual and temporal they have inflicted upon their fellow-men, upon their
enemies as well as upon their own countrymen.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          223
CHAPTER XXIX.
SUFFERINGS INFLICTED ON MEXICO BY THE WAR.
TIE extreme feebleness of Mexico, arising from the ignorance and superstition of her inhabitants, was aggravated
by the vast extent of her territories. This great extent,
by rendering it difficult to collect a formidable force at
any extreme point, rendered her whole frontier accessible
to the invader. In about four months after the commencement of hostilities northern Mexico, from. Tampico
on the' Atlantic to St. Diego on the Pacific, was a conquered country.
The smallness of the forces by which the various conquests were effected, attests the helplessness of the Mexicans, and the vigor of their enemies. In a little more
than twelve months, the American standard waved over
the famous castle of Vera Cruz, and the capital of the
Republic was garrisoned by American troops.   From
that capital a corps of one thousand men could probably
have traversed the Republic in every directions through a
hostile, but almost unresisting population. After the capture of Thornton's party, which General Taylor announced
as the commencement of hostilities, not a battle, not a
skirmish occurred in which the Mexicans were not defeated, no matter how vast their superiority in numbers.
The ancient promise, " ten shall chase a thousand," seemed to be verified in the miarvellous success of the Ameri..
can arms.*  In ordinary cases, an invading army is neces* In the battle of Brazito, the American force under Col.
Doniphan was less than five hundred; that of the enemy, 1200




224         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
sarily confined to a narrow track, and is restrained by fear
of the enemy from dividing itself into detachments.  But
the unhappy Mexicans found the invaders spreading themselves over the country in every direction, and small parties taking possession of populous towns. We may easily
imagine the innumerable and horrible insults and excesses
endured by the Mexicans, from a victorious and scornful
enemy, conscious alike of his power and his impunity, and
far removed from the restraint, however feeble, of public
opinion.
Unaware of the vast superiority of their enemy in all
the dread machinery of war, the Mexicans unhappily hazarded the bombardment of Vera Cruz. Three thousand
shells, each weighing ninety pounds were, it is said, thrown
into that devoted city, besides about the same number of
round shot. For more than three days did this horrible
tempest beat upon Vera Cruz. "The darkness of the
night was illuminated with the blazing shells circling
through the air. The roar of artillery, and the heavy fall
of descending shot, were heard through the streets of the
The Americans lost not a single man, and had but seven slightly
wounded; the Mexicans were utterly routed, with a loss of 193
killed and wounded.
The result of the battle of Sacramento is thus described in an
official report: " The first shadows cast by the moon, found the
American army camped upon the battle-field, after having in a
contest of four hours annihilated a force six times their number,
and driven the enemy from four positions of great natural
strength, fortified by thirty-six forts and redoubts, having
taken four times their strength in artillery, the whole transportation, food, and ammunition of the Mexicans, and performed
a march of twenty miles without water." Col. Doniphan tells
us, " The field was literally covered with the dead and wounded
from our artillery, and the unerring fire of our riflemen. Night
put a stop to the carnage." The Mexicans had nineteen pieces
of cannon, and were sheltered by forts and redoubts, while the
Americans advanced to the attack on an open plain. The victors, in a fight of four hours, had one man killed, and eight
wounded. Triumphs over such enemies, afford little cause for
military pride.




rtEVIEV. OF 1TIIE 1MEXICAN WAR.    225
besieged city. The roofs of buildings were on fire, the
domes of churches reverberated with fearful explosions."
This splendid scene, and the consequences accompanying it, must have been viewed with high satisfaction, by
"The foe to all happiness human."
An officer of the navy, in an account written a few days
after, says: " The bombardment lasted three days and a
half. lhe city was greatly injured, the shells and round
shot striking all over the town. One part near a small
battery was utterly destroyed; and from the stench in the
neighborhood, it is to be feared that the bodies of very
many poor women and children, are buried in the ruins.
I was in the Governor's palace, a very fine building,
occupying one side of the Plaza, and was looking into a
very handsome room where it was evident a shell had
struck, when a Mexican gentleman came up and offered to
show me over the house. I followed him, and directly we
came to what had evidently been a superb room, but thenalmost entirely torn to pieces. He pointed to a place
beside the door which was blown out-" there," said he,
" sat a lady and her two children, theytwere killed by the
shell which has wrought the injury you see."
Another officer says, that during the bombardment,
"many of our officers at night crawled up close to the
walls to hear, and represented the screeching, crying, and
lament of the women and children, and wounded, as:
being dreadful."
A visitor, immediately after the surrender, tells us: " A
shell struck the Charity Hospital where the sick inmates
were lying, and killed twenty-three." Says Mr. Kendall,
an eye-witness: "The city, or at least the northern part
of it, has- been torn: all to pieces —the destructicn i;




226        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
dreadful. It is impossible to get at the loss of the Mexicans by the bombardment; yet it is certain that women,
children, and non-combatants, have suffered the most.
The National Palace on the Plaza, had five shells burst
within it; one of which, killed a woman and two children
lying asleep in the kitchen."
"I rode to the town," says another writer, " to see
what effect our shells had on it. I was prepared to see
much destruction, but was perfectly amazed. The town
is on its south-westerly side almost destroyed.  The
citizens of Vera Cruz say, the bombs did the most
injury. They would fall on the houses, their weight
carrying them from roof to cellar, and then burst, opening
the houses from top to bottom, and killing all within."
Mr. Hine, thus describes his visit, the day of the surrender. "Scarcely a house did I pass, that did not show
some great rent made by the bursting of our bomb-shells.
During my peregrinations, I came to a lofty and noble
mansion in which a terrible bomb had exploded, and laid
the whole front of the house in ruins. While I was examining the awful havoc created, a beautiful girl of some
seventeen came to the door, and invited me into the
house. She pointed to the furniture of the mansion torn
into fragments, and the piles of rubbish lying around, and
informed me, while her beautiful eyes filled with tears,
that the bomb had destroyed her father, mother, brother,
and two little sisters, and that she was now left in the
world alone!
"During the afternoon, I visited the hospital. Here
lay upon truckle-beds, the mangled creatures who had
been vounded during the bombardment. In one corner
was a poor decrepid, bed-ridden woman, her head white
with the sorrows of seventy years. One of her withered
arms had been blown off by a fragment of a shell. In




REVIEW OF TIlE MEXICAN WAR.         227
another place might be seen mangled creatures of both
sexes, bruised and disfigured by the falling of the houses,
and the bursting of shells. On the stone floor lay a little
child in a complete state of nudity, with one of its poor
legs cut off just above the knee! Not even this abode of
wretchedness had been exempted from   the accursed
scourge of war. A bomb had descended through the
roof, and, after landing on the floor, exploded, sending
some twenty already mangled wretches, to the "'sleep that
knows no waking.'"
The following is an extract from a Mfexican account,
written amid the ruins of the city. "The enemy, in
accordance with his character, selected a barbarous mode
of assassinating the unoffending and defenceless citizens,
by a bombardment of the city in the most horrible manner, throwing into it four thousand one hundred bombs,
and an innumerable number of balls of the largest size;
directing his shots to the powder magazine, to the quarter
of hospitals of charity, to the hospitals for the wounded,
and to the points he set on fire, where it was believed the
public authorities would assemble with persons to put it
out; to the baker's houses designated by their chimneys,
and during the night raining over the entire city, bombs,
whose height was perfectly graduated with the time ofexplosion, that they might ignite in falling, and thus cause
the maximum   of destruction.  His first victims were
women and children, followed by whole families, perishing
from the effects of the explosions, or under the ruins of
their dwellings.
"At the second day of the bombardment, we were
without bread or meat, reduced to a ration of beans, eaten
at midnight beneath a shower of fire.  By this time, all
the buildings from La Mercede to the Paeraguia, were
reduced to ashes, and the impassable streets filled with




228        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WA.R.
ruins and projectiles. The third day the enemy alternately
scattered their shot, and now every spot was a place of
danger. The principal bake-houses no longer existed —
no provisions were to be had."
The details we have given of this bombardment, afford
us some intimations of the sufferings occasioned by the
assaults upon the cities of Monterey and Mexico.* We
enter into no particulars of the battles fought in Mexico.
Every battle-field is necessarily one of horrors; but, as
the sufferers are those who came there to inflict upon
others the very fate of which they are themselves the
victims, they claim and excite less of our sympathy than
the mothers and their mangled infants of Vera Cruz,
whose shrieks of agony swelled the triumphal shout
which greeted the American General.
In all our conflicts in Mexico, the slaughter of the
enemy has been tremendously aggravated, by their natural
and military imbecility.  Mr. Thompson, our former
Minister, in his work on Mexico, remarks: "I do not
think that the Mexican men have much more strength
than our women.    They are generally of diminutive
stature, and wholly unaccustomed to labor or exercise of
any sort. What must be the murderous inequality between a corps of American cavalry, and an equal number
of Mexicans?"  He regards the superiority of Americans
to Mexicans as "' five to one at least in individual combats,
and more than twice that in battle."  Hence it is, that
the Mexican loss in battle has been prodigious. It is
* A letter from a Mexican published in the newspapers, says:
"In some cases whole blocks were destroyed, and a great number
of men, women, and children,klled and wounded. The picture
was awful. One deafening roar filled our ears-one cloud of
smoke met our eyes, now and then filled with flame; and amid
it all, we could hear the shrieks of the wounded and dying.
Altogether, we cannot count our killed, wounded, and missing,
at less than four thousand, among whom are many women and
children."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           229
impossible to ascertain the amount of that loss with any
precision, but there is little hazard in asserting that the
action of Congress in May, 1846, has consigned fifty
thousand Mexicans to a premature grave, and ten times
that number to poverty and wretchedness.
In the vast number of falsehoods of which this war has
been so prolific, may be included the general unqualified
culogiums passed by its advocates upon the hnnmanity of
the American soldiery. We are not aware of any peculiar
trait in our national character, that would render our soldiers remarkable for meekness and forbearance, or that
would necessarily counteract that arrogance and selfishness
which are the natural fruits of a bloody trade, and of military superiority.  But national vanity is ever ready to
believe a flattering lie, and demagogues equally ready to
offer incense to every popular delusion. It is our object
to tell the truth, and by so doing, to exhibit the odious and
execrable character of war. American soldiers are like
other soldiers, just what war, and discipline or the want
of it, may make them. Human nature is the same in
every land, and its evil propensities are equally developed
under similar circumstances.  It would have been an
anomaly in the history of mankind, if soldiers, flushed
with victory and scattered over a conquered country, and
holding the vanquished in utter contempt, had not been
guilty of great atrocities.  It would be but cumbering
our pages to detail the various instances of cruelty and
oppression perpetrated by our troops, which have found
their way into the public prints. A few specimens, selected
from journals supporting the war, and therefore not disposed to throw unjust odium on the American army, will
suffice to prove that our assertions on this point are not
unsupported by facts:
" Buena Vista, August 20.-A ranger is missed, search
20




230        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
is made for him by his comrades, his body is perhaps
found, perhaps'not. The nearest Mexicans to the vicinity
of his disappearance are required to account for him.
They will not, or cannot. The bowie knife is called for,
and deliberately every male Mexican in that rancho is
speedily done for, guilty or not guilty.  But this is not
enough to make an offset for the life of a Texan. Another
rancho receives the fearful visit, and again blood flows."
" Camargo, January 8, 1847.-Assassinations, riots,
robberies, &c., are so frequent that they do not excite
much attention. Nine-tenths of the Americans here think
it a meritorious act to kill or rob a Mexican."
In Camp, Walnut Springs (near Monterey), April 25,
1847.-" You have published accounts of the disgraceful
outrage perpetrated before the battle of Buena Vista, and
will be no less shocked to learn that an equally sickening
scene of outrageous barbarity has been perpetrated in
this region by persons calling themselves Americans. It
appears that near a little town called Guadaloupe, an
American was shot two or three weeks ago; and his companions and friends determined to revenge his death. Accotdingly a party of a dozen or twenty men visited the
place and deliberately murdered twenty-four Mexicans.'
The correspondent of the Louisville Republican writing from Aqua Nueva, after mentioning that the body of
a murdered Arkansas volunteer had been found, says,
"The Arkansas men vowed vengeance deep and sure.
Yesterday morning a number of them, some thirty persons,
went to the foot of the mountain two miles off, to an arrego
which is washed in the sides of the mountain, to which the'pisanos' of Aqua Nueva had fled upon our approach, and
soon commenced an indiscriminate and bloody massacre of
the poor creatures who had thus fled to the mountains and
fastnesses for security. A number of our regiment being




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          231
out of camp, I proposed to Colonel Bissell to mount our
horses and ride to the scene of carnage, where I knew
from the dark intimations of the night before, that blood
was running freely. We had turned out as rapidly as
possible, but owing to the thick chapperels, the work of
death was over before we reached the horrible scene, and
the perpetrators were returning to the camp glutted with
revenge. God knows how many of the unarmed peasantry
have been sacrificed to atone for the blood of poor Colquit.  The Arkansas regiment say not less than thirty
have been killed."
This anonymous account of the massacre is sustained by
the following order of General Taylor:-"- The Commanding General regrets most deeply that circumstances again
impose upon him the duty of issuing orders upon the
subject of marauding and maltreating the Mexicans. Such
deeds as have recently been perpetrated by a portion of
the Arkansas cavalry cast indelible disgrace upon our
arms, and the reputation of our country. The General
had hoped that he might be able, in a short time, to resume offensive operations; but if orders, discipline, and
all the dictates of humanity are set at defiance, it is vain
to expect anything but disaster and defeat. The men
who cowardly put to death unofending Mexicans are not
those who will sustain the honor of our arms in the day
of trial."
If the General meant to intimate that cruelty and
bravery are incompatible, he is contradicted by the unanimous testimony of all military history.
The correspondent of the Charleston Mercury, writing
from Monterey after its capture, says, "As at Metamoras,
murder, robbery, and rape, were committed in the broad
light of day; and, as if desirous to signalize themselves at
Monterey by some new act of atrocity they burned many




232        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
of the thatched huts of the poor peasants. It is thought
that more than one hundred of the inhabitants were murdered in cold blood."
It is not to be supposed that where human life is thus
atrociously sacrificed with impunity, the decencies of society and the rights of property will be respected. A
correspondent of the New Orleans Picayune writes from
Ceralvo: "On arriving at Mier, we learned that the
second regiment of Indiana Troops had committed, the
day before, outrages against the citizens of the most disgraceful character, stealing, or rather robbing, insulting
the women, breaking into houses, and other feats of similar
character. Recently the people here have received treatment from men stationed here, that negroes in a state of
insurrection would hardly be guilty of. The women have
been repeatedly violated (almost an every day affair),
houses broken open, and insults of every kind have been
offered to those whom we were bound to protect."
The correspondent of the St. Louis Republican, wliting
from Santa Fe, Aug. 12, 1846, says, "I regret to say,
nearly the whole territory has been subject to violence,
outfage, and oppression, by the volunteer soldiery against
all alike without distinction."
When we reflect how extensively Mexico has been
traversed by our troops, we cannot doubt that a prodigieus
amount of property has been most wantonly destroyed.
We are told by one of the letters describing a Mexican
defeat, " Captain Morier followed up his advantage with
decision, pursued the enemy, and devastated the valley of
the Moro, burning everything in his path. The people,
terrified, fled to the mountains where death in the shape
of starvation awaits them." " Between Metamoras and
Monterey," says another, "nearly all the ranchos and
towns are destroyed."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR            233General Scott, when about marching from Jalapa,
upon Mexico, issued an order which is a singular illustration of military morality. He tells his army that it
can no longer receive supplies from Vera Cruz, but must
trust for them to the resources of thl country-that the
people must be paid for provisions, or " they will withhold, conceal, or destroy them.  The people moreover
must be conciliated, soothed and well-treated by every
officer and man of this army, and by its followers."  This
preamble is succeeded by a declaration almost avowedly
prompted by the fact, that supplies could no longer be
brought from Vera Cruz: "Whoever maltreats unoffending Mexicans, takes without pay, or wantonly destroys
their property, of any kind whatsoever, will prolong this
war, waste the means present and future of subsisting our
men and animals, as they successively advance into the
interior, or return to our water depot (Vera Cruz); and
no army can possibly drag after it to any considerable
distance, no matter what the season of the year, the
heavy articles of breadstuff, meat, and forage. Those,
therefore, who rob, plunder, or destroy the houses, fences,
cattle, poultry, grain, fields, gardens or property of any
kind along the line of our operations, are plainly the enemies of this army. The General-in-Chief would infinitely
prefer that the few who commit such outrages would desert at once and fight against us. Then it would be easy
to shoot them down, or capture and hang them."
Military discipline confines to the commanding officer
the prerogative of plundering the enemy, and he would
no doubt wish to protect it from encroachment at all times.
On the present occasion the General thought proper to
dissuade the army from indulging their larcenous propensities, not from motives of justice and humanity, but the
difficulty of procuring supplies!
2a0*




234        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
This same General, in an order issued at Vera Cruz, 1st
April, 1847, declared that "many undoubted atrocities
have been committed in this neighborhood by a few worthless soldiers, both regulars and volunteers." The army
was about marching into the interior, and to conciliate the
inhabitants, and remove the unfavorable impressions made
by these "atrocities," he issued a proclamation promising
protection to the Mexicans, and telling them, that for outrages committed upon them, several Americans had already
been punished by fine and imprisonment, and one " has
been hung by the neck."  "Is not this," said he, "a
proof of good faith, and energetic discipline?"  The General did not tell the Mexicans how very cheap a sacrifice
he had offered to propitiate them. The one "liung by
the neck," was a NEGRO, and hence no military popularity
was lost by his execution, and being a free negro, no property was destroyed. We have no evidence that during
the whole war, a single soldier was punished with death
for any outrage committed on Mexicans, however atrocious.
General Taylor, in a despatch to the War Department,
16th June, 1847, remarks, "I deeply regret to report
that many of the twelve months' volunteers, in their route
hence to the lower Rio Grande, have committed extensive
depredations and outrages upon the peaceable inhabitants.
There is scarcely a form of crime that has not been reported
to me as committed by them."
A great number of Mexican towns were captured and
held by our forces. We may judge, from a single example, what kind of municipal government has most probably
been exercised by our 6fficers. Twelve months after the
capture of Monterey, its social condition was thus described by Colonel Tibbats, in an official proclamation: " The
undersigned, by virtue of an order of the commanding




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR             235
General, has assumed the office of military and civil Governor of Monterey.  Finding the command assigned to
him, virtually without law or order, and infested with robbers, murderers, gamblers, vagrants, and other evil disposed persons, the worst of criminals going free, unscathed
of justice, and rapine and even murder stalking abroad in
open day without fear of punishment, insomuch that the
peaceable inhabitants thereof have no protection either of
person or property," &c.
The following official declaration is of a character that
forbids us to doubt, that the oppression of the Mexicans
has been most aggravated.  General Kearney, writing to
the War Department, 15th March, 1847, in reference to
some insurrectionary movements, says: "The Californians are now quiet, and I shall endeavor to keep them so
by mild and gentle treatment.  Had they received such
treatment from the time our flag was hoisted in July last,
I believe there would have been but little or no resistance
on their part.  They have been most cruelly and shamefully abused by our own people, by volunteers (American emigrants) residing in this part of the country, and
on the Sacramento.  Had they not resisted, they would
have been unworthy of the name of men."*
To the individual sufferings arising from military violence, has been added that general suffering in which
the whole Mexican population has participated, necessarily
* We do not know the particulars here referred to; but the following item from the news of the day gives us some intimation of
the spirit manifested by the conquerors. " Lieuts. Beal, Talbot and others, left San Diego February 25th, bringing important intelligence. At Taos, the Court-had condemned a large
number of the insurgents. Eleven had been hung, and many
whipped. Six were hung the day Lieut. Talbot passed through
Taos. These executions created great excitement among the
Mexicans, and efforts were making to stimulate insurrection,
and raise volunteers for a rebellion."




