SPEECH
OF
MB. EWING, OF TENNESSEE,
ON THE
WAR WITH MEXICO.
Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. S., Jan. 28,1847.
The bill waking appropriations for the Naval service being under
consideration Mr. EWING said :
•
CHAIRMAN: I have risen to make a few suggestions in regard to this
most remarkable, I had almost said most foolish, war in which we are engaged. These suggestions I would fain make practical, looking to the difficulties by which we are surrounded, and attempting to devise their proper
remedies. I cannot, however, wholly waive the inquiry into the nature
and causes of the war; its justice or injustice; whether made by the President or by Congress; whether for conquest or for durable peace and adjustment of boundary.
The terms just and unjust in the law of nations, as practised upon: and
administered, were in former days, and are row indeed, in sonic degree
technical. The fits gentium is not always jus equitatis; on the contrary,
the law of nations is sometimes as little equitable and Christian (as found in
the books) as the literal construction of the barbarous statutes of the jus
nIirecgadptow;.blnrights, elanw
muof the strongest—a practical commentary, from the days when Charlemagne
forcibly baptized the Saxons, on all the unjust, oppressive, and abominable
wars that have desolated Europe and Asia, running through the thirty years'
war in Germany, and the war of the Succession, down to the wars of Napoleon and the conquest of the Punjaub. Indeed, writers upon the law of
nations, not content with this scope, sometimes resort even to the barbarous
practices of the Greeks and Romans, when hard pressed to sustain a favorite,,
or what may be deemed a necessary position. 'Far be it from me, however',
to repudiate in Coto the law of nations, as it is written. Taken in its general
scope, it is at last our only general rule of action. I would avoid, however,
an abuse or its dictates, and reject many times its extreme precedents. This
is-demanded by the greater laws of morals and of Christian brotherhood.
Some dispute has arisen on this floor in regard to the proper books from
which to draw our rules. Vattel, by a gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.
C. J. INGERSOLL ' ) has been unceremoniously stripped of his ermine, and,
according to him, Grotius is alone to be relied on. " Who is Vattel," says
the gentleman, in his usual self-satisfied strain; " a miserable Switzer," and
so he is disposed of. " And who is Grotius?" In the same vein, I might
reply, " a miserable Dutchman," and. so he would be unfrocked. Neither
Ma.
J. & G. S. Gideon, printers.
2
of these writers is, however, to be got rid of in this ex cathedra style. Of
Grotius, however, a great name, it may be remarked, that he- was born in
the year of Grace 1583, and wrote his celebrated treatise de Jure Pacis et
Belli in 1645 ; a few years only after the thirty years' war, in which every
principle ; human and diVine, had been trampled on, and when Europe was
still smoking with the blood of the slain. Vattel wrote his treatise a hundred years afterwards, with the advantage A . Grotius, and the subsequent
lights before him. Since these; we have had the decisions of Mansfield,
and Eldon, and Stowell, and Marshall, and Kent, and Story, and it is to
be hoped that something has been done by these to illumine the principles
Of public justice, and that by their labors some improvements and ameliorations have been made in the doctrines of international law. Grotius,alone,
should not have this field, however well he may have written, considering
the comparatively dark and barbarous times in which he lived. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania, did not, however, cite either book or page from
Grotius to sustain his positions in regard to this war, I need not have made
these remarks to refute him, nor was this my purpose. I had a more comprehensive one. It was this: I wished to repel the idea that it was Sufficient for us to find, in some moth-eaten volume, a precedent, upon which
We might say "our war is technically just," and thereupon proceed to conceive schemes of magnificent national plunder, and to carry them out by
amps and wholesale murder. With me, it would require more than the rejection of a Minister, or some petty depredation by a semi-barbarous and-almost anarchical Government, to justify a - war fraught with consequences so
tremendous to us and t6 our opponents, to our and to their posterity.
My inquiry would always be, is . a war to be avoided consistently with the
honor and dignity of our nation? If it could be so avoided, then unquestionably morals and Christianity, our own interest, and that of the world,
would require that it should' be clone. This should be the general rule to
govern all nations; but, in regard to the present war, we stand in a peculiar
position. We are as " a city set upon mill;" we have held ourselves out
to the nations of the earth as a peculiar people," devoid of an eager thirst
for conquest, not lusting after foreign dominion, and if propagandists, only
peaceful oties, of-the doctrines of true republicanism.. We are looked to by
others, the people and the nations of the earth, as a beacon light, and as
first in the lead of the great principles of liberty and justice;, especially are
we so looked to by our younger sisters of the northern and southern portions
of this confinent. We are the great exemplar. They have been content,
in the main, to follow in our wake, and pursue at an humble distance our
precepts and our practices. What, then, is peculiarly demanded at our
hands against their occasional fretfulness and folly? Not certainly that fierce
and eager spirit, ready to take offence if offered, and ready to find it if not.
On the contrary, dignity, self-respect, charity, Christianity, require the
ex-ercise of forbearance, and, if need be, even of long suffering.
These considerations present themselves with peculiar force, in reference
to our position toward Mexico before and at the commencement of this war.
She had recently lost what was considered by her an integral portion of
her territory. Our people had settled in this territory; they were the
revo-lutionists; they had gone there with our assent; even pending the war between Mexico and Texas, we had connived at this emigration, and Mexico
(whether justly or unjustly) looked upon us as the ultimate., it not the prox-
3
imate, cause of the dismemberment of her dominions. Her leading population conceived this to be a deep laid and deliberate scheme on our part to
acquire their territory; and when the consummation came, the annexation
of Texas, that which to them had been before suspicion, became now clear
as " proof of Holy Writ." The affront, too, was only doubled by their
secret conviction of their own weakness, and the belief that it was upon this
we acted. True, smarting under these supposed wrongs, agitated by internal dissensions, acting upon-passion rather' than judgment, they committed
upon us and our people depredations and spoliations, sullenly refused to receive our minister, and with savage pride seemed resolved to despise our
friendship and defy our enmity. According to their vain glorious nature
and barbarous ignorance, they threw out against us boastful threats, and asserted equality' in arms. But they had not invaded our newly acquired
ter-ritory--they would probably never have done so.
What should we have done? Seized upon our technical grounds to deClare war? I say, boldly, no ! Forbearance had not yet ceased to be a
virtue. Magnanimity, and Christianity, and brotherhood, and a sense of
our own dignity, all alike required that we should exorcise the evil spirit of
pride, and await a clear and palpable and dangerous invasion of our national
rights, or national territory. And what have we done? Nothing at first as a
nation Nothing by the properly constituted authorities ! But something has
been done, and by whom? By the haphazard President of our Republic.
And this brings me to the conduct of the President, to examine the part
he has borne in this transaction, and to scan the message by which he has
attempted his defence. Of this message, I feel ashamed as a composition;
I feel ashamed of its want of ingenuousness; ashamed of its reasons and of
its reasoning. The whole document is a fine specimen of that kind of argument called, the rigmarole—of that kind of logic, or anti-logic, called the non
causa pro causa.
The President, when he .came into power, found us at peace with Mexico;
the power to settle the - boundary between Mexico and the United States had
been reserved, in the resolutions annexing Texas, to the Government of the
United States. The Government alone could settle this boundary. Whether
the true boundary was upon one line or upon another, was an open question, as admitted in effect by these resolutions, binding both upon the United
States and Texas. This question the President had no right to settle, except by a treaty with Mexico, sanctioned by the advice and consent of the
Senate. If the Government of the United States had directed the whole of
this disputed territory to have been taken possession of and occupied by a
military force, it would have been an act of war against Mexico, and would
have been right or wrong, according to the justice of the respective claims
on both sides; for, Mexico having refused to treat, we would have in that
way proceeded to enforce our claim by military power, or in other words
have commenced war. But, the power to settle this boundary being thus
reserved to the Government, the President, on the 13th of January, 1846,
Congress being then in session, of his own mere motion ,without communication to Congress, without manifesto to the world, including Mexico, orders our troops to the verge of the disputed territory, plants his cannon over
-against the walls of a Mexican city, sets down his army within forty rods of
the Mexican forces, and thereupon a collision immediately takes place between the hostile squadrons. Under what provision of our Constitution, or
4
of our laws, were these steps taken? Was it to repel invasion he had himself committed the first unauthorized act? Was it to see that the laws were
faithfully executed? What law? Was the danger of invasion on the part of
Mexico imminent? Why did he not ask Congress to declare war? Was it
that he feared, supple as that body has been on some occasions, that it would
check him in his proceedings? What did he expect when he pushed his
army to the Rio Grande? Did he know nothing of the nature of armies?
Could he not anticipate an explosion ? Did he suppose that fire and gunpowder would lie quietly together?
And what shall we say of this conduct? Shall we fear to characterize it
by its true name? Is it not open, and gross,- and dangerous usurpation of
power? I know that some gentlemen have strange notions of sovereignty;
and they seem to have a sort of indefinite idea, which however they do not
openly express, that sovereignty in war belongs to the President. We-were
told the other day', by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. C. J.
sIoNL,G)thaERer-wmucsovigntyhGermadpol
as there was in the Autocrat of Russia, or the Sultan of Turkey. An amazing discovery, this. I hope others, as well as myself, feel duly thankful
to the gentleman for this most novel announcement. The gentleman supposes, I imagine, that ire alone has read Grotius, and Puffendorf, and
Burla-maqui and Vane', and Wheaton. But I agree with the gentleman—the
laws of Congress are as absolute, within their proper scope, as the ukase of
the Emperor, or the finnan of the Sultan. I deny, however, the deduction
which he would seem to draw from it; I have yet to learn that the President possesses these powers of sovereignty. He was not born to reign—or,
if he was, it was not to reign over Tennesseans; he may be the King or the
Emperor of office-holders and office-seekers, and they may bow low the
pregnant hinges of the knee, and lick the dust from his honored feet, but to
these his empire must as yet be confined.