236        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
resulting from the annihilation of their commerce. Every
seaport of the Republic, whether on the Atlantic or Pacific, has been occupied by American forces. Hence, the
Mexicans have been denied the privilege of exchanging
their surplus productions for the necessaries and conveniences they had been accustomed to receive from foreign
countries. Not a Mexican vessel floated on the ocean; of
course, all imports and exports were in the hands of foreigners, and subjected to such duties as the invaders
thought proper to impose. Those duties, moreover, instead of being appropriated as heretofore to the common
good, were seized by the conqueror for his own use. Nor
was his rapacity to be thus satiated. The ordinary municipal taxes became his spoil. Thus, for example, a Captain commanding in the city of Metamoras, issued his
rescript requiring " the owners of all stores, groceries, billiard-tables, hotels, eating-houses, brick-yards, gamblinghouses, pock-pits, and manufactories of liquors," to pay at
his office, each month the taxes on their respective establishments. The Commander-in-Chief thought proper
personally to direct and control the squeezing process.
On the 15th December, 1847, General Scott issued an
order beginning with the portentous announcement:
t" This army is about to spread itself over and occupy the
Republic of Mexico, until the latter shall sue for peace
in terms acceptable to the Government of the United States."
He then proceeds to decree that, " On the occupation of
the principal point or points in any State, the payment to
the Federal Government of this Republic of all taxes or
dues of whatever name or kind, heretofore, say in the
year 1844, payable or collected by that Government, is
absolutely prohibited, as all such taxes or dues will be
demanded of the proper civil authorities for the support
of the army of occupation." Thus were duties on imports




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          237
and exports, municipal, and all other taxes authorized by
Mexico in time of peace and prosperity, to be extorted by
a foreign army from the miserable impoverished people.
One would have supposed that such exactions might have
satisfied the Americans.  But no-Mr. Polk had, from the
moment he commenced the war, been sighing for PEACE.
General Scott had, indeed, conquered Mexico, but he had
not conquered a peace; and an organized system of plunder was to effect what his troops and bombs had failed to
accomplish. Hence, a second order was issued on the
31st December, 1847, from Head Quarters, imposing on
several of the Mexican States a contribution amounting
to A MILLION OF DOLLARS. The following is an extract
from this order: " On the failure of any State to pay its
assessment, its functionaries, as above, will be seized and
imprisoned, and their property seized, registered, reported,
and converted to the use of the occupation, in strict accordance to the general regulations of this army. No resignation or abdication of office, by any of the said Mexican
functionaries, shall excuse any of them from the above
penalties. If the foregoing measures should fail to enforce the regular payment as above from any State, the
commanding officer of the United States forces within the
same, will immediately proceed to collect in money or
kind from the wealthier inhabitants (other than neutral
friends) within his reach, the amount of the assessment
due from the State."*
This was the same General who, in his proclamation
addressed "to the Mexican nation," from Jalapa, May
11th, 1847, assured them, that " The army of the United
States respects, and WILL ALWAYS respect, private pro* It is but justice to General Scott to mention, that he acted
in accordance with instructions from Mr. Polk, who, without
any authority from Congress, assumed the power of imposing
tases and collecting d#ties in Meaico.




238        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
perty." He who directed officers of the United States
forces, when assessments on Mexican States are not paid,
to proceed to collect them from the wealthier inhabitants,
is the same Commander-in-Chief who, in his order of the
preceding April, wished that such of his soldiers as stole
poultry, grain, &c., from the Mexicans, would desert at
once, as then it would be easy to shoot them down, or to
capture and hang them. Among other devices for extorting money, in connexion with the promised regeneration of the Mexicans, was the official allowance of THREE
GAMING-HOUSES in the Capital, in consideration of the
annual sum of eighteen thousand dollars, payable in
monthly instalments.*
We can understand why Mr. Polk and his southern partisans deemed it expedient to acquire Mexican territory at
any cost of blood, treasure, and happiness; but surely
we may ask of northern Democrats and northern Whigs,
why have you brought pillage, desolation, and death
upon the people of Mexico?   What offence had they
committed which, in the sight of God, can justify such
horrible retribution at your hands? Why have you, who
have no interest in the extension of human bondage,
fought the battles, not of freedom, but of slavery?
When summoned, as you will shortly will be, before that
dread tribunal, which, in another world, takes cognizance of every act committed in this, on what plea do you
expect to vindicate that stupendous mass of human misery
and human wickedness which your agency has helped to
accumulate?
* It appears from the Report of the SeCretary of the Treasury
(Dec., 1848), that the sum of $3,844,000 was in these various
ways extorted from the Mexicans. The value of property destroyed in the city of Mexico, has been estimated at four millions. The total annihilation of Mexicaa property, caused by
the invasion, no arithnetic can compute.




RUVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR..        229
Mr. Root, of Ohio, one of the "immortal fourteen," in
a speech delivered after the triumph of our arms, and the
acquisition of the " indemnity " demanded by Mr. Polk,
thus expressed himself on the floor of Congress: —" But
where shall the widow look for indemnity? Where shall
the mother, made childless by this war, look for her indemnity?  Where shall the orphan children, whose fathers have fallen in battle, or by disease in that distant
land, look for their indemnity? Can any of these new
acquisitions, under this treaty, indemnify them? It does
seem to me, sir, that in all this bloody business, the men
who have been most active in it, have regarded this war
only in relation to the effect it is likely to have on future
elections, and they have not once thought how it will be
regarded by the Judge of all. And when I think of
these things, I thank my God, humbly thank him, that
He gave me the nerve and the firmness to stand up here
in my place, and say " no " first, and " no" last, and " no"
at all times, on every measure designed for the prosecution of this accursed war. And, sir, I rejoice that, when
I approach the last agony of earth, whatever other guilt
may press me, none of the victims of this war can meet
me and say,-'Let my fate sit heavy on thy soul to-morrow.'




N4O        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER XXX.
COST OF THE WAR TO THE UNITED STATES.
ONE of the professed objects of the war, after the pretence of repelling invasion had been abandoned, was the
indemnification of " our much-injured citizens," that is,
the collection of a few millions of alleged debt. Our fleet
and army were employed to collect this debt, and according to Mr. Polk, the costs of collection were to be added
to the sum due. We not only gave judgment in our own
cause, but taxed our own costs. Those costs, as nearly as
can be ascertained, will, when finally settled, exceed ONE
HIUNDRED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. In civil life, the very
attempt to compel a debtor to pay a bill of costs twenty
times the amount of the debt claimed, would be deemed
scandalous extortion. How far the determination of a
powerful government, to extort such a bill from a feeble,
exhausted State by slaughter and devastation, is divested
of criminality on account of its national character, is a
question embarrassing only to those who have persuaded
themselves that statesmen and politicians are under the
jurisdiction of a peculiar and relaxed morality. The idea
that reparation is due to Mexico for a ruthless invasion,
the devastation of her cities, the plunder of her provinces,
the slaughter of thousands and tens of thousands of her
people, has been advanced, only to be denounced as unpatriotic, if not treasonable.
We have levied upon Mexican territory, for the hundred




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            241
millions we have spent in attempting to collect a paltry
debt, which, after all, we have remitted by the treaty of
peace. Mr. Polk declared his determination to prosecute
the war till "full indemnity" had been obtained; but he
failed to tell us by what moral arithmetic he ascertained
what number of square miles of slave territory will afford
a "full indemnity" for the misery, falsehood, and crime
engendered by his war.
Many a successful plaintiff has found, to his mortification, that he has impoverished his adversary without
enriching himself, and that the fruits of his victory have
been pocketed by the agents he employed. A similar
discovery may be in reserve for the American people.
The question what they have gained by the war, will in
time force itself upon their attention.  To this inquiry, no
other answer can be returned than GLORY AND TERRITORY.
Before we proceed to investigate the true value of these
spoils of victory, let us dwell a moment on their pecuniary
costs.
The direct expenditures in waging this war, from
the departure of Taylor from Corpus Christi, to
the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty ef
peace, cannot, at the most moderate estimate,
be less than  -  --- $100,000,000
-The money to be paid Mexico, for ceding the required territories, and thus saving us the cost
of protracted hostilities, is  -          15,000,000
The cost of the army from the conclusion of the
war, to its disbandment, including its transportation home, say  -   -                 2,000,000
The extra pay for three months to all soldiers
who had been engaged in the war, allowed by
act of Congress, estimated at -  -  -      8,000,000
Every soldier, or his heir, is entitled to 160 acres
of land, or in lieu thereof, at his option, $100.
Supposing only 75,000 claims to be presented,
and to be paid in land, the value of the
21




A42        iREVI&EW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
land, at the price fixed by Congress would be
$15,000,000.  But to avoid the semblanee of
exaggeration, we will suppose these claims commuted at $100 each, making    -   -   -    7,500,000
The award under the treaty of 1839, due by Mexioo, and assumed by treaty of peace, with
interest,   -.. 2,000,000
The Government has also assumed. by treaty, the
payment of such unliquidated claims against
Mexico as may be found valid, not exceeding
$3,250,000, out of $6,455,462 demanded. Should
none but valid claims be allowed, the sum to be
paid may amount to                           600,000
Making the total cost, in money, of new territory,      -..             $1830,000,000
The above estimate, it is believed, is very moderate,
and much below the estimates usually made.  But let it
be recollected, that it is an estimate only of the direct
expenditures of the Federal Government, for the acquisition of the coveted territories.
For nearly two years, at least 140,000 men, as soldiers,
teamsters, artificers, &c., have been diverted from productive industry, and engaged in occupations, adding
nothing to the real wealth of the country, or the comfort,
happiness, and morality of its citizens. The time aind
labor of these meni have therefore been literally wasted,
and consequently what they would have added to the
common stock in time of peace, is to be included in the
cost of the war. Many of these individuals have, moreover, been brought to an untimely grave, and probably a
still greater number disqualified for future usefulness by
vice and disease.  The operations of commerce have,
moreover, been deranged, and enterprize paralyzed by a
monetary pressure, occasioned by a drain of specie from
our great cities, to be expended in Mexico-and wide



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         243
spread bankruptcy only prevented, by an unusual and
accidental demand for our bread-stuffs in Europe.
When all these facts are taken into consideration, and
when we recollect bhat interest is to be paid during many
future years, on the money borrowed, and that large
drafts are yet to be made on the treasury for pensions
and for indemnities for private losses and injuries, it will
not be thought extravagant to assume, that the indirect
cost of the war will be little, if any less than the sum
actually expended for its prosecution.
Dr. Franklin, long since remarked, that nothing was
ever acquired by war that might not have been obtained
at a less cost by purchase. For the territory of Louisiana, even more extensive and greatly more valuable than
that we have wrested from Mexico, we paid $15,000,000.
For Texas we offered $5,000,000, and at a previous day
we had offered only $1,000,000 for Texas, with a portion
of California.
Mr. Polk would have shrunk from offering fifty millions
for the very land which he has now bought at such a vast
amount of blood and treasure.  It is impossible to resist
the conviction that, by honest negotiation, we might have
become the masters of these territories without crime,
wbthout human butchery, and at a far less cost in money
than the sum we have paid.
The mighty sum we have exchanged for glory and territory, has added not one cent. to the productive capital
of the country, nor brought one new comfort or convenience within reach of its population.
For all useful practical purposes, this amount of the
nation's capital has been annihilated.  But it is easy to
imagine how such a sum might have been expended in
modes resulting in a prodigious- augmentation of the resources of the nation, and the virtue and enjoyments of




244        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
the people.  Such a sum might have spread a net-work
of railroads and telegraphic wires over the country, uniting in bonds of interest and intercourse the remotest inhabitants of our vast empire.  It would have opened
through Oregon a channel by which the commerce of
India and China would in a few days have reached every
portion of our Confederacy.  Or it might have given
security and facility to our magnificent inland navigation,
and formed safe and capacious harbors on our mediterranean seas. Or it might have carried science and useful
knowledge to the inmates of every dwelling in our Republic; and in various ways have been made conducive
to the diffusion of virtue and religion.  The mere interest
of this sum is vastly greater than is annually contributed
by Christendom to evangelize the world.  The disposal
of this treasure was a talent which, in the providence of
God, was entrusted to our rulers: whether the use they
have made of it proves them to have been good and faithful servants will be declared on that day in which they
shall give an account of their stewardship.
We should, however, take a most erroneous and limited
view of the cost of this war to the United States, were
we to confine our estimates to the millions which have
been expended in its prosecution, or to' the personal sufferings it has occasioned. Before we can sum up the
total cost, we must. add to the blood, the groans, the
treasure, we have bartered for victory and conquest, the
political and moral evils the war has bequeathed to the
nation-evils as extensive as the bounds of the Republic,
and whose effects upon the happiness of individuals will
continue to be felt when time shall be no more.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          245
CHAPTER XXXI.
POLITICAL EVILS OF THE WAR.
ALL war is necessarily unfavorable in its tendencies to the
liberties and prosperity of a State, even when waged for
the defence or recovery of freedom.  The burthens it
imposes, the arbitrary authority it confers, and the dispositions it fosters, are all adverse to popular rights.
These tendencies are, of course, controlled and modified
by circumstances. The late war, having been carried on
wholly without the limits of our own country, did not
inflict upon our citizens those violations of right and those
oppressive exactions which are ever experienced on the
theatre of hostilities. It has nevertheless shown itself a
dangerous foe to constitutional liberty.
We have seen in the preceding pages that most provident and ample preparations were made for the commencement of the war on the Rio Grande, and for the
seizure of California, not only without the sanction, but
even without the knowledge of Congress.  It is utterly
impossible that Congress would have issued, or the people have tolerated, a declaration of war against Mexico,
either to compel her to pay our alleged claims, or to
withdraw her troops and magistrates from her villages on
the Rio Grande. Hence, it was deemed necessary first to
provoke a collision, and then to appeal to Congress to
defend the country from invasion! The war, therefore,
although recognized and prosecuted by Congress after its
commencement, was in fact and in truth begun in conse12*




246        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
quence of orders issued by the President on his own responsibility, and not in pursuance of any constitutional or
legal authority, He had, indeed, as Commander in-Chief,
a right to direct the movements of the troops, but not in
such a manner as necessarily and designedly to involve
the country in war. Most truly, therefore, did the House
of Representatives declare.that the war had been unconstitutionally begun by the President.
Yet has this usurpation of power, leading to the sacrifice of thousands of lives and millions of treasure, been
unvisited with punishment. The offence has found an
apology in the triumphs to which it has led; and thus a
sanction has been given to a precedent, that invests the
President of the Republic with the royal prerogative of
bringing upon the nation the calamities of war.
Nor is this the only instance, in which the President in
his own person has exercised powers belonging only to the
legislative branch of the Government.  Although not permitted by the Constitution to appoint of his own will and
pleasure, a single officer, or to take from the treasury a
single cent, he established a system of tariffs and internal
taxation in Mexico, appointing a horde of collectors, and
accumulating at his own disposal, all the revenue that
could be extorted at the point of the bayonet, from the
miserable and impoverished Mexicans; and all this without the slightest warrant from Congress.*
"I am under a deep conviction, that the President has no
right whatever, to impose taxes internal and external on the
people of Mexico. It is an act without the authority of the
Constitution or laws, and eminently dangerous to the country.
If the President can exercise, in Mexico, a power expressly given
to Congress, which he cannot exercise in the United States, I
would ask where is the limit to his power in Mexico? Has he
also the power of making appropriations of money collected in
Mexico, without the sanction of Congress? This he has already
done. Has he the power to apply the money to whatever purposes he may think proper, and, among others, to raise a mill
tary force in Mexico, without the sanction of Congress? This




REVIEW OF'TIE MEXICAN WAR.'          247
He has also, by his sovereign will and pleasure, estab.
lished civil Governments in New Mexico and California,
appointed Governors, organized courts of justice, commissioned magistrates, &c., without even consulting Congress,
and with no law whatever authorizing the exercise of these
high prerogatives, or providing for the salaries of the numerous civil officers he has seen fit to appoint. It appears from the Report of the Secretary of War, Dec. 4,
1847, that the duties collected in California, "have been
applied towards the support of the civil Government."
Thus has the President, of his own will and pleasure, not
only appointed officers, but paid them salaries at his discretion. Thus have a people, jealous of their liberties permitted, in the delirium of victory and conquest, their chief
magistrate to assume over vast regions the most unlimited
and despotic authority, grasping at once the sword and
the purse. Henceforth it is to be part of our theory of
Government, that during war, the President of the United
States is released from all constitutional restrictions, so far
as he acts without the limits of the country, and that he is
wholly beyond the control of Congress. The immense
power and patronage thus conferred on the President by
a state of war, may hereafter prove a strong inducement
with that officer to plunge his country into hostilities, and
to postpone the return of peace.
The course pursued by Congress has apparently been
directed by the principle, that when the country has once
also he has already done "-Speech of M.r Calhoun zn Senate, March
1848.
" Is the establishment of a code of customs in, Mexico, an act
of war, or derived from war, or an act of legislation? Why,
clearly it is the latter I want to know how the President of
the United States can overturn the revenue law of Mexico, and
establish a new one in its stead, any more than he can overturn
the law of the descent of property, the law of inheritance, the
criminal code, or any other portion of Mexican law?"-Mr.
Webster's Speech in Senate, March, 1848.