Possibly the gentleman from Pennsylvania may have thought that as
Congress has the power alone to declare war, that it is the President's business to make it, and, after it is declared, to continue it.
The President has said, however, that the war was made on us by Mexico;
then why has he expended three-fourths of his message in showing that we
had good cause of war against Mexico? It would have been altogether sufficient for him to have shown that she had invaded our territory, and slain
our citizens, and nothing more would, have been required. But he gives
reasons to show that we had good cause of war against her, to prove that she
has made war upon us; or were these reasons only given to show the excessive impudence of Mexico in making war upon us, when all the time she
had been committing enormities against us?
-But we, who voted for the act of May last; are Charged with having endorsed the conduct of the President. I repel (his charge, so far as I am concerned with indignation and scorn. The preamble to that act is first insultingly forced upon us, and then tri.umphantly appealed to as evidence against
us. In Committee of the Whole on this bill, I offered a substitute expressive of the true reasons why the grant of men and money should be
made, and this being rejected, I voted for the bill with the preamble, disregarding the shadow to obtain the substance. I thought it necessary to
grant the supplies; General Taylor might have been cut, off, and hostilities
prosecuted by the Mexicans into Texas, Besides a collision having taken
-
,
,
,
5
place, no one could tell where the matter might end, and it was a
discre-tongvhPsidetoumna eyscirutn
might demand, and for this use he was to be held responsible. War has
never yet been declared by this Government against Mexico according to
the forms of the Constitution.
I do not, Mr. Chairman, undertake to Say that, for the causes, or some of
them, set down in the President's message, and for the other causes, this
Government might not lawfully have made war upon Mexico. I pronounce merely upon the 'existing state of things. I say, then, that we have
been dragged, not to say dragooned ,into this war by the act of the President
of the United States, contrary to the forms of the Constitution, and by a
high-handed usurpation of power.
And what has been tire real motive of all this? Is it not shameful for
gentlemen to deny that the covert design of the President has been to
ab-stract a portion of her territory from a sister,.republic? Such is my belief,
all evasions and denials to the contrary notwithstanding. He longed to fill
the-trumpet of -fame with the name of Polk, as a, conqueror. He wished
to extinguish for ever that degrading inquiry which from every quarter saluted his ears as a candidate for the Presidency. He need have no further
fears, his name will be recollected; it may go down to posterity, however,
with that of Erostratus and Empedocles, illustrious alone for its crimes or its
fillies. But to the proof. Is it not in every act of the war? Why is not
Mexico attacked at first in the heart of empire? Why have forces been
marched to the outskirts of her dominions? Why are instructions given to
set up civil governments in California and New Mexico, when New Leon
and Tamaulipas are neglected? California and New Mexico, thinly inhabited by whites and roaming Indians,could get on almost without a government. The other two provinces, densely peopled, almost in the heart of the
republic, peculiarly required the assistance of the civil in aid of our military power. The President . and his party, or many members of it, had
long been looking with greedy eyes upon California; this had appeared in
the givings out of the Democratic - papers of the West. A paper of this
faith, published in my own district, and well advised of the views of the
President, said, long before this war broke out, that we might regard California as ours. This war could not have been made upon the technical
grounds alleged by the President in the presence of all these facts; there
must have been an 'animus furandi--a preconceived plan of conquesthigher purposes, and those more flattering to human ambition. True it is
the President now chooses to disavow the acts of his satraps, Kearny,
Stockton, and Sloat ; they are to be delivered over to the evil one; the heads
of these viziers are to be thrown over the walls of the seraglio to pacify the
people, or to quiet the janizarics. But is it not a little extraordinary, Mr.
Chairman, that these dependant satellites have dared to do such things against
the will and without the authority by which they are governed? There are
more ways of conveying the meaning of a ruler than one; there is such a
thing as insinuation plain enough to be understood, but having no official
or tangible shape, and which can, therefore, be disavowed if necessary or
-expedient. Mr.Polk had not the nerve to avow it; hut an order there
doubtless was. It is quite incredible that they would have ventured to de
all they have done, if they did not suppose there.was an authority behind
them greater than theirs, and able to sustain them. I have no -doubt duet
-
6
these men will consider themselves exceedingly-ill-used when they come
to-find that the President had not the manliness to stand up for them, and
shield them from their accuser. That their acts are totally indefensible,
and that the_ governments set up by them are utterly illegal, and without
authority, no one is now found hardy enough to deny. At first some were
found. who declared the President's right to make conquests, when war had
been once declared. This would really confer upon him sovereign power.
He may over run territory, he may retain it; he may for military, purposes
sometimes establish temporary 4%11 governments; all this can be done by him as
cOmmander in chief. The sovereign power alone can make conquests; if
the commander be the sovereign, then so soon as territory is overrun, it is
only with him, sic volo sic jubeo , to make it a conquest. The President
must appeal, however, to higher authority, before his captures can become
conquests. What Mr, Polk has indeed done or ordered in the territory occupied, time may better develope. The Satraps may some time be heard
in their own defence.
Upon the topics above discussed I waive further remark, not, however,
for fear of coming under the charge of giving " aid and comfort" to the
enemy. For this Executive slander I feel all that strong, and deep, and indignant contempt which it is possible for any man to feel against what is
both false and vile. I know very well, too, that this charge, though bandied here for political effect, is not really believed in any quarter. There
does not live the man either in-this House or in this nation who does believe it. We have not, I hope, yet come to that pass. There remain still
too much of the life and vigor, of the freshness and newness, of republicanism among all the people of this Union. No traitor is to be found any
where ready to give either secret or open aid and comfort to a public enemy. And I may say, in regard to these fourteen gentlemen who recorded
their votes against the bill recognising the war, and attributing it to the act
of Mexico, and thus differing from a majority of their friends-, that I hope it
has not been a want of nerve that has prevented others from appreciating
their conduct as it ought to have been. For one, I will say of them, that
in my opinion, there is as much of honor, a nd .of patriotism, and of principle,
and of gentlemanly feeling, among that hody of men, as is to be found in the
same number of either Whigs or Democrats in this House. They need,
however, no defence at my hands. I believe that all those politically opposed to us here, however they may differ from us in -opinion, are patriotic
in their purpose. Why will not gentlemen do the Whigs the same justice?
We may differ from each other in relation to this war, its origin, conduct,
and consequences, and all be lovers of our country. Is it too great a stretch
of charity to ask this acknowledgment? Do gentlemen sincerely maintain
the charge of treason made by the President ? Do they in their hearts believe that the fourteen gentlemen who voted against the act of May last, did
intend (hereby to give aid and comfort to the - enemy ? It is a gross libel,
come it whence it may. What ! does this President hope to put down
public discussion and free expression of opinion? Does he think to remodel
this Republic by his puny arm?' Does he hope to establish in this House
a doctrine which has been scorned in the British Parliament from the days
of Hampden until now? The whole structure of our Government requires
that all measures of the Administration should be subjected to rigid scrutiny,
and that openly. This may in time of war operate in some respects inju-
7 lc
riously; it may in some degree subtract from the energy and expedition of
our movements; it may tend to communicate our plans sometimes to an
enemy; it may give him even a deceitful encouragement from our apparent
dissensions. Yet this is the price we pay for liberty; this is the mighty
check upon domestic tyranny. And this should teach us that we Were nett
made for distant wars of aggression and con q uest. How has. this been in
other days and other countries? True, any one may trample with safetyupon those who opposed our British war of 1812. But look at the history
of England, in the days of the great rebellion, when Charles . attempted
his levy of ship money. Are not the names of those who opposed it held
in honor as patriots, not only by the British nation, but by the lovers of freedom throughout the world? Were those men traitors when they told the
Stuart, if he persisted, it. should cost him his throne? Were Fox and Sheridan traitors who opposed the administration of Pin, when Napoleon was
striding toward universal dominion? Are Chatham and Barre, whose
stern denunciations and burning eloquence did more than many a stricken
battle to shake the power of Worth in his war upon file A merican colonies 5
to have the brand of treason stamped upon their brows? Or are these and
all of these to be ever held in honor, as the intelligent defenders and bold
asserters of the true principles of the English Constitution? If charges like
this are to be brought forward and sustained, what proposition, however
monstrous and revolting, may not be-brought into this-House, an I passed
without remonstrance or opposition? Away with such doctrine and such
teacher !