248        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
been involved in war, no matter by what means, or for
what objects, it is the duty of the representatives of the
people to afford to the President every facility he demands for its prosecution, however wicked or injurious
it may be.
Not only has the public mind become accustomed to
executive usurpation, but it has lost, in its admiration of
military success, that jealousy of military power, which is
a most powerful safeguard of republican liberty. We
have been utterly heedless of the melancholy example exhibited by Mexico herself, of the disastrous influence of a
thirst for martial renown. The astonishing facility with
which that country was overrun and prostrated by our
troops, cannot be accounted for solely by the paralyzing
effect of the Mexican church on the progress of science
and civilization. Ever since her independence, Mexico
has fostered a military spirit; but it was a spirit that consumed her very vitals. The resources of the State were
squandered on the army, and the army through its generals governed the State.  The blessings of peace were
despised, and the citizens, instead of combining for the
common welfare, were divided into partisans of rival Generals. Revolution succeeded revolution in rapid succession, one chieftain supplanting another. A civilian was
scarcely ever placed at the head of the State, the reins of
government being almost invariably committed to hands
that grasped the sword. The history of the Republic of
Mexico has been a history of military insurrections and
usurpations. Even when invaded by a foreign enemy,
military factions and rival chiefs paralyzed the strength
of the nation, and rendered her an easy prey. All the
records of the past bear witness to the fact, that popular
Generals have been the chief destroyers of Republics.
Yet the American people, deaf to the warnings of his



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          249
tory, have apparently become infatuated with military
glory, and have recently given, various indications of their
preference for men who have served their country in the
field, over such as have merely labored to advance her
prosperity and happiness, by cultivating the arts of peace.
The arbitrary spirit engendered by war, and the idea
which it fosters, that all rights and interests must yield to
the public safety, are both necessarily hostile in their tendency, to the free expression of opinion adverse to its
prosecution. It is not surprisng that the authors of the
Mexican war-a war so open to animadversion, and waged
for purposes so sectional and odious-should wish to discourage all investigation into its true character; and all
efforts to thwart the accomplishment of its object. No
law could silence the press, nor arrest debate in Congress,
nor discussion among the people. But the hope seems to
have been indulged, that public opinion might be so directed, as to produce what legislation could not effect.
On the popularity of the war might depend not merely
its successful prosecution, and the consequent acquisition
of the coveted territories, but the predominance of the
democratic party, and the continued possession of power
and emoluments by the present incumbents of office.
Hence Mr. Polk, in his first Message after the commencement of hostilities, attemptedto intimidate his opponents
by insinuating that they, were treacherous to the cause of
their country. "The war," said he, "has been represented as unjust and unnecessary, and as one of aggression on our part upon a weak and injured enemy. Such
erroneous views, though entertained by but few, have
been widely and extensively circulated, not only at home,
but have been spread throughout Mexico, and the whole
world. A more effectual means could not have been devised to encourage the enemy, and protract the war, than




250        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to advocate and adhere to their cause, and thus give them'aid and comfort.' It is a source of national pride and
exultation, that the great body of the people have thrown
no such obstacles in the way of the Government in prosecuting the war successfully, but have have shown themselves to be eminently patriotic, and ready to vindicate
their country's honor and interests at any sacrifice."
Here we have a most arrogant impeachment,-by the
first magistrate of the Union, of the patriotism of such of
his fellow-citizens, including no small portion of the very
Congress he was addressing, who in the exercise of the
very rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of
their country, ventured to express the opinion, that the
war in which he had involved the nation, was unjust, unnecessary, and aggressive. Mr. Polk did not deem it prudent to denounce in plain terms, the opponents to his
measures as TRAITORS to their country, and meriting an
ignominious death, but preferred doing it by implication;
and hence applied to all such as pronounced his war unjust, unnecessary, and aggressive, the technical terms,' giving aid and comfort" to enemies, used by the Constitution of the United States (Art. III. Sect. 1), in defining the crime of TREASON. If this gentleman did indeed
believe, that a conscientiousopposition to an existing war,
is inconsistent with patriotism, and equivalent to the crime
of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he is ignorant not
merely of the first principles of ethics, but of the course
pursued by some of the most illustrious statesmen and
patriots who have adorned the pages of modern history.
What said Lord Chatham, the celebrated Prime Minister of England, who had led his nation to victory, and
power, and whose memory is embalmed in the grateful
remembrance of his countrymen? This great man during
the American war, declared in Parliament; "If I were an




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         251
American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop
was landed in my country, I would never lay down my
arms-never-never-never."    Fox even refused'to concur in a vote of thanks to officers for the victories they
had achieved, in what he believed, to be an unjust war.
Numerous distinguished members of the British Parliament were active and persevering in their opposition
to the war. So again, the war waged by Great Britain
against the French Republic, was fieely denounced as
unjust and unnecessary, by statesmen high in the confidence
of the nation. Th6 recent war against China, frequently
called the Opium War, was sternly denounced by a large
portion of the British public as most iniquitous. At a
public meeting in London, at which a British peer, the
Earl of Stanhope, presided, it was resolved: "That this
meeting deeply laments that the moral and religious
feelings of the country should be outraged, the character
of Christianity disgraced in the eyes of the world, and this
kingdom involved in war with upwards of three hundred
and fifty millions of people, in consequence of British
subjects introducing opium into China, in direct and
known violation of the laws of that Empire."  The
meeting concurred in a petition to Parliament, for an
immediate peace, and ordgred that their proceedings
should be translated into the Chinese language, and forwarded to the Emperor of China. Yet no Minister of the
Crown, no member of Parliament, ventured to denounce
this Constitutional expression of opinion as treasonable.
In our own country we have seen men of the purest
character, the most unquestionable patriotism, opposing
the war of 1812 with Great Britain, as unnecessary,
impolitic, and unjust.  No Constitutional monarch -in
Europe would venture to impeach the patriotism and
loyalty of those, who, in a mode sanctioned by the funda



252       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
mental laws of the Empire, opposed the -measures of his
Government.
The system of denunciation commenced in the Message,
was zealously and rudely pursued by the official journal.
The following article appeared in the Washington Union,
soon after the date of the Message.
" A WAR-REGISTER. TIMELY PROPOSITION.-It has been
suggested, that the cause of the country may be promoted
by the opening of a war-register in every city, town, and
village, for the purpose of preserving an authentic record
of the TORYISM which may be displayed by individuals,
daring the continuance of the present war.  In this
register, it is proposed to record the names of such persons as make themselves zealous in pleading the cause of
the enemy, and oppose the war into which the people and
the Government of the United States have been forced by
Mexican aggression, insult, and robbery.  Besides the
names of the individuals who pronounce against the justice
of our cause, such sentiments as are particularly odious,
should be placed on the register. Where an individual
expresses sympathy for the enemy, or wishes the death
of the President, or the downfall of the National Administration as a punishment for having engaged in the war,
the sentiments of the TORY should be registered in his
own language as nearly as possible.  All statements
intended for entry on the record, should be verified by the
name of the witness or contributor."
The wickedness of this article, is not concealed by the
absurdity of its pretended proposition.  Its evident
design was to intimidate the opponents of the war, by
exciting against them demonstrations of popular violence.
It is a call from the Government organ upon the demagogues of the day, to stifle by brute force, all open
denunciation of the war.  Confiding in the countenance




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         253
and patronage of the executive and his partisans, the
editor of this paper assumed a dictatorship over the proceedings of Congress, rebuking either House with vulgar
insolence whenever it declined an immediate compliance
with the wishes of the President. Such members.as
voted against granting further supplies, were stigmatized
as Mexican Whigs. At last, a vote of the Senate displeasing to the Administration, was announced as
"ANOTHER MEXICAN VICTORY."    Happily the purpose
intended was not effected. Indignation, and not intimidation, was the result; and the President's editor was, by a
formal resolution, "for having uttered a public libel on
the Senate," excluded from the privilege of admission to
the floor of the Senate, a courtesy that had hitherto been:shown him. The course pursued by this journal merits
attention only from its being the acknowledged organ of
the executive, and from its obvious accordance with the
spirit and design of Mr. Polk's official denunciation of the
opponents to the war. Many of the officers of the army,
following the hints given by the President and his organ,
professed to be exceedingly scandalized by the objections
made to the war. General Twiggs, in particular, was so
regardless of decency as to give, at a public dinner in
Mexico, the toast, " Honor to the citizen-soldier who steps
forward to battle for his country. Shame to the KNAVES
at home, who give aid and comfort to our enemies."  A
Colonel Wynkoop, wrote from Mexico: " We here can see
no difference between the men, who, in 1776, succored the
British, and those, who, in 1847 give arguments and sympathy to the Mexicans." Another Colonel of the name
of Morgan, declared in a public speech: " All who will
advocate the withholding of supplies, or withdrawing our
armies, disguise their sentiments however they may, under
22




254        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
whatever artful plea they choose, are TRAITORS AT
HEART." 
These various attempts to suppress the freedom of
debate and discussion, only reiterate the lesson universally taught by history, that war, in its spirit is hostile to
civil liberty.  Had the war been a popular one, had the
masses been maddened by defeat, had they been thirsting
for the blood of their enemies, the efforts of the President and his partisans to direct their fury upon a feeble
-minority whom they were taught to regard as traitors,
would not have been fruitless, and the American, like the
French Republic, would have had her annals disgraced by
a Reign of Terror.
But happily the assertion of the President, that the
war was regarded as unjust and unnecessary, and as one
of aggression " by but few," was of equal veracity with
many other of his declarations. This assertion was made
in his Message of December, 1846, at which time his
party had a very large majority in the House of Representatives.- The next December, a new House of Representatives, elected in the interim, assembled; and this
new House, "fresh from the people," Resolved: " that
the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun
by the President of the United States."
But although we have successfully maintained the
liberty of speech and of the press, the sanction given by
the war to executive usurpations, and the thirst for conquest and glory, which it has stimulated, are destined to
exeirt a durable and disastrous influence on the Republic.
There are also other political evils resulting from the war,
which merit consideration. The nation, which at the
commencement of hostilities was free from debt, is now
burthened with a load of pecuniary obligations.  To
* We quote these military ebullitions, from the Newspapers
of the day.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           255
relieve ourselves of this load, it will be necessary for
many years, to impose heavy duties upon imports; and
these duties are in fact, taxes upon the necessaries and
comforts of life; not the less real for being indirect and
unperceived by the consumers. Our national vanity is
flattered by the fact, that the certificates of our debt are
now selling in Europe. It seems not to be recollected
that our debt is thus transferred to foreigners, who, instead
of our own citizens, are hereafter to receive from the
national treasury, both principle and interest.  Great
Britain could not support, for a single year, the payment
even of the interest of her debt, did it not find its way
into the pockets of her own subjects, whence it is again
returned in taxes to the Government. Just in proportion
as our debt is due abroad, the more onerous is it to
ourselves.
When we reflect on the vast extent given to our
Empire by the recent conquests-the peculiar character
of the conquered people who are to be invested with the
privileges of American citizens-the bitter sectional feelings already engendered by the question respecting the
extension of slavery over these regions-the diversity of
interests that will exist between the Atlantic and Pacific
States, and the perpetual struggle for mastery which must
prevail between a powerful yeomanry, depending on their
own industry, and a landed aristocracy supported by some
millions of serfs, surely we have cause to apprehend
much irritation, civil dissensions, and the ultimate disruption
of the Union.
We presume not to lift the veil that conceals the future;
but if the declaration, that " Wherewithal a man sinneth,
by the same also shall he be punished," be applicable to
nations as well as to individuals, we cannot doubt that the
conquests which now swell our national pride will prove
scourges to humble it.




256         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR
CHAPTER XXXII.
MORAL EVILS OF THE WAR.
THE malignant as well as the benevolent affections of our
nature are strengthened by exercise. A'volunteer, describing in a letter his sensations on first going into battle,
mentions that on discharging his musket, he was harassed
with the fear that he might possibly kill somebody; but
that after a while he became as eager as others in the
work of death.
From the commencement of hostilities, the public was
almost daily served by the newspapers with details of
battles, and bombardments, and mangled corpses, and all
the varieties of human suffering caused by war:
"Boys and girls,
And women, that would groan to see a child
Pull off an insect's leg, all read of warThe best amusement of our morning meal:
And all are learned, fluent, absolute,
And technical, in victories and defeats,
And all the dainty terms for fratricide;
Terms which we trundle smoothly o'er our tongues,
Like mere abstractions-empty sounds, to which
We give no feeling and attach no-form.
As if the soldier died without a woundAs if the fibres of this godlike frame
Were gored without a pang-as if the wretch
Who fell in battle, doing bloody deeds,
Pass'd off to Heaven, translated, and not killedAs though he had no wife to pine for him,
No God to judge."




REVIEW  OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            257
This constant familiarity with human suffering, instead of
awakening sympathy, has roused into action the vilest
passions of our nature. We have been taught to ring our
bells, and illuminate our windows, and let off fireworks, as
manifestations of our. joy, when we have heard of great
ruin, and devastation, and misery, and death, inflicted by
our troops upon a people who never injured us, who
never fired a shot on our soil, and who were utterly incapable of acting on the offensive against us.* Nor was
our exultation at the flow of Mexican blood repressed by
the recollection that American blood flowed with it. Our
neighbors, and friends, and countrymen, by thousands,
fell in battle, or wasted in the noisome hospital-but their
sufferings excited almost as little thought and compassion
as those of the Mexicans. The nation had gained glory,
* Says an able writer: "American gentlemen, husbands and
fathers, send an army to collect a debt from some Mexican chieftains by bombarding Vera Cruz. By day and by night the
awful storm of bomb-shells is rained down upon the devoted
city.  Christian gentlemen guide these guns, and kindle these
fires of hell. Mothers and daughters fly shrieking through the
streets, and their mangled limbs are buried beneath the ruins
of their dwellings.  These shells explode in infant nurseries,
by the bedside of languishing disease, in parlors of refinement
and piety. Ladies have limb torn from limb by the balls which
American gentlemen fire. A large party of ladies, in the terror
of that awful bombardment, fly to the cellar of one of the most
costly stone mansions, hoping there to find refuge from these
engines of destruction which have demolished many of their
dwellings, and by a bloody death bereaved them of many of their
dearest friends. The thunders of the bombardment, the crash
of the explosions of bomb-shells, the shrieks of the dying, pierce
the darkness of the cellar, and excite to a frenzy of terror the
trembling females there.  A shell falls upon the roof of the
house, descends into the cellar, and explodes; and the limbs of
these mothers and maidens, mangled and gory, are driven into
the walls. And this is honorable warfare-this is Chrzitian warfare-and the result of such scenes is the subject for civic rejoicing, bonfires, and illuminations! And respectable men, humane men, men who sit at the table of Jesus Christ as his disciples, who publish papers to guide the world to Christian feelings and practices, consider this a very suitable way of collecting debts."
22*




258        REVIEW -OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
and would gain land; and politicians seemed anxious to
gain popularity by rivalling each other in exulting shouts.
Alas, in very many instances those shouts proceeded
from the same lips whiqs denounced the war as unconstitutional, unjust, and a national crime!
The struggles between the convictions of conscience
and the aspirations for popular favor, led others besides
the Whigs into strange and almost ludicrous contradictions.
We have heard much of late years, from a certain class
of philanthropists, of the inviolability of human life; and
societies have been organized for the abolition of capital
punishment.  Life was a boon granted by the Deity,
which could rightfully be taken only by the Giver.  All
this was very well, as applied to American felons; but to
extend it to Mexican men, women, and children, guiltless
of crime, was, of course, to give "aid and comfort" to
the enemy. Hence was seen, in one of our largest cities,
the singular spectacle of a president of an anti-capitalpunishment society presiding over a large and ferocious
war meeting. The president of another similar society, a
prominent politician, accepted and discharged the very
consistent duty of presenting a complimentary sword to a
popular general.
That portion of the publie press which supported the
war has, in many instances, been instrumental in diffusing
througLout the community most impious and ferocious
sentiments. It was, of course, the policy of the dominant
party to excite the passions of the people against Mexico,
to encourage admiration for military prowess, and to re-.press all compassion for those we were slaughtering and
plundering. Hence, many of the war journals apparently
laboredt o pervert the moral sense of the community, and
to insult and ridicule those religious feelings which were




REVIEW OF THE MEXrCAN WAR.           259
naturally shocked by the character and events of the
war.
A few quotations will illustrate these remarks. Mr.
Polk, as we have seen, whileldevastating Mexico, was at
all times sighing for peace. His presses teemed with the
most brutal plans for " conquering peace."
"We must now," said one of them, "destroy the city
of Mexico, level it with the earth on which it stands, serve
Puebla, Perote, Jalapa, Saltillo, and Monterey in the
same way, and then increase our demands till we insist on
the perpetual possession of the Castle of Juan d'Ulua, as
a key to the commerce of the Gulf of Mexico.    This
course would save hundreds of lives.  Occupy all the
seaports on the Gulf and the Pacific for revenue for.the
payment of the'expenses of the. war.  Such a course
would compel the Mexicans to sue for peace."
Said another: " Unless we distress the Mexicans, carry
destruction and loss of life to every fireside, and make
them feel a rod of iron, they will not respect us."  Mr.
Polk's own organ, the official Union, declared: "Our
work of subjugation and conquest must go on rapidly
and with augmented force, and, as far as possible, at the
expense of Mexico herself. Henceforth, we must seek
PEACE, and compel it by inflicting on our enemies all the
evils of war."
These barbarous sentiments, which were rife through
the land, were aggravated in atrocity by the lying pretext
on which they were urged. We, an invading foe, were
to murder by wholesale, and level cities to the earth, to
procure a peace that was ours the moment we ceased to
assail the Mexicans. Did we choose to recal our armies,
we well knew our enemy had no means of revenging the
wrong we had done her.  Mexico was fighting solely in
self-defence, and the only peace we desired, the only




260        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
peace we were ready to conquer, was the cession of thu
territory for which we had commenced the war.
Not only were the general precepts of justice and
humanity thus set at defiance, but pains seemed to be
taken to attract public admiration for such acts of ferocity
and impiety as were calculated to nourish the war spirit.
A silly child of eleven years was said to have written a
letter to one of the Generals, asking to be employed
against the Mexicans, and boasting that he had money
enough to buy a pair of pistols and a dagger; and the
epistle of this little boy was paraded in the papers, headed
" THE RIGHT KIND OF SPIRIT."  Anecdotes of officers,
which, if true, could not fail to disgust all who reverence
the awful realities of Christianity, have been loudly
trumpeted as instances of American patriotism and heroism. Thus we have had an account ofa captain mortally
wounded, and just expiring. " The whole of his lower
jaw, with a part of his tongue and palate, is shot away by
a grape shot; he communicated his thoughts by writing
on a slate. He does not desire to live. He concluded
an answer to some inquiries concerning the battle of the
9th, by writing'we gave the Mlexicans hell!'"  These
words so peculiarly horrible, as uttered by a dying man,
became with a certain class a slang phrase, and to give
the Mexicans hell, seemed to be the glorious privilege, as
well as duty, of American Christians. A  Mississippi
paper adopted it, with a blasphemous addition:-" By
some mistake a piece of poetry headed'Song of the
Sword,'* appears on our first page. It seems that in our
absence, when, it may be, the boys were out of copy, this
song was selected to fill up a place. We never saw it
till it was too late to make the correction. It does not
* An English poem on war, having no allusion to thig
country.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          261
express our sentiments. It is Whiggish, and very bad
poetry withal. We go for giving the Mexicans HELL,
whether Christ be our guide or not."
Under the caption, " NOBLE EXPLOIT," we are told of a,soldier mortally wounded, remonstrating against being
carried off the field, exclaiming, " he was a dead man, and
damned if he did not want to kill some of them."
Some comment having been excited by certain profane
expressions, untruly we hope, alleged to have escaped
from General Taylor, in the heat of battle, a New Orleans paper replied: "( It is a paltry affectation in any one
who knows the General, to pretend to be shocked at
what was related of him at Buena Vista. It is a mere
sham for the benefit of puritanical souls, who do their
damning after a more economical formulary, than is
generally used in the field. The words came out of
General Taylor's mouth, and were no doubt as acceptable
to heaven as the roaring of the cannon which belched
forth death, and strewed the earth with slaughter."
The few instances we have cited (and they might be
multiplied indefinitely), indicate the baneful influences to
which public'opinion has been exposed, through the
efforts to create and maintain a war spirit in the community.
The Church has, in some few cases, united in this unholy work of corrupting public opinion. The pulpit has
occasionally uttered its benedictions on the Mexican invasion; and ministers of Christ, by joining in military
funeral pageants, have given the sanction of the religion
they professed, to the cause in which the deceased perished. On some of these occasions sermons have been delivered, breathing little of the spirit of the Prince of Peace.
Men who had lost their lives in the act of voluntarily
carrying fire and sword into a foreign country, have been




262        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
held forth to the admiration of their countrymen, as
having fallen in the discharge of duty. But these reverend patriots omitted to instruct their audience, that the
Mexicans who fell in the act of defending their wives and
children, were no less obedient to the commands of duty,
than the American volunteer; nor did they avail themselves of the opportunity to draw the obvious inference
that, as both Americans and Mexicans were but discharging their duty in killing each other; mutual slaughter is
an acceptable sacrifice to the common Father of all, and
in accordance with the precepts of the Divine Redeemer.
Some of the clergy very consistently reduced to practice
the doctrines they taught. Thus we had the announcement in a St. Louis paper, of "A BAPTIST PREACHER
KILLED IN BATTLE," with an eulogy on his patriotism. The
New Orleans Picayune thus noticed another officer of the
Church militant: —" A company of about ninety men
arrived here yesterday from the parishes, under the command of the Rev. Richard A. Stewart, as captain. Captain Stewart is a worthy clergyman, of the Methodist
persuasion, who allows nothing to prevent his discharge
of that duty every citizen owes his countr-"in the hour of
peril!"  The Reverend Captain, it seems, so exerted
himself in the hour of his country's peril, as to acquire at
least that honor which cometh from man; for on his
return from the wars, we again find him noticed in the
Picayune of February, 1848. In an account of a Taylor
meeting in New Orleans, it is said, " Mr. Stewart, of Iberville submitted a resolution, nominating General Zachary
Taylor as a candidate for the Presidency of the United
States. A member of the Convention rose to second the
resolution, and said,'that as the mover might not be
known to all the Convention, he would announce him to




REVIEW OF TIlE MEXICAN WAR.         263
them as the Reverend Colonel Stewart, of Iberville, the
fighting clergyman!' (immense applause.) "
It is however due to justice to acknowledge, and to acknowledge with gratitude, that the sacred office has rarely
been desecrated by a vindication of the Mexican war; and
that in numerous instances ecclesiastical bodies and individual pastors have, with Christian boldness and fidelity,
exposed and denounced its wickedness. Nor was opposition to the war confined to the clerical profession. The
whole religious community, especially at the North, were,
with few exceptions, unanimous in reprobating it; and
indeed, had it not been for the acts and efforts of politicians, of men striving to keep the offices they had, and
others striving to gain the offices they wanted, the great
mass of the people would have regarded the war with
abhorrence.
The moral sense of the nation was, moreover, impaired
by the sentiment industriously cultivated by the politicians
of both parties-" Our country, right or wrong." This
sentiment was of course intended to vindicate each party,
for the support it gave to the war, by insinuating that
devotion to country is more imperative than moral obligation.
The war has also had a most unhappy influence in
familiarizing the public ear to falsehood, and under circumstances tending to divest the sin of much of its vileness. Falsehood was dignified, both by the magnitude
and importance of the objects it was intended to promote,
and by the elevated position of those who condescended
to use it as an instrument.
It was one of the lamentations of the Prophet, that
"truth has fallen in the streets;" and in our days, the
Mexican war has caused her to be trampled in the dust,
not only in the streets of Washington, but in every high



264        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
way throughout the republic. The Message tf Mr. Polk
(Dec. 1846), in vindication of the war, has been termed
"a pyramid of.mendacity". It would occupy too much
space to examine in detail the various materials of this
vast structure, we will merely give a few specimens which
the attentive reader of the preceding pages will be qualified to analyze for himself.
" The existing war with Mexico was neither desired nor
provoked by the United States; on the contrary, alt honorable means were resorted to to avert it.  After years of
endurance of aggravated wrongs on our part, Mexico, in
violation of solemn treaty stipulations commenced hostilities, and thus by her own act forced the war upon us. Long
before the advance of our army to the left bank of the
Rio Grande, we had ample cause of war against Mexico;
and, had the United States resorted to this extremity, we
might have appealed to the whole civilized world for the
justice of our cause."  "The wrongs which we have suffered from Mexico almost ever since she became an independent power, and the patient endurance with which we have
borne them, are without a parallel in the history of modern
civilized nations."  "The annexation *of Texas to the
United States constituted no just cause of offence to
Mexico."  "Whilst occupying his (General Taylor's)
position on the east bank of the Rio Grande within the
limits of Texas, then recently admitted as one of the States
of our Union, the Commanding-General of the Mexican
forces, who, in pursuance of the orders of his Government,
had collected a large army on the opposite shore of the
Rio Grande, crossed the river, invaded our territory, and
commenced hostilities by attacking our forces." " Every
honorable effort has been used by me to avoid the war
that followed; but all have proved vain. All our attempts
to preserve peace have been met by insult and resistance




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          265
on the part of Mexico."  "This war has not been waged
with a view to conquest," &c., &c.
With a reckless consistency rarely paralleled, he announced to Congress on the 6th of Jeily, 1848, that " the
war in which oar country was RELUCTANTLY involved in
the NECESSARY vindication of the national rights and honor,
has been terminated."
The fictions of Mr. Polk were reiterated by his party
with all the gravity of sincere belief. The Whigs in Congress, with a few honorable exceptions, pursued a different
policy.  They fearlessly confessed that the war for
which they voted was unnecessary and unjust, a war of
aggression and not of defence; and that the assertion in
behalf of which they enrolled their names in an enduring
record, that the war existed " by the act of Mexico" was
FALSE. To excuse their conduct, they also had their fiction.
They voted to raise fifty thousand men, for the purpose of
rescuing General Taylor and his little army from capture
by the Mexicans!
The falsehoods respecting the Mexican war, coined in
Washington, became a circulating medium throughout the
country. They were found in almost every official despatch; they were uttered through the press; they were
passed as genuine by Governors in their messages, and by
Legislatures in their resolves. Who shall estimate the
injury done to the morality of the nation by this wide.
spread contempt for truth? The example of men conspicuous for talents, influence, and station, must be operative for good or for evil. " When the righteous are in
authority the people rejoice; but when the wicked bear
rule, the people mourn." It has beed well said that truth
and the confidence it inspires, is the basis of human society,
and that error is the source of every iniquity. How deplorable, then, that the love of truth and abhorrence of
23




266        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
falsehood should be weakened by the authority and example of those in high places! But with this subject are
connected considerations more momentous than any that
belong to this transitory scene;-we are all soon to enter
upon an endless existence in a world in which sorrow and
falsehood are alike unknown, or in a place from which joy
and truth are for ever banished.
Surely, among the awful responsibilities resting upon
the authors and supporters of the Mexican war, will be
included the corruption of public opinion and the depravation of public morals to which it has given birth.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         267
CHAPTER XXXIII.
ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY.
HAVING taken a retrospect of the pecuniary, political,
and moral sacrifices made by the American people, in the
war they have waged against Mexico, let us next inquire
what equivalents they have received. It is difficult to imagine any which are not included in the TERRITORY and the
GLORY- they have acquired. The value of these acquisitions, we proceed to examine.
It appears from a document laid before Congress from
the War Department and Land Office, that the alleged
limits of Texas embrace 325,520 square miles; and
those of New Mexico and California, as ceded by treaty,
526,078 more, making a grand total of 851,590 square
miles. It. is only by comparison that we can form an
adequate idea of the extent of this prodigious area. The
state of New York contains less than 50,000 square
miles; of course the addition made to our possessions is
equal to seventeen times the extent of the Empire State.
It is four times the size of France, and five times that of
Spain.*
Texas, it is true, was acquired by other means than open
war. But no less than 125,520 square miles, included within her assumed boundaries, rightfully belonged to Mexico,
and our title to them is founded, not on her claim, but on
conquest, confirmed by the treaty of peace. Adding this
territory to that of New Mexico and California, we have
* See American Almanac for 1842, p. 270




268        REVIEW OF TIE MEXICAN WAR.
651,591 square miles, about one half of all that was left
to Mexico, after the revolt of Texas, as the spoils of war.
Such was "the magnanimous forbearance exhibited towards Mexico," of which Mr. Polk thought proper to
boast in his Message to the Senate communicating the
treaty which ceded to us this vast plunder.
How far this forbearance was magnanimous depends,
of course, on the motives which prompted it. We have
already seen that the insurgents of Texas, after some hesitation, forbore to include California within its boundaries.
The reason assigned for this forbearance had no reference
to right and justice; it was simply, that they had already
taken as much as they wanted, and that more at present
would be inconvenient.  It is difficult to see wherein our
forbearance was more magnanimous than that of our
Texan brethren. We have taken precisely what we went
to war to acquire; and a territory from which thirteen
large slave States could be carved, was sufficient to give
the slave power an entire control of the Federal Government.  Mexico, moreover, is so enfeebled and despoiled,
that all that is left may be absorbed by the mighty Republic, at any moment it may be deemed expedient to
take possession.
But as Mexico was prostrated, and we might have annexed the whole Republic to our territory, was it not
magnanimous to pay her for what we did take? It is
true Mexico was prostrate, but she was not submissive.
She could not resist our arms, but she could not be occupied and governed as American territory except by military force. The war was becoming unpopular, and the Administration was tottering, the popular branch of the
National Legislature having declared against it.  It was
doubtful whether Congress would furnish supplies for
new conquests. But, in any event, nothing more could be




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          269
hoped from the farther prosecution of the war than what
had been already effected-the military occupation of
Mexico. Such an occupation for a single year would cost
double or treble the sum we paid the Mexicans. It was
obviously wiser and cheaper to pay a moderate sum for a
quit-claim to the land we wanted, than to continue an
expensive and dangerous litigation.  In the prosecution
of this litigation, we had already expended 20,000 lives,
and more than a hundred millions of dollars. Hence, the
means of acquiring peaceable possession of the land we
had taken was a matter of political and pecuniary calculation, and the result affords but little proof of magnanimity.
The question, whether this territory is not worth all it
has cost us, will be variously answered.  By those who
regard slavery as the corner-stone of our political liberties,
who behold in it a divine institution illustrative of the
wisdom and benevolence of the Deity, and an instrument
by which those who possess it will be enabled to govern
the whole Republic, and mould its policy for their own
interest, the acquisition of territory which it was expected
would give to slavery an indefinite extension, an assured
perpetuity, and an overwhelming political preponderance,
would of course be regarded as of priceless value.  On
the other hand, the addition of this territory, should it be
used for the purpose for which it was acquired, cannot
but be regarded as a direful curse by all who believe
slavery to be hostile alike to the will of God and the
happiness of man. We have had, in the preceding pages,
most abundant proof that this territory would not have
been acquired except with a view to the extension of
slavery; and it is therefore just and fair, in estimating its
value compared with its cost, to keep in mind for what
object that cost was incurred.
23#




270        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
The future is hidden from our view, but there is little
reason for doubting, that not only Texas, but all New
Mexico, will for a long period be doomed to the ignorance, degradation, and misery, which are inseparable
from human bondage. Events unexpected and utterly
unforeseen, even at the conclusion of the war, have since
occurred, which will probably exempt at least a portion
of California from the curse of slavery. That portion,
however, it is to be feared, will find another and a sore
curse in its recently-discovered gold. The mineral wealth
in which it is said to abound will be shared by a promiscuous crowd from foreign lands as well as our own citizens. The eager search for gold in the mines in which it
is buried has ever been found hostile to regular industry,
and to habits of virtue and frugality.  We have cause to
apprehend that the population which will be attracted to
this region will not be of a character to strengthen our
republican institutions, or in any respect to elevate our
national character.
But whatever may be the riches of these mines, and
whatever may be the consequences resulting from them,
it should be remembered that they formed no part of the
motives which prompted the war-no part of the estimated value of the territories we have seized. The true
question to be solved in this discussion is, did we pay, in
blood, and treasure, and in the moral and political evils
resulting from the war, a higher price than the territories
were at the time supposed to be worth to us?
We had territory enough, as has already been shown,
for unborn generations; and, with the exception of the
extension of slavery, no plausible motive could be urged
foi the acquisition.  No president would have dared to
negotiate a treaty of cession at the price of one hundred
millions, nor would apy Senate have had the hardihood to




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.        271
ratify so preposterous a treaty, had it been made.  Nor
is it conceivable that Mexico would have refused so magnificent and prodigal an offer, had it been made. We
have seen that Mr. Polk offered through Slidell $25,000,000 for the very territory for which the country has paid
at least five times that amount in money, in addition to
blood, misery, and crime.
The Port of Saint Francisco was the only portion of
the acquired territory which we needed, as being convenient to our commerce in the Pacific; and that might
doubtless have been acquired by friendly negotiation at a
moderate price; or a right of deposit secured by treaty,
without cost.




272        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR
CHAPTER XXXIV.
GLORY.
HIE whose wisdom and benevolence are alike infinite, has
taught us not to seek that glory which cometh from man,
and has assured us, that " that which is highly esteemed
among men, is an abomination in the sight of God."  If
we believe the record which God has given of himself,
we must be constrained to admit that, of all the objects
of human ambition and of human admiration, none *an be
more abominable in his sight than MILITARY GLORY. Such
glory is founded on bravery, skill, and success, in causing
the misery and death of our fellow-men. It is wholly
independent of the moral character of the cause in which
it is acquired. The soldier is by general consent absolved
from all responsibility for the cruelty, injustice, and wickedness of his employers.  Whether he fights for liberty
or slavery-to defend his own country or to plunder another-his glory rests upon his bravery, skill, and success, in subduing and slaughtering his enemies.
Bravery is an animal quality, very common among all
nations, and its possession has never been confined to the
wise and good. Were honor to be awarded to the bravest,
the most atrocious villains would not unfrequently bear
the palm. Indeed, few military exploits can, in a scornful
recklessness of life, compare with the assassination of
Henry the Fourth. What General has, like Ravilliac,
coolly and dispassionately welcomed an inevitable, horrible and shameful death. Mere bravery is no more en



REVIEW OF TIHE MEXICAN WAR.         273
titled to praise than any other animal quality, and its
exercise is often indicative of the vilest passions, and a
sottish indifference to a future state. The bravery of the
soldier amid the excitement of the battle field, stimulated
by fear of shame, and the hope of reward, is pale and
lustreless compared with that devotion to duty which triumphs over pain, and danger, and life itself. "I go
bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem," said the Apostle,
" not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save
that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that
bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things
move me, neither count I my life dear to myself."
Military skill, of course, arises from experience and instruction combined with natural talent, and, even when
carried to the highest possible perfection, affords no guarantee for the presence of a single virtue. Bravery and
military skill, as well as infamy, are associated with the
memory of Benedict Arnold. But success is essential to
military glory. The warrior is crowned only by the hand
of victory. Yet her gifts are often dispensed without
regard to the bravery and skill of the recipient, and we
have seen her permitting one of the most distinguished of
her favorites, after leading half a million of veterans to
Russia, secure his personal safety by a sudden flight in
the night season, and under cover of a borrowed name;
and we have seen this same favorite, after wielding the
most potent sceptre ever grasped by man, wearing out
his days in an Island-prison.
The American army, furnished with all the appliances
of war which science, and art, and wealth could supply,
gained a series of uninterrupted victories over a nation
with a small, feeble, and sparse populatr -n, but little removed from semi-barbarism,.without commerce, without
arts, without money, and without credit. Now, the his



274        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
torical fact, that these victories have been achieved by
the bravery and skill of the American forces, constitutes
the GLORY which is regarded by some, as an ample compensation for all the misery and wickedness resulting from
the war! This glory gives no food to the hungry, no'raiment to the naked, and adds nothing tQ the wisdom,
virtue and comfort of the American people. We are
assured, however, that it will give us peace and security
by deterring aggression. All history bears testimony to
the utter futility of such an expectation. Military glory
ever renders its possessor arrogant and intolerant, and
others jealous and vindictive. Powerful martial nations
are those which enjoy the least peace; assailing others,
if not assailed themselves.
Let us listen to the peans of triumph as chanted on the
floor of the United States Senate by General Cass: " Our
flag has become a victorious standard, borne by marching
columns over the hills and valleys, and through the cities
and towns and fields of a powerful (!) nation, in a career
of success of which few examples can be found in ancient
or modern warfare." After giving the dates of twentyeight victories, he exclaims, " If we recorded our history
upon stone, as was done in the primitive ages of the
world, we should engrave this series of glorious deeds
upon tables of marble. But we shall do better; we shall
engrave it upon our hearts, and we shall commit it to the
custody of the press, whose monuments, frail and feeble
as they appear, are more enduring than brass or marble,
than statues or pyramids, or the proudest monuments
erected by human hands. Let modern philanthropists talk
as they please, the instincts of nature are truer than the
doctrines they 3-reach.  Military renown is one of the
great elements of national strength, as it is one of the
proudest sources of gratification to every man wo9 loves




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           7
his country, and desires to see her occupy a distinguished
position among the nations of the earth."*
It seems unfortunate for the honor and glory of our
country that our military operations are conducted on a
Lilliputian scale, and our military renown is so very cheaply
acquired. The trophies gained in our Mexican war, even
if engraven on marble, would look exceedingly diminutive
compared to some, which, however the General may suppose to the contrary, are really recorded in the history of
modern warfare. Had it been the General's good fortune
to belong to " the Grand Army," his patriotic heart would
have swelled with still prouder gratification, while listening at Austerlitz, to the glowing applause of his Emperor:
"Soldiers! I am content'with you; you have covered
your eagles with immortal glory. An army of one hundred thousand men, commanded by the Emperors of Russia and Austria, have been, in less than four hours, cut to
pieces and dispersed-forty stand of colors —the standards of the imperial guard of Russia-one hundred and
twenty pieces of cannon, twenty Generals, and more than
thirty thousand prisoners, are the results of this day, for
ever celebrated.  Henceforth you have no longer any
rivals to fear."  With what delight would he have drank
in the glorious story, related to the army on entering
Berlin: "Soldiers-the forests, the defiles of Franconia,
the Saale and the Elbe, which your fathers had not traversed in seven years, you have traversed in seven days,
and in this interval you have fought four fights, and one
pitched battle. You have sent the renown of your victories before you to Potsdam and to Berlin. You have
made sixty thousand prisoners, taken sixty-five standards,
six hundred pieces of cannon, three fortresses, and more
than twenty Generals. And yet nearly one half of you regret
* Cong. Globe, Jauuary 5th, 1848.




276        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
not having fired a shot. All the provinces of the Prussian
monarchy, as far as the banks of the Oder, will be in your
power." At Friedland, his soul would have been " satisfied as with fat things," as the address of the hero fell upon
his ears.' Soldiers-in ten days you have taken one
hundred and twenty pieces of cannon, seven standards,
killed, wounded, or captured, sixty thousand Russian prisoners; taken from the enemy all its hospitals, all its
magazines, all its ambulances, the fortress of Konigsburg,
the three hundred vessels that were in the port laden with
every species of munitions, and one hundred and sixty
thousand muskets that England had sent to arnm our
enemies."
The vast amount of glory and misery detailed in these
addresses, affords a significant comment on "the instincts
of nature," and the pacific doctrines of "modern philanthropists."
Military renown, the Senator tells us, is one of the
greatest elements of national strength, and the proudest
source of gratification to every man who loves his country, and desires to see her occupy a distinguished position
among the nations of the earth. The first assertion is
contradicted by history, and the latter by the declarations
of thousands and tens of thousands of men, whose virtue
and benevolence are unquestioned.  If military renown
ever belonged to any people, the precious boon was enjoyed by the French under Buonaparte. Yet France was,
at that very time, bleeding and agonizing at every pore,her commerce destroyed,-her manufactures languishing,
her liberties crushed, her young men dragged by the conscription from the paternal hearth, and offered a bloody
sacrifice on the altar of personal ambition; and finally
this same great element of national strength consigned
the nation to the custody of a foreign army, and its mighty




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         277
emperor, t(; a lonely rock.  It was on that rock, and
while brooding over his fallen greatness, that this scourge
of Europe uttered the memorable words, " The love of
glory is like the bridge which Satan threw over chaos, to
pass from Hell to Paradise."  Like that fabled structure, it has indeed furnished to "woes unnumbered," a
ready entrance into our unhappy world. In losing her
hero, and her glory, France parted with her sorest
plagues; and humbled in her pride, and despoiled of her
conquests, she enjoyed- for a series of years, a degree of
peace, comfort, and prosperity to which she had been a
Stranger from the foundation of her monarchy.