But I proceed, Mr. Chairman, to examine the question, at last, the most
important And the most practical. We are in this war, and how are we to
get out of it without detriment to ).lie Republic? Two -courses suggest
themselves—one to withdraw our armies, abandon our incipient conquests,
End ask to live at peace with our neighbor ; the other to prosecute the war
vigorously to some successful issue. The first of these propositions, which
has indeed but few advocates, I deem totally inadmissible. This war has
now become the war of the nation, and its result should be a final adjustment
of all matters in dispute between us and Mexico. Should we withdraw
our armies, would our motives be properly appreciated by the vainglorious.,
conceited. and ignorant people with whom we are in conflict? Would our
conduct be attributed by them to magnanimity or to cowardice, or to our
domestic dissensions? Would they not probably again sullenly refuse
ne-gotiation and settlement, fortified in their resentment by recent suffering and
released from fear of future invasion? How would our dignity, too, be
compromised in the eyes of other nations? That dignity which is the best
preservative against outward assault and internal commotion. They might
well say that we had rushed impudently into the war, and skulked weakly
and meanly out of it.
I am, then, for prosecuting t he war, earnestly, manfully, and vigorously.
I do not wish merely to talk of this as is done by . the President, but to act
it out. I hold myself ready to vote men and money and munitions of war.
1 am ready, too, to sustain these grants by all necessary and proper taxes.
More ready, per h aps, than some of those who call themselves the peculiar
friends of the Administration. I may go so far even as to put a war tax
upon tea and coffee, if other sources of revenue are recommended and
adopted, to shield this from seeming a mere act of wanton oppression.
to
6
Doubtless it is an act of <supreme effrontery on , the part of the Administra tion to expect from Whigs assistance in laying taxes, after the passage of
the tariff law of 1846, and the absurd persistence in- the enforcement of the
Subtreasury law of the same year. I am willing, however, to waive this
inconsistency, and to meet our opponents nearly upon their own grounds, for
the accomplishment. of the great purpose of effecting peace. I apprehend,
however, that my assistance will hardly be needed. I know that a large
vote, including Democrats as well as Whigs, was given some days since in
this House, declaring it inexpedient to- tax tea and coffee at the present
juncture. This, in my estimation, amounted, however, to very little. I
have heard this thundering in the index before, but have rarely seen it sustained. The Executive application has not yet been, strong- enough; the
screw has not yet been sufficiently turned to make the blood start. The
lash of scorpions is however prepared, and the minions of power will yet
flee away from " the face -of his wrath."
In saying, however, Mr. Chairman, that I will vote, liberally, supplies
and means of prosecuting the war, I would not have it understood (hat I
will support every thing that may be demanded by the President under this
pretence, however monstrous or absurd. I have refused to vote the creation
of a Lieutenant General of our armies, and in this I shall persist. But in
other matters, besides my desire to have a speedy close of the war, I am
disposed to take from the President all excuse for its dilatory prosecution.
In my poor judgment, as yet there has been more of bluster than of real
activity aid energy in the management of this war by the President. I am
ILO military man, and make no pretensions to military skill or knowledge;
there are some things, however, that every one must have learned who has
read any thing of the history of the human race. It is well, in war as well
as in peace, to have some eye to precedents. In all wars, whether of de. ,fencorivas,whIerditasbnhpceoftGvernment to keep the commanding general supplied with men by a constant stream of reinforcements. Desertion, the sword, Sickness, pestilence,'
garrisons, discharges, make-gaps in the original levy, for which the leader
of the armies must look to the head of Government for a . remedy. Who
ever heard before of a war in which an army of twenty or thirty thousand
men was sent into a foreign land, and there abandoned to its own resources?
Even in the English war with China-, remote as the two countries were
from each other, reinforcements were not wanting to the invaders. But
how has our Government treated Gen. Taylor? Since the first call for volunteers he has scarcely received a soldier. Means ad libitum were placed
by Congress at the discretion of the President-the Army and the Navy,
50,000 volunteers, and the whole militia of the United States. Of these .
volunters17,0imauncledfor,iG.Taystobe
believed, other supplies were equally defective. Yet Taylor is charged
with these delays; he is arraigned and censured for the capitulation and armistice of Monterey. An issue is sought to be made between the President
and the General in command. Be it so. I have no defence to make for
the gallant General. I am willing that he and the President should stand
before the country side by side. I would say to the American people,
"look on this picture, then on that." Would they not reply, "Hyperion to
a Satyr?" The President has been playing, in this war, the old suspicious
.
9
game of Austria with her generals, by whom the Milk Council in their
rear was always held in greater dread than hostile squadrons in the field.
I will not venture to criticise the campaign; my ignorance of warlike
movements precludes it. But still I think I may - ask, Why is it that we
have been hanging upon the frontiers of our enemy? Why have we been
lopping of her extremities? Why have we not been thrusting at her heart,
grappling in her vitals, thundering at her capital? Was it the fell purpose
of conquest and robbery, that has thus delayed us? Were we conquering
territory, rather than a peace? I am for "conquering a peace." I feel sure
that the means to do this have not been yet employed, and that the causes
of delay lie at the door of the Administration. We have dallied along to
gather up the spoils of battle. We have been fighting and furnishing supplies with reference to the money in the Treasury. Mr. Polk and Mr.