278        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
CHAPTER XXXV.
PATRIOTISM.
IMMEDIATELY after the expulsion of the Persians from
Greece, the fleets of the States in alliance with Athens,
were collected in a neighboring port. Themistocles appeared in the Athenian Assembly, and announced that he
had a plan for securing the power and glory of Athens;
but, that secrecy being essential to its success, he could
not make it public, and asked for instructions. He was
authorized to communicate it to Aristides, and, with his
approbation, to put it in execution. The latter, on learning the plan, reported, that nothing could possibly conduce more to the grandeur and prosperity of Athens, but
nothing could possibly be more unjust. The Assembly,
without inquiring into particulars, ordered that the plan,
whatever it was, should be abandoned. Which party
displayed the purest patriotism-the Assembly, which refused to augment the power of the Republic by an act of
injustice, or the illustrious scoundrel who proposed rendering his country the mistress of Greece by firing the
assembled fleets of her allies? Should the question be
decided by the sentiment so generally adopted by a
christian people, "our country light or wrong," the decision would be adverse to the pagan Athenians. But
perhaps it will be said, that the sentiment is intended to
apply only in a state of war, and that it is only after a
declaration of hostilities that we are bound to support
and vindicate the acts and pretensions of the Government,




REVIEW OF TIHE MEXICAN WAR.         279
however, vilhinous. It is not easy to understand, how
the act of a King or a Congress can dissolve those obligations of truth, justice, and mercy which the Creator
has imposed upon all his creatures.  Yet the violation
and contempt of those obligations, for the supposed interests of the public, seem by many to be regarded as
the test of patriotism.
Few virtues are more universally professed, few are
more imperfectly apprehended, and few are more rarely
practised, than PATRIOTISM. From the time of Absalom
to the last electioneering meeting, patriotic professions
have been the cheap materials from which demagogues
have attempted to construct their fortunes.
Counterfeits imply an original. There is such a virtue
as patriotism, acknowledged and inculcated by both natural and revealed religion; and it is but a development of
that benevolence which springs from moral goodness. To
do good unto all men as we have opportunity, is an injunction invested with divine authority.  Generally our
ability to do good is confined to our families, neighbors,
and countrymen; and the natural promptings of our
hearts lead us to select these in preference to more distant objects, for the subjects of our kind offices. Our
benevolence, when directed to our countrymen at large,
constitutes PATRIOTISM; and its exercise is as much controlled by the laws of morality, as when confined to our
neighbors or our families. A voice from Heaven has forbidden us, "to do evil that good may come."  The sentiment, " our country right or wrong," is as profligate and
impious as would be the sentiment, " our church, or our
party, right or wrong." If it be rebellion against God to
violate his laws for the benefit of one individual, however
dear to us, not less sinful must it be to commit a similar act
for the benefit of any number of individuals. If we may




280        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
not, in kindness to the highwayman, assist him' in robbing
and murdering the traveller, what divine law permits us
to aid any number of our own countrymen in robbing and
murdering other people? He who engages in a defensive war, with a fill conviction of its necessity and justice,
may be impelled by patriotism, by a benevolent desire to
save the lives, and property, and rights of his countrymen. But, if he believes the war to be one of invasion
and conquest, and utterly unjust, by taking part in it, he
assumes its guilt, and becomes responsible for its crimes.
But soldiers, it is said, are bound to obey orders, without inquiring into their morality. Where enlistments are
voluntary, this obligation is assumed, not imposed, and it
may well be questioned, whether any man is at liberty to
promise unqualified obedience to others. But the obligation of the soldier, does not affect the duties of the citizen. The latter is free from the promises of the former.
The Government has declared a war of invasion and
conquest, one which the citizen believes to be most
iniquitous-is he required by duty, that is, by. the commands of God, voluntarily to aid the Government in
prosecuting such a war, by the offer of his money and
services? If he is, then all people are under a divine
obligation to aid their respective Governments in all their
wars, however piratical, and waged for aly purpose,
however detestable. Such indeed, is the sentiment advanced in the following lines..
"Stand thou by thy country's quarrel,
Be that quarrel what it may;
He shall wear the greenest laurel,
Who shall greatest zeal display "
Here we have an American poet, who would exult in the
massacre of Glencoe,- sing peans to the Duke of Alva,
and crown with the greenest laurels the butchers of the
Albigenses.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          281
"Our country right or wrong," is rebellion against
the moral Government of Jehovah, and treason to the
cause of civil and religious liberty, of justice -and
humanity.
Actions sprigingig from mere selfishness, rarely command the respect of mankind, and the patriotism that is
self-denying and costly, is more likely to be genuine than
that which is lucrative. Tried by. this test, there is comparatively but little patriotism in the world. The demagogue,- who echoes the clamor of the mob, and thus
opens to himself an avenue to wealth and power, gives a
very inconclusive proof of his patriotism; while he who,
in promoting wlhat he believes to be the public weal,
exposes himself to obloquy and loss, may reasonably be
regarded as governed by disinterested motives.
One of the most universal of popular delusions, is that
which awards patriotism to the soldier. But soldiers
frequently engage in wars in which their country has no
interest whatever; and, although military skill, and valor
of a high order, have often been displayed by mercenary
troops, they are surely not entitled to the meed of patriotism.
It is well-known, that multitudes adopt the military
profession as a livelihood, with the expectation of pay,
promotion, and distinction. It is not obvious that in
selecting this profession, they are more influenced by a
desire to do good to their country, than the lawyer, physician, divine, or mechanic.  No class of men have in the
history of the world, been more ready instruments of
oppression, cruelty, and tyrany, than soldiers; and
scarcely ever have the liberties of a people been destroyed, but through their agency. Rarely, indeed, have
the representatives of a people convened in Senates or
Parliaments, surrendered their rights to an usurper, except




282        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
when overawed and compelled by military force. That
soldiers have been governed by a high sense of patriotism
it would be folly to deny, but still greater folly to affirm
that such is generally the case.
We are fond of dwelling on the patriotism of the soldiers of the Revolution; and yet we have high authority
to piove that, in many instances, their claim to this virtue
was exceedingly equivocal. Washington, in a long letter to
Congress, 24th September, 1776, gives a melancholy
picture of the demoralization of the army: "Thirty or
forty soldiers will desert at a time, and of late a practice
prevails of a most alarming nature, and which will, if it
cannot be checked, prove fatal both to the country and
the army. I mean the infamous practice of plundering;
for under the idea of Tory property, or property that may
fall into the hands of the enemy, no man is secure in his
effects, and scarcely in his person. In order to get at them,
we have several instances of people being frightened out
of their houses, under pretence of their houses being
ordered to be burned, and this is done'with a view of
seizing the goods; nay, in order that the villainy may be
more effectually concealed, some houses have already been
burned to cover the. theft. I have used my utmost
endeavors to stop this horrid practice; but under the
present lust after plunder, and want of laws to punish
offenders, I might almost as well attempt to move Mount
Atlas."  He then goes on to detail the difficulty he had,
in getting a court-martial to convict an offcer for stealing.
Again, on the 3d May, 1777, he writes to Congress: " The
desertions from our army of late have been very considerable."
The same year, Adjutant-General Reed, writes to
Congress: " When the hurry of retreat or action made
it difficult to go through the forms of trial, all restrainta
seemed to be broken through. A spirit of desertion,




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          283
cowardice, plunder, and shrinking from duty, when attended with fatigue or danger, prevailed but too generally
through the whole army."*
It is true, a soldier perils his life; but other men do
the same for money, without any reference to the good of
their country. Says Washington, writing to Congress,
February 9th, 1776: "Three things prompt men'to a
regular discharge of their duty in time of action-natural
bravery, hope of reward, and fear of punishment. The
two first are common to the uninstructed and the disciplined soldier; but the latter most obviously distinguishes
the one from  the other. A  coward, when taught to
believe that, if he breaks his ranks and abandons his
colors, he will be punished with death by his own party,
will take his chance against the enemy." Washington was
too well acquainted with human nature, and too much
devoted to truth, to attribute martial valor to patriotism.
The patriotism of our soldiers in Mexico, is a never-failing
topic of eulogy with our political aspirants; but from a
report of the Secretary of War, made 8th April, 1848, it
appears that the desertions in Mexico, up to the 31st
December, 1847, so far as they could be ascertained from
confessedly very imperfect returns, amounted very nearly
to five thousand, about one-sixteenth of the whole number
of troops employed. The newspapers represent the desertions, in the early part of 1848, as very numerous.
The records of history, as well as daily observation,
teach us, that patriotism is as rarely the virtue of politicians as it is of soldiers. " To the victors belong the
spoils," now the avowed maxim of American parties,
reveals the true object of multitudes who are vociferous
in their professions of devotion to the public interest.
An active politician, who is not the possessor or the
* Life of Reed, I. 240




284        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
expectant of office, is a personage rarely to be found in
our Republic.  To pursue measures supposed to be
popular, affords a very uncertain indication of virtuous
motives.
It seems impossible that any candid person acquainted
with the origin and causes of the Mexican war, should insist that its necessity and justice were so palpable as to
exclude all doubt: or that the assertion that the Mexicans
commenced the war by invading the United States, and
shedding American blood upon American soil, is supported by such irrefragable testimony, that no well-informed man can honestly deny its truth. Many of the
democratic members of Congress, in their reproaches of
the Whigs for voting for a war which they denounced as
unjust, declared such a war to be the greatest of crimes,
and those who prosecuted it, guilty of murder. Even
Mr. Polk's organ thus abused the Whigs for voting thanks
to victorious Generals:-" None but the Whigs would
think of rewarding men volunteering to fight in a war unconstitutionally commenced by one man, and prosecuted
in contempt of national honor." Yet this same ready
tool had been lavish of his charges of treason against all
who opposed the war, whatever might be their conscientious opinion of its character. But if an unjust war be
indeed a crime, involving its authors and abettors in the
guilt of murder, it is most remarkable that not one Democrat in two successive Congresses, found his conscience
burthened with the momentous question, whether the
Mexican war was or was not unjust! Probably not two
of these gentlemen entertained precisely the same opinion
on the great truths of scripture, yet not a solitary individual of the party saw aught but verities in Mr. Polk's
messages! When we remember the diversities of the
human mind, and the complicated and contradictory tes



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          285
timony in relation to the origin of the war, and the wide
difference of opinion respecting it, throughout the nation,
the unanimous, unfaltering faith of these gentlemen is a
moral phenomenon.'Their faith, however, was counted
to them, if not for righteousness, at least for obedience,
and opened to many of them a vista to future office and
power. Under such circumstances, their support of the war
cannot be taken as irresistible proof of their patriotism.
Nor is the evidence of the patriotism of their opponents afforded by their vote for an acknowledged falsehood, and
their grant of men and money to wage a war admitted to be
iniquitous, of a more conclusive character. The Democrats, according to the orthodox rule, showed their faith
by their works, while the unbelieving. Whigs rested
their justification on their works alone. Denying the
necessity, expediency, and justice of the war, as well
as the wisdom and integrity of Mr. Polk, they surrendered to him the army and navy, with an additional force
of 50,000 men, and all the money he desired, to carry
fire and sword into Mexico, and to dismember that Republic. To have done all this with a single desire to
benefit their own country, would have been at least a
very questionable benevolence, and a very ambiguous
patriotism.
Mr. Clay, the distinguished and beloved leader of the
Whig party, in a public speech delivered in Kentucky,
declared that the preamble to the war bill, "falsely
attributed the commencement of the war to the act of
Mexico." He then added-" I have no doubt of the patriotic motives of those who, after struggling to divest the
bill of that flagrant error, found themselves constrained
to vote for it; but I must say, that no earthly consideration would have ever tempted me to vote for a bill with a
PALPABLE FALSEHOOD stamped on its face. Almost idol



286        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
izing truth, as I do, I never, never could- have voted for
the bill."  Of course, Mr. Clay's patriotism so far differs
from that of the gentlemen alluded to, that it cannot lead
him to sacrifice TRUTH for the cause of his country. He
then goes on to remark, that the war of 1812, against
Great Britain, was of a widely different character from
the present, being a just war, and so admitted by its opponents, who, from motives of policy, refused to support
it, and that in consequence, "they lost, and justly lost
the public confidence," that is, they lost their political
ascendency. He then asks the following very significant
question: " Has not the apprehension of a similar fate,
in a case widely different, repressed a fearless expression
of their real sentiments mn some of our public men?" This
interrogatory has all the force of' an assertion. To what
public men does he refer? Surely not to Mr. Polk and
his party. His remarks irresistibly confine his question
to the "some " Whigs in Congress, who, from fear of
losing their popularity, as the Federalists had before done,
voted for the " palpable falsehood," the war and the supplies. If he intended to intimate, and on no other supposition is his language intelligible, that these Whigs voted
as they did from selfish considerations, it is deeply to be
lamented that a man almost idolizing truth, should have
hazarded the declaration, that he had no doubt of their
patriotic motives.  We have already noticed the frank
admission of the American Review, a Whig organ, that on
this occasion the Whig members seemed more solicitous
about "personal popularity " than for the *cause of " TRUTH
AND RIGHT."
Subsequent developments have abundantly confirmed
the intimations of Mr. Clay and of the Review. It has
been shown by the declarations of certain Whig members
of Congress, published in the newspapers, that on the




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          287
day war was declared, they were urged to vote for the
bill, on the ground that "it would be bad policy to oppose the bill," and that this opinion was supported by a
reference to the political fate of those who had opposed
the war of 1812 against Great Britain. In a deliberate
consent to sacrifice the peace of the country, to squapder
its treasures and its blood, and to trample under foot both
truth and justice, from considerations of party policy, and
for the purpose of acquiring personal popularity, and with
it, office and its emoluments, it is not easy to detect those
"patriotic motives " which Mr. Clay very courteously and
mudoubtingly attributes to the Whig members who voted
for the war.
On the 13th May, 1846, Congress voted that " By the
act of the Republic of 2Mexico, war existed between that
Republic and the United States." On the 31st January,
1848, a new House of Representatives voted, that this
same war was "unconstitutionally and unnecessarily begun by the President of the United States."  In the
affirmative of this latter vote, we find recorded the names
of ffteen Whig Members who had belonged to the late
house, and whose names are also recorded in the affirmative of the former vote. The last declaration, however
truthful, was no doubt considered equally good policy
with the first, inasmuch as a presidential. election was
approaching, and it was expedient to throw odium on the
rival party, and on Mr. Polk its acknowledged head.
One of the gentlemen who voted for both declarations
thus expressed his opinion of this self-same war: " Entertaining these views upon the origin and purposes of
the war, I can consider it in no other light than as a
NATION.AL CRIlME; but, independent of this, it is an offence against the moral spirit of our time, a retrograde
step in the movement of humanity, a violent wresting of




288        REVIEW OF TIE MEXICAN WAR.
our national energy and national resources, to unnatural
and mischievous uses.  I have no desire that a single
Mexican wife should be made a widow, a single Mexican
child an orphan; and I would rather that my country
should sit down in honest shame, than purchase, at the
price of rapine, and tears, and blood, the'unjust glory'
of waving her flag over all the wide continent that
stretches between the stormy Atlantic and the shores of
the tranquil sea:' One murder makes a villain, thousands a hero.' "*
A little timely reflection might have warned this gentleman that'the fifty thousand troops he voted to place
under the orders of Mr. Polk to prosecute "a national
crime," might peradventure cause many Mexican widows
and orphans, acquire by conquest "unjust glory," and
make more than one "hero." 
He alone who governs himself by the laws of God will
act consistently; while he who follows the ever-varying
monitions of party policy will often be found wandering
in tortuous paths.
History and daily observation compel the conviction,
that patriotism is more frequently professed than practised, and that much which assumes the name, and passes
current with the world, is utterly spurious. Yet it is also
true, that the. patriotism which seeks the public good, in
obedience to the Divine will, and in accordance with the
precepts of the Gospel, far from being an imaginary, is a
real and active virtue. It is, indeed, to be found in camps
and senates, but these are not its exclusive nor its favorite
haunts. This patriotism inspires many a prayer for the
peace, virtue, and happiness of the nation, and prompts
innumerable efforts and costly sacrifices of time and money
for the temporal and spiritual welfare of our fellow-coun* Speech of Mr. Marsh, Feb. 18, 1848.-Con. Globh.




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           289
trymen.   Were we permitted to trace-effects to their
causes, in the moral government of the world, we should
doubtless find that much of our prosperity as a people
flows from the labors of faithful pastors, self-denying
Sunday-school teachers, and sincere, zealous, but humble
Christian men and women. It is chiefly by such patriotism, gentle and noiseless as the dew of Heaven, that our
land is clothed with moral verdure and beauty, and that
those who sit under their own vine, with none to make
them afraid, are indebted for the peace and security they
enjoy.
Patriotism springing from obedience to God, guided by
His laws, and exercised in official station for the national
welfare, at the certain and willing loss of popular favor
and personal advantage, is perhaps the highest perfection
to which this virtue can attain. Our own recent history
affords an illustrious instance of such patriotism.  We
proceed to trace the course of JOUN QuINCY ADAMS, because we find in it a sanction for almost every moral and
political sentiment maintained in these pages; and also
because his example is well calculated to quicken and to
purify the love of country, and to convey to all lessons of
virtue and true wisdom.
25




to0        mtVIkW OF THE MEXICAI WAR
OHAPTER XXXVI.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
OtCTOM has sanctioned certain funeral honors on the de
cease of a man who has been President of the Republic,
which, like the salute given to a military officer, affords
no evidence of.respect for his personal character.  The
honors paid to the memory of Adams were the otitpoe'rings of the heart of a great nation. The strife of faction
was stilled, the voice of party was dumb, and the whole
American people acknowledged and deplored the departure of a PATRIOT. It is interesting, and may be useful, to
inquire into the cause of this wonderful and universal attestation, in the midst of high political excitement, to the
merits of a public man.
Mr. Adams had long been in public life; but his career,
for the most part, had not been calculated to win the
affections of the people. It was commenced in the Federal party. Hie incurred the deep hostility of that party
by abandoning it at a critical and important juncture, and
exposed his motives to suspicion by accepting office from
his late opponents. The democratic party, which had
welcomed him into its bosom, and had abundantly re.
warded what was deemed his apostacy, he abandoned in
turn, and, as a Whig, became its active and zealous foe.
Much of his life was passed at foreign courts; and, although always able, he gathered no unusual laurels in the
field of diplomacy. Having never borne arms, no military halo encircled his brow.  In 1824, at a period of




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          291
singular party disorganization, he was one of four candidates for the Presidency. He received fewer votes than
one of his competitors, but, as neither had a majority of
the whole number, the election devolved on the House of
Representatives. By that body he was chosen President
by the smallest possible majority, and the vote of one of
the largest States was decided in his favor by a single
ballot.  Instantly the -whole country resounded with
charges against him of base corruption.  His administration, although pure, did not give general satisfaction. He
was a candidate for the succeeding term, and was defeated by a large majority; and he retired to private life,
one of the most unpopular of all the prominent politicians
of the country.
In 1831, to the surprise of all, and to the mortification
of many of his friends, he accepted a seat in the House of
Representatives. He came there avowedly, to use his
own words, "bound in allegiance to no party, whether
sectional or political." He was thus deprived of that
countenance and support which parties give both to their
leaders and their tools. I-le was, it is true, confessedly a
Whig; but so independent was his course, that he was
continually ridiculed as "running off the track," and regarded as a man not- to be depended on. He exerted
but little influence in the House, and attracted but little
attention till about the year 1836.
At this time the agitation of the anti-slavery question
roused the holders of slaves to great exasperation, and
alarmed the two political parties at the North, lest their
supposed sympathy with the cause of human freqdom
might weaken the friendship of their southern allies, and
deprive them of their cooperation in the pursuit of office.
Hence Whigs and Democrats contended which should
show the most devotion to slavery, the most zeal in sup



292        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
pressing the liberty of the press, and the freedom of discussion. Both whig and democratic Governors assailed
the Abolitionists in their official Messages, threatening
them with the penalties of the law. Mobs were raised in
the large cities, by the efforts of rival newspapers and
politicians. Printing presses were destroyed, individuals
assaulted, churches sacked, and the freedom of the PostOffice shamefully invaded with the connivance of a democratic President and cabinet, postmasters being permitted to abstract from the mails whatever they deemed
offensive to the slaveholders. But vain would it be to
suppress anti-slavery tracts and newspapers, if a few independent mnembers were permitted to make anti-slavery
speeches on the floor of Congress, and which the press
would spread on the wings of the wind as a portion of
the ordinary debates. Such speeches had been made,
and they were called forth by anti-slavery petitions.
Hence, it was resolved to abolish the right of petition, and
the freedom of discussion in Congress, on all subjects relating to slavery. It was on the 26th May, 1836, that
the House of Representatives passed, without debate, the
celebrated rule, known fiom the name of its author, as the
Pinkney Gag. From this moment, utterly discarding all
considerations of political influence, Mr. Adams devoted
himself to the defence of constitutional liberty, assailed by
the southern slaveholders, and their northern allies.* On
the question of the gag-rule, prostrating alike the right of
petition, and the freedom of -discussion on the floor of the
House, Mr. Adams, being precluded by the previous question from offering any remark, refused to vote, exclaimirg,
when his name was called, "I consider this resolution as
a direct violation of the rules of this House, of the Con.
* Of seventy-nine northern Deniocrats, sixty-two voted with
the slr.Yeholders, and only one of forty-four northern Whigs.




REVIEW OF T'rI  MEXICAN WAR.       293
stitution of the United States, and of the rights of my
constituents."  He then demanded that his refusal to
vote, and the reason assigned, should be entered upon the
minutes. The boldness and independence which he exhibited on this occasion, so novel and unexpected, so utterly at variance with the usual deferential submission of
northern politicians to southern dictation, instantly riveted
upon him the gaze of his countrymen, nor was that gaze
intermitted, till twelve years afterwards, it beheld his
honored and revered remains deposited in the tomb of
his ancestors. He declared, in the presence of its authors
and supporters, that the gag-rule was "an infamous resolution." He fearlessly imputed it to corrupt motives, and
waged against it, a most vigorous and unceasing wvarfare,
in speeches, in public addresses, in letters through the
press to his own constituents, and to the people of the
United States, till in December, 1845, he had the glory
of carrying a resolution for its abolition.
Of all abominations in the sight of southern members
of Congress, the alleged right of slaves to offer petitions
to the national legislature, was the most atrocious, striking,
in their opinion, a fatal blow at the authority of the masters. Mr. Adams, however, told the House, "If slaves
were laboring under grievances aid afflictions not incident
to their condition as slaves, but to their natures as human
beings, born to trouble as the sparks fly upward, and it
were in the power and competency of the House to afford
them relief, and if the House would permit me, I most
assuredly would present their petition; and, if that avowal
deserves the censure of the House, I am ready to receive
it. I would not deny the right of petition to slaves. I
would not deny it to a horse or a dog, if they could articulate their sufferings, and I could relieve them."
When threatened with an indictment for his anti-slavery
25*




294        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
course by a southern Member, he replied, "Did the gentleman think to frighten me from  my purpose by his
threat of a grand jury? Ie mistook his man. I am not
to be frightened from the discharge of a duty by the indignation of the gentleman, nor by all the grand juries in;the Universe."
As slavery demanded for its protection, the suppression of the right of petition and the liberty of speech, he
freely canvassed its claims to such sacrifices, on the part
of- the free states. He spoke of it as "' The God-defying
institution."  Mr, Clay had, contended that that was property which the laws made so. "The soul of man," said
Mr. Adams, " cannot by human laws, be made the property of another. The owner of a slave is the owner of a
living corpse; but he is not the owner of a man." He declared, "' unyielding hostility against slavery is interwoven
with every pulsation of my heart. Resistance against it,
feeble and inefficient as the last accents of a failing voice
may be, shall still be heard, while the power of utterance
shall remain." In the presence of the slaveholding members he avowed, that in his prayers to Almighty God he
daily invoked Him for the abolition of slavery. The internal traffic did not escape his anathema: "' If," said he,' the African slave trade w~as piracy, the American slave
trade could not be innocent, nor could its aggravated turpitude be denied." From the admitted wickedness of the
African slave trade, he very logically deduced the wickedness of slavery itself. "If," said he, " the African slave
trade be piracy, human reason cannot resist, nor can human sophistry refute, the conclusion, that the essence of
the crime consists not in the trade, but in slavery. Trade
has nothing. in itself criminal by the law of nature."
At a time when politicians and pretended patriots were
endeavoring to suppress the discussion of slavery, as fatal




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          295
to the preservation of the Union, he delivered a Fourth of
July address, in which he declared, that the "free and
unrestrained discussion of the rights and wrongs of slavery, far from endangering the union of these States, is
the only condition upon which the Union can be preserved
and perpetuated. Are you to bless the earth beneath
your feet because it spurns the footstep of a slave, and
then to choke the utterance of your voice lest the sound
of liberty should be re-echoed from the Palmetto groves,
with the discordant notes of disunion?  No! No!"
In a letter to his constituents, he thus described the
state of the country:  "WXhat see we now?  Communities of slaveholding braggarts of freedom, setting at
defiance the laws of nature and of nature's God, restoring
slavery where it had been extinguished (Texas), and vainly
dreaming to make it eternal. Forming in the sacred name
of liberty, constitutions of government, and interdicting to
the legislative authority, the most blessed of all human
powers, the power.of giving liberty to. the slave-! Governors of States urging upoft their legislatures, to make
the exercise of the freedom of speech to propagate the
rights of the slave to fieedom, felony without benefit of
clergy. Ministers of the Gospel, like the priest in the
parable, coming and looking at the bleeding victim of
the highway robber, and passing on the other side! or
baser still, perverting the pages of the sacred volume, to
turn into a code of slavery the very Word of God! Infuriated mobs murdering the peaceful minister of Christ,
for the purpose of extinguishing the light of a printing
press, and burning with unhallowed fire, the hall of freedom, the orphan school, and the Church devoted to the
worship of God! and last of all, both Houses of Congress turning a deaf ear to hundreds of thousands of petitioners, and quibbling away their duty to read and listen




296        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
and consider in doubtful disputations whether they shall
receive,, or, receiving, refuse to read or hear the complaints
of their fellow-citizens and fellow-men!" In a letter to
the people of the United States, he avowed his humiliation
in beholding " the ignominious transformation of the people who had commenced their career by the Declaration of
Independence, into a nation of slaveholders, and slavebreeders."
Addressing the slaveholders on the floor of Congress,
he said, " I know well that the doctrine of the Declaration
of Independence, that'all men are born free and equal,'
is held at the South'as incendiary doctrine, and deserves
lynching-that the Declaration itself is a farago of abstractions. I know all this perfectly, and that is the very reason
I want to put my foot upon such doctrine, that I want to
drive it back to its fountain-its corrupt fountain-and pursue it, until it is made to disappear from this land, and from
the world. Sir, this philosophy of the South, has done
more to blacken the character of this country in Europe,
than all other causes put together. They point to us as a
nation of liars and hypocrites, who publish to the world
that all men are born free and equal, and then hold a large
portion of our own population in bondage." Again, "As
its (slavery) basis rests exclusively upon physical force, to
physical force will it resort, not only to sustain its own
institutions, but to encroach upon the institutions of freedom elsewhere. This disposition is already manifested in
many ways, in the brutal treatment experienced by citizens
of the free States, if but suspected of favoring abolition
in the slaveholding jurisdictions, in the insolent demands.upon the free States to deliver up their citizens for alleged
offences against the slave laws-in the conspiring of American slaveholders in a foreign land against the life of one




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           897
of the great champions of human liberty*-.in thvuffian
threats of assassination addressed to members of Congress
for daring to present your petitions-in the surrender of
the post-office to lynching law-in the murder of Lovejoy
-in the burning of Pennsylvania Hall-in Southern cor —
mercial conventions to force the National channels of trade
from North to South-in Southern railways and banking
companies combined to link the mammon of the West to
to the Moloch of the South-and in the strains of commendation upon all land-robbing practices of the AngloSaxons, and their virtuous abhorrence of Custom-Houses,
embellished by their blackleg revenue and punctuality for
their debts of honor."
Utterly discarding the base sentiment, "Our country,
right or wrong," he denounced the foreign policy of 4he
administration, in resisting the claim made by Great Britain
to visit vessels bearing the national flag, and suspected
of being engaged in the African slave trade, to ascertain
whether the flag was not fraudulently assumed. He asserted that measures were systematically pursued or projected to force the country into a war with England, for
the protection of the slave trade. "Under the pretext of
resisting the right of search, the most false principles
have been advanced as the law of nations. Great Britain
has never claimed the right to search American vessels.
No such thing-on the contrary, she has explicitly disclaimed any such pretension, and that to the whole extent
we can possibly demand. We deny to her the right to
board pirates who hoist the American flag-yes, to search
British vessels, too, that have been declared pirates by
the law of nations-pirates by the law of Great Britainpirates by the laws of the United States-that is the de* In reference of the attempt of Mr. Stevenson,from Virginia,
and Hamilton, of South Carolina, made in London to force Daniel
O'Connell into a duel.




;298       REVIEW OF.TIIE MEYICAN WAR.
mand Of our late Minister to London. Now, behind all
this exceeding zeal against the right of search is the question not brought to view, and that is, the support and perpetuation of the African slave trade. That is the real
question between the ministers of America and Great
Britain-whether slave-trading pirates, by merely hoisting
the American flag, shall be saved from capture. I must
say, that if it be true that the interference of our Minister
in France (General Cass) was the occasion of the refusal
by France to ratify the Quintuple treaty (for the suppression of the African slave trade), I do not hold that procedure in much admiration; it comes too near success in
doing wrong."
Now it should be recollected, that this denial of the right
of visitation, and the interference of General Cass, were
both sustained by the Whig party, through Mr. WEBSTER
then Secretary of State.
Mr. Adams astounded the southern members, by insisting, in a formal argument, that in case of war, or insurrection, the General Government had a discretionary
power to manumit the slaves, and also by.his audacity in
asking leave to propose the following amendment to the
Constitution, to be' submitted by Congress to the several
States, viz.: "From and after the 4th day of July, 1842,
there shall be, throughout the United Slates, no hereditary
slavery, but on and after that day every child born in the
United States shall be free."
A bill having been brought in, giving the right of suffrage "to all free white males," of the age of twentyone years, and who had resided a certain time within the
limits of Alexandria, he moved to strike out the word
white, and supported his motion in an able and sarcastic
speech. He asked " If this principle of universal suffrage
was to be adopted, admitting paupers, idiots, lunatics, and




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          299
the refuse of the prisons, why a man whose skin is not
white, but who performs all the duties of a good citizen,
a good husband, a good father, and a kind neighbor,
should not be entitled to vote as well as a white man?
I ask what is a white man?  Is it the color of the skin
that constitutes a white man?  Then there a;e twenty
members of this House who mae not white men by that
criterion. I pledge myself to bring forward a hundred
respectable colored men of this city with complexions
whiter than those of twenty members of this House.
Would you then say, would the courts say, that this
should be settled by going into the genealogy of the person? In this country it is a strange idea to look into a
man's genealogy to ascertain whether he has a right to
vote. Tell me why you insist on giving this privilege to
the worst of your own color, while you refuse it to the
best of those-who have a portion of the blood of another
race?"
The southern members rejected with scorn all recognition of the Republic of Hayti, on account of the complexion of its citizens; and Mr. Adams incurred their indignation by zealously maintaining the duty and policy of
forming diplomatic relations with it.
In 1839, between thirty and forty Africans,.recently
imported into Havana, on their way from that port to the
plantations of their two purchasers, took possession of the
vessel, and arrived with their captive masters in our
waters.  The whole sympathy of the Government and
of the slaveholders was immediately enlisted in behalf of
the two men, who, in defiance of law and treaties, had obtained possession of these Africaf, as legally entitled to
freedom as themselves, and who had attempted to avoid
capture by British cruizers by means of false and fraudulent Custom House passports. The case was brought




30,0       RvYTEWV OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
into the Supreme Court of the United States, and EMr.
Adams volunteered his services as their counsel. He embraced the opportunity of exposing the inhuman subserviency of the Government to the slaveholding interest, and
obtained a judgment in behalf of the freedom of the un-.fortunate Africans.
The reader need not be reminded of the scorn and
detestation in which abolitionists at this time were held at
the North as -well as at the South, nor how-patriotic were
all attempts then deemed to silence them by insult and
violence. One of the most despised portions of these
despised people; the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society,
at a season of high public excitement, invited Mr. Adams
to attend one of their celebrations. He replied, "It would
give me great pleasure to comply with the invitation," and
after excusing himself on account of want of health and
leisure, added, " I rejoice that the defence of human freedom  is falling into younger and more vigorous hands.
The youthful champions of the rights of human nature
have buckled, and are buckling on their armor, and the
scourging overseer, and the lynching lawyer, and the
servile sophist, and the faithless scribe., and the priestly
parasite, will vanish before them like Satan touched with
the spear of Ithuriel. You have a glorious and arduous
career before you; and it is among the consolations of,my
last days, that I am able to cheer you in the pursuit, and
exhort you to be stedfast and immoveable."
But the crowning crime of the abolitionists, was their
union with English abolitionists in anti-slavery conventions held in London.
A northern memberof Congress, sent under his frank to
Mr. POLK, then Governor of Tennessee, certain proceedings of the "World's Convention."  The Governor returned an insulting answer, concluding, "It is a matter




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          30i
of sincere regret that any American citizen should be
guilty of sach HIGH TREASON to the first principles upon
which the States became united."  Mr. Polk published
his epistle, and it no doubt prepared the way for his elevation to the Presidency. In May, 1843, as a delegate
to an Anti-Slavery Convention in LONDON, was leaving
Boston, he received the following lines:
"My dear sir-I have only time to say God bless you
and your enterprize, for which I have no other prayer to
make, than that its success may herald my nunc dimittis.
"J.:. Q. DAMS."
When Mr. Polk declared it to be high treason for any
American to countenance these foreign Anti-Savery Conventions, he little anticipated, that he should hereafter
deem it expedient, officially to pronounce the writer of
such a note, "a great and patriotic citizen."
We have already noticed Mr. Adams's strenuous opposition to the annexation of Texas, and his stern denunciation of the policy long pursued towards Mexico, and we
have found his name associated with the little band who
dared to vote against the Mexican war, and who, in derisive but prophetic language, were called "The immortal
fourteen."
But if to question the justice of the war, was giving
"'aid and comfort " to the enemy, how deep the treason
while the war was waging, to refuse in aiding its prosecuuion! Yet a few weeks before his death, Mr. Adams
voted for a resolution withdrawing our troops from
Mexico, relinquishing all claims for the expenses of the
war, and establishing the desert between the Nueces and
the Rio Grande the boundary between the two countries;
and almost the last vote he ever gave, was for an amendment to the bill raising a loan of sixteen millions, viz.:
Provided that no part of the money received under
26




302        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
the authority of this act shall be applied to any expenses
that shall hereafter be incurred by the prosecution of the
war with Mexico."
If Mr. Adams shocked the slaveholders by the freedom
of his language, he was no less regardless of the sensibilities of their allies. Irritated by their subserviency,
and their constant endeavors to thwart him, he exclaimed
on the floor, "There is noend to the devices and ingenuity of the servile part of this house, for the purpose of
suppressing the right of petition. I do not mean by the
servile part of this house, the slaveholding part of it."
He asserted " Northern subserviency to southern dictation
is the prick paid by a northern administration (Mr. Van
Buren's) for southern support. The people of the north
still support, by their suffrages, the men who have.
truckled to southern domination. I believe it impossible
that this total subversion of every principle of liberty
should be much longer submitted to by the people of the
free States of this Union. If they choose to be represented by slaves, they will find servility enough to represent andUbetray them." On another occasion, he pronounced the northern Democrats'"The consistent Swiss
guards of southern slavery." Nor was his notice of the
northern Whigs much more flattering. They were thus
characterized by him: "The languid, compromising nonresistants of the north, afraid of answering a fool according to his folly, and flinching from the attitude of defiance
flung in their faces by the bullying threat of readiness to
meet them'here or elsewhere.'"
He was as fearless in his assaults upon individuals, as
upon classes. Congressional duelling excited his especial
abhorrence, both for its wickedness, and because, as he
contended, it was resorted to by southern members for
the purpose of intimidating northern representatives. In




REVIEW OF THE MEXfCAN WAR.          303
a debate, referring to the subject, he spoke of the death
of a northern man who had' fallen in a duel, as "a deliberate murder committed on a member of this house,"
and alluded to a gentleman present who had acted as a
second in this duel, and was supposed to have instigated
it, as a man having come into that house " with his hands
and face dripping with the blood of murder, the blotches
of which were yet hanging upon him."
He as freely condemned what he thought wrong in the
character and conduct of his country, as he did in parties
and individuals. On the floor.of Congress he declared,
"You make and break treaties with the Indian tribes,
whenever either to make or break treaties withf them hap.
pens to suit the purposes of the President and a majority
of both houses of Congress."  Again-" In the treatment
of the African and native American races, we have subverted the maxims and degenerated from the virtues of
our fathers." In a published letter, respecting a celebration of West India emancipation, he avowed he had not
taken part in it, " from shame for the honor and good
name of my country, whose government has been now, for
a series of years, pursuing and maturing a counteraction of
the purpose of universal emancipation, and organizing an
opposite system for the maintenance and perpetuation
of slavery throughout the earth."  After referring to various disgraceful features in the conduct of the Governmentnand people, he added, "0 my friends, I have no
heart td join in the festivity on the 1st of August, the
British anniversary of disenthralled humanity. While all
this, and infinitely more than I could tell, but that I would
spare the blushes of my country, weigh down my spirits
with the uncertainty, sinking into my grave, as I am,
whether she is doomed to be numbered with the first




304        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
liberators or the last oppressors of tol race of immortal
man."
It would have been an anomaly in the history of human nature, if a public man, thus outraging almost every
popular prejudice, pouring contempt upon political meanness and corruption, spurning the commonly received
tests of patriotism, and hurling defiance at all the demagogues of the day, had not excited against himself deep
and wide-spread hostility.  Truth, justice, virtue, and
patriotism all forbid, as base and criminal, the suppression
of the historical fact that,. for years, John Quincy Adams
was the most hated man in the American Republic.,To the Whig party he was an encumbrance, perpetually
interrupting the desired harmony between its northern
and southern sections, by introducing the topic of slavery,
and raising questions on which " policy " required the
party to vote against him. Scorning the control of party
discipline and caucus dictation, he pursued.his own
course, without asking or receiving permission from the
leaders. At the organization of the last house of Representatives he ever attended, he dared to vote against
the Whig nominee for Clerk, and by so doing, nearly secured the re-election of the late faithful and efficient, but
democratic incumbent.  The Whig party of his own
State did not deem it expedient to assume the responsibility of his " fanaticism," by returning him to the Senate
of the United States, as they had the power to do; and
the Whig presses throughout the Union, with few exceptions, were nearly as strenuous in condemning his congressional conduct, as were his political opponents.
It can readily be understood, that the slaveholders
looked upon him as an incendiary of the most odious as
well as dangerous description; while the demagogues of
every name and party were zealous in manifesting their




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         305
patriotism, by pouting obloquy upon a man at once so distinguished and so unpopular. The northern Democrats
especially, were careful to improve the opportunity of
testifying their devotion to the cause of human bondage,
by the most unmeasured hostility to its mighty opponent.
Said the Albany Argus (the recognized organ of the New
York serviles), "How discreditable is it to the country,
that the MASSACHUSETTS MADMAN is permitted not only to
outrage all order and decorum in the House, but to
scatter incendiary evil and- excitement throughout the
country.".
The Richmond Inquirer, then edited by the same person whom Mr. Polk afterwards selected to take charge of
the official journal of the administration, announced that
Mr. Adams.was considered " A GENERAL NUISANCE, whom
the voAt of the House, if not of the people, must hereafter abate."  The abatement intended was expulsion
from Congress. A New York paper, alluding with approbation to this hint of expulsion, extended it to the few
members who acted with Mr. Adams, and remarked"But we are apprehensive there is not enough firmness
or patriotism in Congress to adopt so stern and decisive a
mode of rebuking the audacity of the MISCREANT TRArrIOS."
The Charleston Mercury, the leading Journal in South
Carolina, in reference to Mr. Adam's- course in Congress,
declared (1837): "Public opinion in the South, would
now we are sure justify an immediate resort to force by
the southern delegation, and even on the floor of Congress,
were they forthwith to SEIZE AND DRAG FROM THE HALL
any man who dared to insult them as that eccentric old
showman, John Quincy'Adams, has dared to do."
The Washington Globe, the acknowledged organ of
the Democratic party at the seat of Government, spoke
of Mr. Adams, as " a vulgar old man, who has forfeited
26*