Walker did not forget the scoffs and the taunts of those who, at the last
session, prophesied an exhausted exchequer and a bankrupt Government as
the result of their financial experiments. These jeers rankled in their little
minds, and they resolved that the prophecies should not be verified. They
determined to meet. the ,Congress with a surplus in their vaults, coute
qui coute. And truly they secm to have brought about this result, though,
if their outstanding debts were paid, how it might be may be quite another
affair. They called for no additional soldiers till they had made their loan,
and these were called for but a few days before the commencement of this
session. They come in now. and demand a loan; they now ask for additional arms and armies. But CI() they still ask for enough? I do not Believe
they do. I do not think we Blinn see the palaces of Mexico with less than
fifty thousand men in the field. Of the force demanded, not one, perhaps,
can be made efficient during the proper season of the campaign. April
will bring with it the gloomy vomito; our northern soldiery will melt away
under the fierce ardors of a tropical sun; pestilence and desertion will do
the- work of the sword in summer quarters, and we shall again be left, in
the autumn, with the skeleton of an army. Another call for men and
money will have to be made upon Congress; another response will be given
to the call;. and, probably, the same ignorance and fatuity in another year
may bring us to a similar result.
And what is to be the end of all this? It behoves us to see what shall
petits end. We are asked for supplies—we grant them. The war will
some time be brought to a close; and what then? Are we, in addition to all
these foreign evils, and their ordinary results--a bankrupt Treasury, corrupted morals, a deranged currency, inflated prices—to be visited with another, a greater, and a more enduring one? Are we, for the first time,
by the sword to acquire foreign territory? Every thing ; threatens this; the
President seems fatally bent on it; there appears to be no adequate check
upon his designs.
For one, I- have discharged my duty; and. shall continue to discharge it
by offering to these bills for supplies a proviso against the acquisition of
territory from Mexico beyond the Rio Grande. This proviso has been ruled
to be out of order. And why ont of order, Mr. Chairman? Is it not cornpetent for the Legislature to refuse supplies altogether to the Executive,
when they suppose it to be for carrying on a war, the results of which may
be eminently disastrous? Has the Congress less power than the British
Parliament in this behalf? Or has the President more power than the Brit-
10
ish King? If supplies may be refused altogether, they may be granted on
terms, and on terms which, whether of legal force or not, would have a
moral force that the President dare not disregard. It is, indeed, a strange
defect in our Government, if there be no mezzo termino between a total
refusal of supplies and their .unlimited grant. I believe that Congress has
the right to place upon its grant conditions which, if violated by the President, would involve him in a charge of having committed a "high crime
and misdemeanor" under the Constitution; It is lamentable, indeed, if
there be no such restraint! But if them be none such, and I belonged to
the dominant party, I would riot grant a soldier, or a dollar, without -a
pledge that they were not to be - abused for purposes of foreign conquest.
As it is, I must do the best I may. If, with a fatal disregard of
conse-quences, those in power-choose to disregard this proviso—choose to trust the
President in spite of all the demonstrations he has made—I will go with
them to grant supplies to end the war, and then to meet the difficulty as
best it may be met.
But why this fierce resistance on my part against the acquisition of territory? The time has been when I should have heard with pleasure a proposition to buy New Mexico and the Californias; I desired to round off our
dominions to obtain a port for the rich East upon the Pacific, and fair lands
for the mighty press of our vagrant population. But, with me, this is all
now changed. These smiling prospects are now all darkened and overshadowed; the horizon, late so bright, is black with many a storm; the fruit,
so pleasant
n to the eye, like the apples on the shore of the dead sea, chews
within bu t rottenness and ashes. The foreign battle for its acquisition will
hardly be over before a domestic battle, for its appropriation, must commence. The plagues of Pandora's box were not more fatal, the apple of
discord was not more productive of commotion, than would' be to us this
fell present of the battle field and the sword. Like a petard, it would
be scarcely screwed on to the Union, before, with loud explosion and
dis-atrouecl,wdbofthesurnpi Cofedracy.