306        REVIEW OF TIE MEXICAN'WAR.
all claim, by his incorrigible malevolnce, to the respect
otherwise duo tohis age and station," and declared " all
his zeal, all his sympathies are against his country."
At a public dinner in Virginia, the company drank as a
toast: " John Quincy Adams-once a man, twice a child,
and now a DEMON."  At a fourth of July dinner in South
Carolina, the following toast was given: "May we never
want a hangman to prepare a halter for John Quincy
Adams."   The company not only drank the toast, but
accompanied it with nine cheers. In 1842, the democracy
of Ohio, having the control of the Legislature, availed
itself of the opportunity of making an acceptable offering at the shrine of slavery, by declaring in the name and
by the authority of the State in joint resolution, that,
"John Quincy Adams had subjected himself to the
merited censure and reprehension of his counrbtmen;"
and "that the House of Representatives of the United
States owed it to themselves, to stamp his course and
conduct with the severest marks of its indignant disapprobation and censure."
But the hatred felt against Mr. Adams, was not manifested only in indecent toasts, newspaper scurrility, and
democratic obsequiousness to the' slaveholders. Mr.
Adams in a speech in the House (January 21st, 1839),
observed: "I have received letters from various quarters
of the country, with post-marks showing that they have
been mailed at places very distant from each other, containing many of them positive threats of assassination;
others of them filled with friendly advice, assuring me,
that if I continued to present petitions similar to those I
have heretofore presented in this House, my days are
numbered, and I never shall survive the present session."
It was, however, on the floor of Congress, that the
malignity towards him was excited to its greatest inten



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         30S
sity. In a speech to his constituents (1842), alluding to
the charge against him  of using harsh language, -he
remarked: "So far as any friend or impartial person may
have thought me blameable in thatCrespect, I would ask
him to consider that the adversaries with whonl I have
had to contend face to face, have pursued me with a violence and rancor unparalleled in the history of this
country. That twice in the space of five years, I have
for tle single offence of persisting to assert the right of
the people to petition, and the freedom of speech and of
the press, been dragged before the House in which I was
your Representative, as a'culprit to be censured or
expelled; and when, after ten days of the most unrelenting persecution, I have been barely released from its
fury, I have been still denounced as the cause of the
waste of time consumed by my persecutors in their
struggle to accomplish my ruin. On both occasions, the
fury of the whole mass of Southern slavery was concentrated over my head, for the avowed purpose of breaking
down whatever of good name I had to leave as an inheritance to my children; in order that my signal ruin might
strike terror to the heart of your every other Representative, and leave slavery the lord of the ascendant for all
future time throughout the North American Union."
For the purpose of insult, a petition professing to be
from slaves, asking for his expulsion, was sent to him by
mail for presentation. On the 6th February, 1837, he
informed the Speaker, that he had in his possession a petition purporting to come from  slaves, and  inquired
whether it came within the gag-rule, excluding Antislavery petitions?  Immediately, cries of "expel him,"
"expel him," were heard throughout the hall, and Mr.
Thompson from South Carolina, moved: " That the Hol.
John Quincy Adams, by the attempt just made by him to




398        REVIEW OF TIHE MEXICAN WAR.
introduce a petition purporting on its face to be from
slaves, has been guilty of a gross disrespect to the House,
and that he be instantly brought to the bar to receive the
severest censure of the Speaker." In his speech on the
occasion, he observed: "If the juries of this District
have, as I doubt not they have, proper intelligence and
spirit, he may yet be made amenable to another tribunal,
and we may yet see an incendiary brought to condign pun.
ishment."
After three day's discussion, the attempt to degrade
Mr. Adams for asking-a question, being found impracticable, was abandoned.'
In 1842, Mr. Adams was again insulted by a petition
from Georgia, forwarded to him through the mail, asking
for his removal as Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, on account of his monomania. He presented it to the House, and Mr. Hopkins of Virginia, immediately moved its reference to the committee, with instructions to choose another Chairman.  Mr. Adams
claimed to be heard in his defence, declaring that the
feeling against him was "a slave-holding, slave-trading, and
slave-breeding feeling."  He was not allowed to proceed
in his defence, and the motion of Mr. Hopkins was
dropped. The brief calm that ensued, was but the precursor of a tempest; for, three days after, Mr. Adams
presented a petition, praying Congress to take measures
for dissolving the Union; and moved its reference to
a committee, with instructions to report reasons why the
prayer of the petition should not be granted.
The petition itself was brief, containing no allusion to
slavery, and was, in fact, an exact copy of one that had
some years before, been got up by certain of the South
Carolina nullifievs.* The true paternity ef the petition
* The reasons assigned in the petition were: " First, becauee




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            309
was at the time unknown to the House, and the Southern
members, regarding it only in the light of an abolition
document, seized the occasion, to bring disgrace upon Mr.
Adams, under the pretext of their own extreme devotion
to the Union. Mr. Gilmer of Virginia, and lately Governor of the State, immediately offered a resolution declaring " that in presenting to the consideration of the House,
a petition for the dissolution of the Union, the member
from Massachusetts, has justly incurred the censure of
this House."  In his speech he avowed he was endeavoring to stop the music of him, who,
"In the space of one revolving moon
Was statesman, poet, fiddler, and buffoon."
That evening between forty and fifty of the-slaveholding
members met in council to consider how they should
proceed. Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, made the meeting
acquainted with the course he proposed taking in the
morning, a course more decided than Mr, Gilmer's resolution. Accordingly the next.morning he introduced a substitute for the.resolution before the House, consisting of a.
long preamble, setting forth the perjury and treason to
which Congress was invited by the Petition; together
with a series of resolutions, concluding with, " Resolved,
That the aforesaid John Quincy Adams, for this insult,
the first of the kind ever offered to the Government, and
for the wound he has permitted to be aimed through his
instrumentality at the Constitution and existence of his
country, the peace, security and liberty of the people
of these States, might well be held to merit expulsion
no union can be agreeable or permanent, which does not present
prospects of reciprocal benefits. Second, because a vast proportion of the resources of one section of the Union, is annually.
drained to sustain the views and course of another section
Third, because, judging from the history of past nations, that
union, if persisted in, in- the present course of things, will certainly overwhelm the whole nation in utter destruction."




310        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
from the National Councils, and the House deem it an act
of grace and mercy when they only inflict upon him their
severest censures for conduct so utterly unworthy of his
own past relations to the State, and his present position:
This they hereby do, for the maintenance of their own
purity and dignity; for the rest, they turn him over to
his own conscience, and the indignation of all true American citizens." On the reading of the resolutions, there was
a burst of applause from the Galleries and the House, so
much so, that the Speaker interfered to repress it.
The malignity of this assault upon Mr. Adams was
equalled only by its absurdity and its impudence, In presenting the petition he had expressly declared his disapprobation of its object. Congress being authorized by the
Constitution to propose unlimited alterations in that instrument, every citizen has a constitutional right to ask them
to propose any alteration he desires, although it may virtually dissolve the Confederacy; and it is, moreover, preposterous to maintain that a union formed by consent of
the partners, cannot by the same consent be severed. It
must also be recollected that the assault proceeded from
a sectional party, that for a long series of years, has been
threatening to dissolve the Union, if not permitted to
govern` it. Instead of instantly spurning this ridiculous
and wicked persecution, the'House, by a formal vote of
118-to 75,* resolved to consider the charges against Mr.
Adams. He was thereupon put on trial, and Mr. Marshall and Mr. Wise of Virginia, acted as the leading
Counsel of the prosecution. The latter acquitted the accused of insanity, and avowed his conviction that " he was
more wicked than weak;" but at the same time pronounced him "politically dead —dead as Burr-dead as
Arnold. The people would look upon him with wonder,
*Only two northern Democrats voted in the negative!




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           311
would shudder and retire." The dead culprit, however,
evinced most astonishing vitality. The accused became
the accuser; his very persecution was proof of a conspiracy against the liberties of the North; and, abandoning
the defence of himself, he arraigned the slave-holders at
the bar of the nation for endeavoring to destroy the right
of Habeas Corpus, the right of trial by jury, the freedom
of the Post Office, the liberty of speech, of the press, and
of petition, and in short, to destroy all the constitutional
rights of the North adverse to human bondage-and that
for the purpose of effecting these outrages, they had
formed a coalition with the northern Democrats-that
if the rights of the North could not be otherwise protected, the petitioners had acted properly, in asking for a
dissolution of the Union. 
The public watched with intense interest the progress
of this momentous trial, and it was quickly perceived on
which side victory was inclining. Mr. Giliner, anxious to
arrest a process from which the slave interest was suffering so severely, proposed a compromise-a nolle prosequ;
should be entered, provided the defendant would withdraw the petition he had presented. The proposition met
with a positive and indignant refusal. Mr. Adams declared he would not, by withdrawing the petition, sanction
the suppression of the right of petition, which was the
real object of the prosecution; he had done only his duty,
he defied the House, and spurned its proffered mercy.
The trial continued to the 7th day, when, on motion of a
southlern member, all proceedings were discontinued.*
* Twenty-five of the southern members, and all the northern
Whigs united in this vote; but the whole delegation of the
northern democracy, with the exception of six, refused to unbind the victim whom they were anxious to offer a sacrifice on
the altar of slavery, as an earnest and proof of their own fealty.
Messrs. Thompson, Wise, and Gilmer, who had distinguished
themselves by heaping obloquy upon Mr. Adams, were honored




312        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
The next day a new insult was offered to Mr. Adams
All the southern members of the Committee of Foreigh
Relations, four in number, including Messrs. Gilmer and
Hunter, of Virginia, and one' northern "servile," resigned
their seats, avowing that they could not condescend any
longer to be associated with their Chairman. The Speaker
appointed five southern gentlemen to fill the vacancies,
and, of these, three, including Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, refused the appointment-Mr. Holmes expressly declaring, in a letter to the Speaker, his repugnance to serve
with Mr. Adams. Thus no less than eight members of
the House professed to think it derogatory to their dignity
to sit in the same Committee with John Quincy Adams.
The object was to compel him to resign, or the House to
remove him.
But this was the last spasm of impotent malice. From
the commencement of his trial his reputation rose in public
estimation, and it continued to rise, till at the time of his
death, it had reached an elevation never surpassed by that
of any man on the American Continent, with the single
exception of WASHINGTON. The astonishing popularity
of this lately defamed and persecuted man, is evinced by
the Strange and extraordinary praises it extorted from
politicians of every description. On the announcement
of his death, prominent men on the floor of Congress
seized the occasion to make speeches in his honor. Among
the eulogists were numbered no less than three gentlemen
from the South. The speeches were, by order of the
House, published in a pamphlet, and of this 20,000 copies,
adorned with a portrait of the deceased, and a copy of his
autograph, were distributed at public expense.
A panegyric on Napoleon, from which all allusion to
with important appointments, by and with the advice and consent of a Whig Senate, the two former to foreign missions, and
the latter to the post of Secretary of the Navy




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         313
his military achievements should be excluded, would be
regarded as a unique performance, yet it would find its
counterpart in these Congressional oraisons funebres. In
these the reader is told, in general terms, of the talents,
virtue, and patriotism of the deceased; but not a hint is
given of that course of conduct which in fact secured for
him these very eulogies. This Congressional monument
raised to the honor of Adams, gives no intimation that he
was the champion of constitutional liberty, the restorer of
the right of petition, the indomitable foe of human bondage. No allusion is made to his terrible conflicts and his
glorious triumphs. Not a word discloses, that a slave
ever breathed on the soil of America; that a slaveholding
Republic had been added to the " area of freedom," or
that a war was then raging, which Adams had denounced
as waged for the extension of slavery, and from which he
had voted to withhold supplies. Some of the speakers
were minutely accurate in specifying the dates of Mr.
Adams's appointments in former times, but all were marvellously oblivious of his recent services. One gentleman,
preferring fiction to truth, favored the House with a beautiful add touching romance. Said Mr. McDowell, of Virginia-" No human being ever entered this Hall, without
turning habitually and with heartfelt deference first to him,
and few ever left it, without pausing as they went, to pour
out blessings upon that spirit of consecration to the country, which brought and kept him there." Had Messrs.
Gilmer, Hopkins, Hunter, and Wise been in their seats,
they might possibly have dissented from the accuracy of
the picture drawn by their colleague, and disclaimed for
themselves the feelings and the acts so eloquently ascribed
to all. But judging from the Lethean spirit in which the
faculties of the speakers were apparently drowned, it is
more probable, that these' gentlemen, far from contradict27




314        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
ing Mr. McDowell, would have testified to the truth of his
statement. Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, was another
of the eulogists. He lamented that death had taken from
among them " the gravest, wisest, most revered head"one "adorned with virtue, learning, and truth;" and he
called him "{ the Patriot Father, and the Patriot Sage:"
It did not, perhaps, occur to this gentleman, that as a few
years before he disdainfully refused to be associated with
this " Patriot Father, and Patriot Sage," in the Committee of Foreign Relations, it might be interesting to the
public to know, how recently, and by what means he had,
discovered, that his was " the gravest, wisest, and most
revered head" in Congress. This same gentleman (Mr.
Isaac E. Holmes), as representing the veneration felt by
South Carolina for the great champion of human rights,
and her grief for his death, followed his remains from the
city of Washington to their final resting-place in Masachusetts! Having eulogized the great Abolitionist, and
paid the last honor to his memory, Mr. Holmes returned
to Congress where, while laboring to extend slavery to
the Pacific, he pronounced the emphatic words, "I hold
it (slavery) to be the greatest blessing that Gold ever
conferred upon man."
To no member of Congress did the charge of giving
-'aid and comfort" to the enemy apply with more force
than to Mr. Adams; yet Mr. Polk, in an official order, declared him to be " a great and patriotic citizen;" and the
official journal, robed in mourning, eulogized, as the "illustrious and venerable patriot and statesman,".the very man
who the editor had formerly affirmed was considered " a
general nuisance."
Of course the whole press, of all parties and shades of
party, was vocal in praise of the departed patriot; and one
of the most profligate of the fraternity, who had ever




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         31$
thrown contempt upon all the objects most dear to his
heart, thought it expedient to hold the following language:
"Mr. Adams on all occasions we believe,'has been open,
pure, and uncontaminated, as single-hearted as a child, or
an angel."
American citizens in Great Britain, were publicly invited by the American Minister, lately engaged in conducting the Mexican war as one of Mr. Polk's cabinet, to
pay honors to the memory of John' Quincy Adams: "A
patriot, always loving his country above all lands of the
earth," and this notwithstanding he was "a Mexican
Whig." Public honors were paid to him even by the
army in Mexico, although, if the assertions of some of its
officers were true, he was a "knave" and a " traitor at
heart."
A committee from the House of Representatives, of one
from each State, attended the corpse from the capitol in
Washington to the tomb in Quincy. The funeral cortege
in its progress, was everywhere met by large concourses
of citizens, municipal officers, and detachments of militia.
The whole American people, as with one voice, acknowledged and deplored the departure of a great and virtuous
patriot.
When it is recollected that Mr. Adams had changed no
one of the many opinions that had exposed him to odium,
that in no degree had he departed from that straight-forward course, which had so frequently brought him into
violent collision with the Democrats of the North and the
slaveholders of the South-and that in his last days he had
outraged popular patriotism by opposing an existing war,
and attempting to cut off supplies from our victorious
armies-surely the revulsion of public opinion in his favor
is marvellous and unparalleled.
Whence came it that the same unchanged, inflexible, and




316        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
dauntless man, scorning and defying public opinion, and
scorning and defying it to his last breath-and who but
lately was the object of such general hatred, that the
representatives of the people spent a week in laboring to
consign him "to the indignation of all true American
citizens"-acquired such wonderful popularity, that-rival
politicians hurried to strew flowers upon his grave, and to
let all the world know how very much they loved and
admired him. The cause is to be found, first, in the entire
confidence of the PEOPLE in his integrity, and their admiration of his talents and moral courage; and secondly, in
the deference paid by politicians to public opinion "right
or wronrg."
The magnificent spectacle he exhibited when alone, unaided, and with but little sympathy he received and
gloriously repelled the combined assault of the Northern
Democracy and the slave interest, won for him the hearts
of the common people.*   They looked upon him as a
moral phenomenon-a public man who never flattered,
but often censured them —a politician who consulted duty
and not "policy"-who feared God and not man-who
talked as he voted, and voted as he talked-who went
with his country and party when right, and against them
when wrong-who was bold enough to be honest, and
honest enough to be bold. This feeling in the community
soon displayed itself. The year after his trial, he travelled
from Boston to Cincinnati, and his journey was a triumphal progress. Even in the slave states, the tide had
turned, and being expected at Wheeling, a crowd assem* The following extract from a Pittsburgh paper of 1843,
affords a striking illustration of this remark: " As a token of
respect for Mr. Adams, all the works in the city were closed
yesterday, that the working men might have a chance to bid him
welcome. The silence of the engines, the machinery, and the
workman's tools was a mightier tribute to Mr. Adams, than the
roar of cannon, the Strains of music, or the eloquent address."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.         317
bled, not to insult, but to do him honor. The brave,
frank, honest opponent was regarded with a respect never
felt by the slaveholder for the fawning mercenary of the
North. Mr. Adams had become the man of the PEOPLE,
and was revered and beloved-by them as their champion,
the advocate of their rights. His great and acknowledged
popularity, at length secured for him respectful treatment
on the floor of Congress; and when the whole nation deplored his death, politicians of every name, and from
every section of the country, deemed it advisable to unite
in building his tomb.
The facts which have now been stated respecting Mr.
Adams, however interesting in themselves, would have
found no place in these pages, did they not illustrate some
great truths, having a direct and important bearing on
many of the sentiments advanced in the present work.
They reiterate the lesson long since taught, of the utter
worthlessness of public opinion as a standard of right and
wrong. The demoniac cries, "Crucify him, crucify him!"
were preceded by " Hosannas to the Son of David;" and
the revulsion of feeling we have been considering shows
that human nature is the same now as in the first century.
Multitudes who, in 1848, did reverence to the "Patriot
Father and the Patriot Sage," would have rejoiced ten
years before to have caught him in the slave region.
We are taught in a most impressive manner, how exceedingly destitute are many of our public men of independent feelings and opinions. Whether Adams was a
"miscreant traitor," or a great and patriotic citizen," was
a question to be determined, not by bringing his conduct
to the test of any moral standard, but. by the present
feelings of the multitude. When he was supposed to be
unpopular, no vituperation was too coarse-when known
27*




318        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
to be very popular, no praise was too gross, although
ridiculously false.
The American people have by acclamation adjudged
John Quincy Adams a PATRIOT, a judgment from which
not one politician of any name has dared to appeal. This
judgment sets aside, condemns, and repudiates almost
every test of patriotism prescribed by the demagogues of
the day. It has now been decided by a tribunal which
these men admit to be infallible, that a man may be a pattiot, nay, an " illustrious patriot" according to the official
gazette, who openly repudiates the sentiment, " our:country, right or wrong"*-who on a question of international
law, sides with a foreign government against his own-wiho
gives " aid and comfort" to the enemy by denouncing as
unjust the war waged against him, and by striving to withhold supplies from  the army sent to fight him-who
mourns over the degeneracy of -his country and doubts
whether she is to be numbered " among the firstJiberators,
or the last oppressors of the race of immortal man"-who,
-notwithstanding all "the compromises of the Constitution,"
denounces human bondage as a crime against God, and
proposes so to change the Constitution as to effect the immediate abolition of hereditary slavery throughout the
American Confederacy, and pouring contempt upon the
lying Democracy of the day, claims for the black man
the same rights of suffrage that are accorded to his white
fellow-citizen.:Such is.the character of a PATRIOT, as established by
the latest decision of the American public; a decision in
wei h every member of the vast tribunal, from Mr. Polk
* In some verses written by Mr. Adams, shortly before his:death, and entitled " Congress, slavery, and an unjust war," are
these ineis"And say not thou,' My country, right or wrong,'
Nor shed thy blood for an unhallowed cause."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           319
down to the humblest caterer for war and glory, has concurred. It is, indeed, a decision which in its application to
others, will be over-ruled, whenever "policy " or passion
may require its abrogation; but it is nevertheless of vast
importance. It has reversed many corrupt judgments
previously given; it will cheer and encourage many weakhearted patriots, and it may hint to some politicians, that
it is possible to acquire popularity by adhering to duty,
as well as by listening to the suggestions of "policy."
We have seen Mr. Adams, although constantly occupied in public life, bursting at pleasure the bonds of
party, outraging public opinion, and apparently courting
defeat and odium"Among innumerable false, unmovedUnshaken, unseduced, unterrified,
His loyalty he kept, his love, his zealNor number, nor example with him wrought
To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind."
Surely there must have been some potent principle of
action which impelled him to pursue a path so divergent from those usually selected by political aspirants,
one-to all appearance leading him far from popular applause, and yet in the end conducting him to the very
pinnacle of fame. There was such a principle, and it
is shadowed forth in the moral with which Mr. M'Dowell
" adorned his tale."  " His life," said the Virginia eulogist, " has been a continuous and beautiful illustration of
the great truth, that while the fear of man is the consummation of all folly, the fear of God is the beginning
of wisdom." Unhappy is it for our country, that the reverse of this truth fdrms the maxim, by which so many
of our public men'-apparently govern their conduct. But
what was the secret of the great strength of this moral