-It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, that, in the acquisition of territory, I
make a distinction between that, east and that west of the Rio Grande. To
take the one might be a sin, but to take the other would be a miserable
blunder. The territory within the Rio Grande, if acquired, would, as
be-twnhUidSastTex,blonghatrdsl
ques-tionfdmcultywobeavid-.Thtroybend
Rio Grande, if admitted, would immediately array the pro-slavery and the
anti-slavery portions of the Union against each other. It is this great question, this great difficulty, that I would avoid. We have already heard the
tocsin sounded, to rally the northern hive, upon this exciting topic. The
Wilmot proviso has been attached to a grant proposed to be made to the
President. And I rejoice to see the question so early made. We cannot
now be taken by surprise. I fear me, however, much, that the northern
Democrats (who have made this move) do not intend now to bring it to any
practical result . Instead of offering this proviso, which stipulates, that in
no territory to be acquired in the present war shall slavery, or involuntary
servitude, be permitted to exist, to one of the important supply bills, it is
merely wade an appendage to a bill granting to the President three millions
of money to aid him in making peace. This last bill may never be called
up for action, or if it be, and ever becomes a law, the President may think
11.
proper not to employ a fund clogged with such a proviso, and thus attempt
to get rid of the obligation. The proviso, to he effective, should be upon
those bills which must pass, and the grants in which must. be used by the
President in the further prosecution of the war.
The South must then look to itself. It must see that the territory is not
acquired, or if acquired, that it be upon an equitable understanding as to its
disposition. It is safe that it should not be acquired at all. Resolutions
adopted now for the disposition of territory -to he hereafter acquired, Would
certainly have no obligatory force upon future legislatures, and their moral
bearing might 'be totally disregarded. The Missouri compromise, I, admit,
has been carried out both in its letter and its spirit, and for so much I give
the North all due credit; sect tempora mutantur ,et nos_ mutamur in
The feelings of the North are not now what they have been.
But the President, through his organ , beseeches that this exciting question
may not now be pressed; that the supplies may be granted and the war bravely
prosecuted and suggests that this question, should it ever arise, may be see s
tledhraf.TospyeIhuldincawger,fIvould
disavow any intention of acquiring territory. He has told us that this is not
a war of conquest. I suppose if is only a war of which conquest is to bethe inevitable consequence. Every thing tends to show that, if things are
left as they are, territory will be acquired. And this being dune, thePres-idntca,whegloryfacnqu,devthpolrafter to settle the disposition of this " heritage of wo," as best they may.
With my concurrence, there shall be no postponement of this question.
Who wishes to postpone it? No one but the President. Northern members ,
dontwishery;Sounmbersfathcoqunis
reception. And shall the President, by a base subserviency, thus be peral?
mitted
to over-ride and trample under foot the real wishes and desires of us
We of the South, at all events, do not desire postponement.. We know
that the North is strong enough to control the destiny of the territory, when
admitted; we feel that her dispositions are not such as When the compromise
of the Constitution was made. The anti-slavery feeling, (for I will call it
by no more odious name,) has extended greatly beyond the few fanatics and
hypocrites, who disturb the Union with their howling about this " Southern
institution.". Grave arid serious men of.the North begin to regard the acquisition of territory and its mode of settlement as a question of political power, between our northern and southern divisions, no longer to be overlooked
and disregarded. They look upon the acquisition of Texas as in some de-.
gree a fraud upon northern rights, and they will be sure to avail themselves
of the first opportunity for indemnity. They insist that the Missouri compromise has expended its force, and there are not now five on this floor from
all the North, (Whig or Democrat,) who do not protest against ever being
bound by 'it, of its like again.
What, then, will be the consequence of a refusal to act now upon this clue&
tion? The conquest will be made, the territory will be settled, States will
apply to be admitted into the Union, and then at last must come a struggle;
I hope that it may not be the death-struggle of the Republic, or if it be, that
I may not live to see it. I am no alarmist; I make no empty threats of
dissolving the Union; I regard this as among the last, if not the very last of
evils. As a deliberate purpose, I cannot for a moment entertain it. But
the, dissolution come at all, it will not come as a deliberate act; this-Re,
12
public will never commit °premeditated suicide. It may however, come,
amid the clang of arms and the fury of civil conflict. Surrounded as we
will be on all sides by a cordon' of free territory, 44 offences must come,"
suspicions, collisions, armed interventions. And for what is all this to be?
That the President and the nation may have the miserable satisfaction of
having wrenched from a weak and despised neighbor some of her fairest
provinces.