320        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
Sampson?   Since his death, certain letters to his son
have been given to the press, and in these we find an
answer to the inquiry. It appears, that while at the
court of St. Petersburg, in 1811, he commenced a series
of letters to his absent child, on the study of the Bible"the Divine revelation," as he called it. In these he
remarks, " I have myself, for many years, made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year. I have
always endeavored to read it with the same spirit and
temper of mind which I now recommend to you; that is,
with the intention and desire that it may contribute to
my advancement in wisdom and virtue. My custom is, to
read four or five chapters every morning, immediately
after rising from my bed. It employs about half an hour
of my time, and seems to me the most suitable manner of
beginning- the day."  The following advice to his son
seems both indicative of his own future course, and prophetic of its glorious termination:-" Never give way to
the pushes of impudence, wrong-headiness, or intractability, which would lead or draw you aside from the dictates of your own conscience and your own sense of right.
Till you die, let not your integrity depart from you.
Build your house upon the rock, and then let the rains
descend, and the flood come, and the winds blow, and
beat upon that house, it shall not fall. So promises your
blessed Lord and Master." In a most wonderful manner
was this promise fulfilled:i his own case, even in the
present world. But there is a day approaching, when
the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open, and when every
man shall come to judgment. Then will those who have
in this life pursued expediency in preference to duty,
learn, when too late, that "the wisdom of this world is
foolishness with God."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          321
CHAPTER XXXVII.
WAR, AND THE MEANS OF PREVENTION.
WE have endeavored to give the reader some idea of the
vast amount of crime and misery resulting from our hostilities with Mexico; yet those hostilities present but a
faint image of WAR. All the American troops sent into
Mexico, will not number as many as have often been killed
and wounded in a single engagement. fiad all the bat-.tles of the late war occurred at the same time, and on the
same field, they would scarcely have equalled a skirmish
between the outposts of two European armies. The total
number of our troops officially reported to have been killed
in battle, is less than two thousand! If we would know the
horrors of war, not as waged in ancient times, when whole
nations contended in arms, with heathen barbarity, but as
waged within our own recollection, and by enlightened,
civilized, and christian people, let us contemplate the details of only three of a multitude of modern battles.*
JENA-engaged, 200,000 men; killed and wounded, 34^00
EYLAU    "   160,000               "     50,000
BORODINO "   265,000; 1,230 cannon in the field,
25,000 killed, 68,000 wounded-93,000
Napoleon invaded Russia with 450,000 troops, of which
number about 400,000 are.supposed to have perished,
only about 50,000 having returned to their native land.
We shudder to reflect on the awful accumulated misery
and crime necessarily resulting from such vast slaughter.
* See Alison.




322       REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
Let it be also recollected that the horrors of the battle
field, form but one item, and that comparatively a small
one, in the long catalogue of woes, inflicted by war upon
the human race. The limits of the present chapter forbid us to dwell on the anguish experienced by the friends
and relatives of the killed and wounded-on the vast
amount extorted from the avails of labor to defray the
expense of war-on the ruin and desolation which mark
the track of.hostile armies, and the depravation of morals
engendered by the license and temptations connected with
the military profession. Nor have we space to exhibit
the inefficiency and uncertainty of. war, as a means of
defence against injury, or as an instrument for enforcing
justice. But we ask the attention of the reader to a topic
seldom investigated, and yet possessing momentous interest-thefolly and the cost of military preparation.
Of all the false and hoary maxims by which mankind
have been deluded, perhaps none has ever exerted such
baneful influence on human happiness as that scrap of
counterfeit wisdom, "IN PEACE, PREPARE FOR WAR."
The proposed object of the counsel is to preserve peace by
being prepared to repel, and thereby to prevent aggression. The reasoning is contradicted by the testimony of
history and by the character of human nature. No nation was ever better prepared for war than France under
Napoleon, and no nation was ever more fiercely and violently attacked; and seldom has any nation been more
humbled, compelled'not only to receive a sovereign from
the hands of her enemies, but to pay the expenses of a
foreign army to whose custody she was consigned. Great'military strength has no tendency to foster pacific dispositions in its possessor. While the character of man remains unchanged, his cupidity, oppression, and. injustice
will ordinarily be proportioned to his means of indulging




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           323
them. Hence, in all ages those nations which have been
the best prepared for war, have drank most deeply of its
bloody cup. If we examine the history of Europe from
1700, to the general peace in 1815, we shall find that
during the 115 years,
Great Britain was engaged in war.. 69 years.
Russia,......   68   "
France,...     63
Holland,..                   43   "
Portugal.......40
Denmark,......    28  "
Pride, arrogance, and the lust of conquest, are the
natural and bitter fruits of military preparation-fruits
fatal to national peace and happiness.
Strange as may seem the assertion, it is, we believe,
nevertheless true, that both Europe and America have
expended more money in preparing for war, than in actual
hostilities.
In the old world, every important city was anciently
walled and fortified, and even in our own days, we
have seen the French people already burthened with
debt, lavishing millions in erecting a wall thirty miles in
circumference around their Capital.*
When we examine the expenditures made in time of
peace for military preparation, we are astounded by the
stupendous results, and can scarcely credit the testimony
of official statements.
* This work of prodigal folly has been falsely ascribed to the
late King; it was demanded by the liberal or popular party,
under the leadership of Mr. Thiers. The Republic, instead of
lessening the burdens of the people, have actually, although unmenaced by a single State in Europe, increased their military
preparations. On the 1st December, 1848, the effective force of
the French army amounted to 502,196 men, and 100,432 horses;
and to this was added a large navy, with between twenty and
thirty thousand seamen.




324         REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
The following facts are gleaned from a late English
stattistical work: *
For the six years ending with 1836, the average
expenditures of the British Government, exclusive of payments for interest on the national
debt, was....~17,101,608
Of this sum, there was paid on an average, for the
army, navy, and ordinance,t...      12,714,289
Leaving an average annual amount expenditure
for civil purposes, of only...            4,387,219
It thus appears that the annual payments for military
preparations during this period, were no less than seventyfour per cent. of the current expenses of the Government,
exclusive of ~28,574,829, the yearly interest on the war
debt!!
The Budget, for 1848, contained the following'estimates, viz:
Army,.   ~7,540,405
Navy,....      8,018,873
Ordinance,...    2,947,869
Total,..     ~18,507,147
One would have thought that this enormous sum was
quite enough to extort from the people of England in a
single.year for preparation for future and unseen hostilities. But no. The Duke of Wellington, in his speculations on steam navigation, suddenly conceived the idea,
that a French army might, in an unexpected moment, be
landed upon the British shores from a fleet of steamboats.
A panic seized the venerable chief, and he trembled for
* Porter's Progress of the Nation, Vol. ii.
t The average for these six years, from some cause, was unusually small. The total outlay on army, navy, and ordinance,
since the peace of 1815, to the year ending 5th January, 1848,
is ~484,231,985, being an annual average of ~15,444,749. The
actual payments for military preparation, during the year 1847,
amounted to ~18,503,146! See tract published by the " Edinburg Financial Reform Association."




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.            325
the permanency of the Empire. The coasts of England
ought immediately to be fortified, and a large home army
ought to be forthwith organized and maintained, to fight
the French whenever and wherever they might land from
their steamers. The construction of the forts would of
course furnish fat jobs for innumerable contractGrs, and the
home army would supply younger sons with commissions,
rank, and emolument. No wonder that multitudes of
patriotic Englishmen were found to favor the -insane project. The ministers, it is believed, were deterred from
recommending the Duke's plan to Parliament, only by the
sturdy opposition of the friends of peace.
A few years since, it was computed that the cost of the
military peace establishments of the following Powers, was
in the ratio named to the whole expenditure of the several Governments, exclusive of payments on aecount of
debt, viz.:
Austria,    as 883 per cent.
France,,, 38 per cent.
Prussia,,, 44 per cent.
Great Britain,,, 74 per cent.
We are fond of comparing our own republican frugality
with  monarchical prodigality.  National vanity, like
chbrity, covers not only a multitude of sins, but also a
multitude of follies. The average expenditure of the
Federal Government, for the six years, ending with 1840,
exclusive of payments on account of debt, was $26,474,892.
During the same years, the average payments for
military and naval purposes, were $21,328,903. Being
EIGHTY -PER CENT. of the whole amount r A greater
ratio than is expended by any monarchy in Europe, in
preparing for, war.*
* It is true, that during a portion of these six years, we were
fighting a few Seminole Indians in Florida. If, then, we take the
six years, ending with 1836, a time of profound peace, the ratio




326        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
It is with difficulty we can give our assent to the accuracy of such amazing disclosures; and yet our scepticism
will vanish when we consider that fortifications, barracks,
store-houses, arms, ammunition, and ships of war are all
mostly constructed in time of peace. But this is not all.
Men are also to be trained and instructed in the art of
human slaughter, and kept ready to put in practice at a
moment's warning, the lessons.they have received.
In 1828, a time of general peace, the standing armies
of Europe were estimated at 2,265,500 men.* If to the
pay of these men, we add the cost of their food, clothes,
lodging, and of the arms, ammunition, barracks, &c., with
which they were furnished, and the value of their labor
which is lost to the community, we shall not exaggerate
their expense to the State when we estimate it at $500 a
man, making the sum total of $1,132,750,000, anamount
the mind cannot realize. But before we give vent to our
indignation against Kings and Emperors for thus squandering the earnings of their subjects, let us once more
look at home. Our young Republic, from the moment of
her birth, has scarcely had a hostile neighbor. For about
two years, Canada on the north, and for the.same time,
Mexico on the south, have been in a belligerent position
towards us. Bounded for the most part by the ocean,
and by interminable forests, we have had little to fear
from invasion; and never, except in the war of 1812,
has a hostile foot, other than that of a savage, pressed
our soil. Yet with all our professions of economy, we
have pursued the system of military preparation, after a
royal fashion. Since the commencement of the Federal
Government to the beginning of 1848, independent of
is seventy-seven per cent., still greater than that of Great Britain.
See American Almanacfor 1845, page 143.
* Balance Politiqiu du Globe, by M. Adrien Balbi.




REVIEW OF TIlE MEXICAN WAR.         327
the prodigious cost of arming and training the militia,
there have been paid from he national treasuryFor the Army and Fortifications,  -  -  $366,713,209
For the Navy, and its operations, -  -  209,994,428
$576,707,637
Here we have half a billion of dollars taken from the
people, with their own consent, for the purpose of being
ready for war! To this immense sum may be added
$61,169,834, expended in military pensions.
Were the money lavished in military preparation
annihilated, all the mines in the world could not supply the requisite treasure. It is not annihilated, but
it is wasted-that is, it is given for what yields no return
_of comfort and happiness to the nation at large. Let us
suppose that the two millions of soldiers maintained in
Europe, in 1828, had been employed at ordinary wages
in building pyramids.  Surely, none would deny that
the money expended in raising structures so utterly
worthless, was profligately wasted; and none will question
that the people would have had good cause to rise in rebellion against rulers who robbed them of the fruits of
their labor, for purposes so vain and ridiculous. Yet.the
treasures lavished on such piles, would have been far
less in amount, and expended in a manner far less injurious to the public morals and happiness, than the
money-squandered on the armies.
M. Bouvet, in a recent speech in the French Assembly,
remarking on the appropriation of 583 millions for the
army and navy, about one-third of the whole estimate,
well observed:  I cannot convey to you my sense of the
irrational distribution of our resources, when I observe
how comparatively unimportant we deem the elements of
intelligence and public prosperity which is indicated by




328        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
our budgets of instruction, commerce, and agriculture,
amounting altogether to hardly thirty-six millions! What
should you think of the father of a family, who possessing
an income of 15,000 francs, should expend 5,000 in arms
and horses, while he only appropriated 360 francs to -the
instruction of his children and the improvement of his
estate? War, founded on force and restraint, is contrary
to liberty. War, enabling the strong to triumph over the
weak, is contrary to equality. War, shattering the law of
love, which unites individuals and communities, is contrary tofraternity. Thus the Republic, to be consistent
with its own constitution, ought henceforth to endeavor to
suppress the military system, and to substitute for it an
international jurisdiction. Such an object is so honest, so
generous, so important to the public welfare, that France
need not blush to make it the principal aim of its political
existence."
The desire expressed by M. Bouvet, that international
jurisdiction may be substituted for the military system,
will find a cordial response in the breast of every true
patriot, of every faithful disciple of the PRINCE OF PEACE.
But what would be a practicable and safe and proper international jurisdiction?  A "congress of nations," consisting of deputies from various States, and forming a
court for the settlement of controversies arising between
their several governments, has been proposed. However
excellent such a tribunal may be in theory, and however
useful it may hereafter be in practice, it cannot be disguised, that formidable difficulties oppose its speedy
organization. Pacific sentiments must extensively prevail,
before governments will be disposed to enter into such an
arrangement; and the erection of such a tribunal must
necessarily be preceded by tedious negotiations respect



REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.. 329
ing the relative representation in the Congress, and the
powers with which it should be entrusted. In the mean
time, the military system would be continued, and its
very continuance would render more difficult and distant
the establishment of the Congress.
Happily there is a mode of " international jurisdiction,"
more simple, speedy, and practicable, and of which any
two nations may at any time avail themselves, without
waiting for the co-operation of others.  This mode is
faintly shadowed forth in our late treaty with Mexico, but
in terms" Which keep the word of promise to the ear,
And break it to the hope."
The 21st Article is as follows: " If unhappily any disagreement should hereafter arise between the Governments of the two Republics, whether with respect to the
interpretation of any stipulation in this treaty, or with
respect to any other particular concerning the political or
commercial relations of the two nations, the said Governments; in the name of those nations, do promise to each
other, that they will endeavor in the most sincere and
earnest manner, to settle the differences so arising, and to
preserve tjie state of peace and friendship, in which the,
two countries are now placing themselves, using for this
end mutual representations and pacific negotiations; and
if by these means-they should not be enabled to come to
an agreement, a resort shall not dh this account be had to
reprisals, aggressions, or hostilities of any kind, by the
one Republic against the other, until the Government of
that which deems itself aggrieved, shall have maturely
considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighborship,
whether it would not be better that such difference should
be settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed
on each side, or by that of a friendly nation; and should
28*




330        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
such course be proposed by either party, it shall be
acceded to by the other, unless deemed by it altogether
incompatible with the nature of the difference, or the circumstances of the case."
This stipulation, it is obvious, amounts to nothing more
than an acknowledgment that there is an equitable mode
of preventing future hostilities, and a promise to adopt it,
*unless either party shall think it more advantageous to
trust to the arbitrament of the sword.
Had the reference to arbitration been made imperative
instead of discretionary, the treaty of peace would have
done much to atone for the iniquity of the war. It would
have secured Mexico from future spoliation, and'by guar.
anteeing our own rights, would have removed all pretext
for military preparation on our Mexican frontier; and it
would, moreover, have set a glorious example of a victorious people debarring themselves from future conquests,
and have taught the world how its swords might be
beaten into ploughshares, and its spears into pruninghooks.
Let us suppose that instead of this quibbling, shuffling,
non-committal Article, the following had been substituted
for it.
" It is agreed between the contracting parties, that, if
unhappily any controversy shall arise between them, in
respect to the true intent of any stipulation in this treaty,
or in respect to any other matter, which controversy cannot be satisfactorily adjusted by negotiation, neither party
shall resort to hostilities against the other, but the matter
in dispute shall, by a special convention, be submitted to
the arbitrament of some friendly power; and the parties
do hereby agree to abide by the award which may be
given in pursuarie of such submission."
To such an Article, what valid objection ca. be offered?




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.           331
The reference would.be made only after negotiation had
failed, of course it would be the alternative of WAR.
Now whatever might be the award, each party would be
the gainer, for each would be saved the expenditure of
blood and treasure. The successful party would establish
his claims without cost; and to the losing party, the
remark of Franklin would be strictly applicable: "Whatever advantage one nation would obtain of another, it
would be cheaper to purchase such advantage with ready
money, than to pay the expense of acquiring it by war."
But it may be doubted by some, whether the award
would be in accordance with justice. Why such a doubt?
Would' an impartial disinterested umpire, selected or agreed
to by ourselves, and with the gaze of the world fixed upon
him, be less able, or less inclined, to understand and determine the merits of the- question submitted to him, than
the Government of Mexico, or of our own country smarting
under the irritation of real or imaginary wrong, seeking
popularity by a show of patriotism and sensibility to
national honor, and goaded on by politicians seeking for
office, and by needy adventurers eager for the commissions, contracts, and spoils of war?  The people at large
have no interest in war; on the contrary, it is upon them
its burdens press and its calamities fall.
We have seen how crushing is the weight of war-taxes
upon the multitude; and yet they seem, for the most part,
utterly ignorant of the -true cause of their poverty and
wretchedness.  Deluded by demagogues, they ascribe
their'sufferings to kings, and nobles, and priests, but
render a. willing homage to SOLDIEZRS, who are in fact
their real oppressors. The French people restless under
the burthen of taxation, drove their monarch into exile,
and seizing in their owrn hands the reins of Government,
immediately enlarged their army, and have thus swelled




332        REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
their taxes beyond what they were under the monarchy.
The suffering masses of England cry aloud against the
political institutions of their country, and seek relief in
annual parliaments, vote by ballot, &c., apparently unconscious that they are pressed to the earth by war and military preparation.  Let them  rid themselves of these
plagues, and their taxes for the support of the Government, including all the appropriations for the maintenance
of royalty in all its splendor, would be so trivial as to be
scarcely perceptible. Does this statement excite the smile
of incredulity? We appeal to facts.
The average expenditure of the British Government for the six years ending with 1836, including interest on the National-Debt, was ~45,676,357
Now of this immense sum, there was paidfor
the civil expenses of the Government, only  4,387,214
Leaving, for military preparation and interest
on the war-debt -                    41,289,143
Here we have disclosed the secret agent of those
mighty upheavings which are causing the political world
to reel to and fro like a drunken man. Men are wasting
their lives and energies in toil, yet eat not the fruit of
their labor, for it is wrested from them and offered on the
altar of Moloch. Yet they perceive not the hand that
robs them; and vainly attribute their poverty to defective
political institutions. Hence, revolution follows revolution
in rapid succession, like the waves of a troubled sea, but
no relief is found. Agriculture is interrupted, commerce
droops, industry is paralyzed, and soldiers and taxes are
multiplied. Mexico, our own country, and France, bear
witness that monarchs and nobles are not the exclusive
devotees of war. Under all forms of Government have
the wealth, the morals and the happiness of the people
been sacrificed with their own consent, to their own insane




REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR.          333
admiration of glory, and their own foolish idea of the
necessity of military preparation.
Let, then, the friends of human progress and of public
peace, of happiness, and virtue, the patriot and the Christian, all unite in one loud and unceasing demand for trea;
ties of arbitration. In this blessed reform any nation may
take the lead; would that our own had seized the opportunity offered by the recent negotiation! Let Congress
by a joint resolution, express its desire that an arbitration
clause shall be inserted in all our future treaties, and the
grtat work will be commenced. Such a resolution would
be like the first beams of light breaking upon the darkness
of night, and shining more and more unto the perfect
day, gradually dispelling the baneful mists of military
glory and ambition, and diffusing life, and joy, and abundance, among the suffering millions of our distracted
world.