I shall pursue this slavery question no further at present; I have much to
say, however, in regard 40 the principle of the Missouri compromise, and
in regard to die power of this Government to pass regulations and laws for
the government of her territories; but I must waive these topics for the
pres-ent, and proceed to give some additional reasons against acquiring territory
from our present enemy.' On all hinds it is agreed that, if any acquisition
be made, it must be as indemnity for our claims, and for the expenses of
the war. Some have suggested that the territory may be taken and held
merely as a pledge, to be redeemed by Mexico at some future day, and
that we may thus avoid the question of slavery and antislavery. Now to
this I answer, first , - that it would be mere mockery and pretence,and would
in effect amount to an absolute surrender of right by Mexico. But if this
were not so, what would be done with territory held as indemnity, for
an indefinite period, peopled as this now is? First, it would be a burden
and expense, and thus only increase our demand against. Mexico. it would
require government; its people must not be neglected; education and internal improvements must take place; and', finally, the whole, after ages of de
lay, be delivered up to'our debtor, if she should perchance find the means to
pay us. A hint is sufficient, to show the absurdity of this plan. What we
take we must take absolutely: Then what would be the difficulties? We
have as yet conquered no territory; we have indeed purchased none, upon
which existed organized governments ; and integral states. We acquired
Texas with the consent of its inhabitants; we purchased Louisiana, with
few and scattered settlers, arid without objection, at least of any note, from
them. But now we are about, by arms, to compel from Mexico a cession
of het rights over several of her provinces, having all the forms of states, and
hut loosely dependent on the federal head. What will we acquire by such
a cession? Nothing but .the rights, of Mexico; upon her alone we have
made war, and not upon California or New Mexico. Their inhabitants
may say to us, when the war shall be ended and the treaty made, " we
would be free; we desire none of your government; we seek not your parental care; our allegiance cannot be transferred, like that. of Russian serfs
or German boors. Look to your Own Constitution and laws, and see what
authority you have there for asserting dominion over us." What answer
could American Republicans make to this appeal? The right of Mexico
over these states was just such and no more than that of our federal government over oar States. The result of the war at last, then, would only
give these States a right, with our assent, to be incorporated into the Union.
But in the interval, and before they were ready to become States of this
Union, how would we dispose of them? These arc grave difficulties, but
they would be met, perhaps, as others have been. We should cm the Gordian knot. And yet the man who would over-leap these constitutional obstacles, who would add princedoms and dukedoms to out' already extended
empire, is the same man whose conscience was too narrow to admit the pan-
13
sage of a bill to improve our rivers an.d our harbors, whose scruples were
too nice to sanction the payment of an honest debt to the miserable survivors of those who half a century ago, were despoiled by the ruthless Frenchman. " Oh, for a forty-parson power, to sing thy praise, hypocrisy !"
I might proceed, Mr. Chairman, to show, as-I could easily do, that we
have no right to receive this territory, or to make laws for its government.
That such a thing as the acquisition of territory is not hinted at in the Constitution, and was never dreamed of by its framers. That we have no right
to plant colonies, to make laws for their government, or to exercise jurisdiction over them; At the adoption of the Constitution , we possessed only such
territory as had been ceded to us by the States, and for these the law had
been already made by the terms of cession and ordinances of the old Congress pursuant thereto. By the 1st article and 8th section of the Constitution, we possess exclusive jurisdiction and legislative power over the District
of Columbia, the sites of forts, arsenals, &c.; and by the 3d section of the
4th article, we have communicated to us power " to dispose of and make
oalthnerpdfuys,gaionrepcth y,or
belonging to the United States." In neither of these is power given to
make fundamental laws, or to assume jut isdiction in the territories, except
according to the terms of their respective ordinances and cessions; the last of
these provisions looks merely to the disposition of the soil as property.
But it is time wasted to prove these things; communis error facit jus, we
have bought and legislated for Florida, and Louisiana, and Oregon, and
now we will have no scruples to carry this course of proceeding a step further. We will rob Mexico of ,California, and force our legislation upon
her. And yet we will stickle upon the ninth part of a hair, when it comes
to make a gift to the heirs of Robert Fulton, or a purchase from the aged
widow of Alexander Hamilton; and we will shed our crocodile tears over
the fate of unhappy Poland.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this is to be our first step in conquest. We have
heard much about its being against the genius of republics to maintain standing armies; we have heard much of their' lack. of ambition, and favorable
comparisons of them, in these respects, with kings and emperors. Are we
about again to falsify these grounds for self-gratulafion? Are we destined
to follow in the footsteps of the Greeks and Romans, and of Republican
France? Are we at last to convince the world that democratic ambition is
like all other ambition, only perhaps• more unscrupulous, because the responsibility is more divided? Shall we not pause upon the threshold? Shall
we not reflect that we are encouraging an appetite which can never be
gorged? Shall we not fear, that if we "sow the wind, we shall reap the
whirlwind?" But, sir, were I to pause to tell of all the evils of conquest,
as well to the conqueror as to the conquered, I should never have done.
.
Vaevicts!Uorbu
I turn to another topic. It has been urged that the disavowal of an intention to acquire territory on our part would operate injuriously upon our
interests in the pending war; that it would tend to make •it interminable;
that Mexico, divested of the fear of dismemberment, would fight without
fear, and without the sense of responsibility. It is certainly true, if this disavowal be made on ow- part here, she would know it. would have her to
know it. As she will not receive a Minister, I would publish a manifesto
to her and to.the world, declaring the just objects of the war, and repelling
-14
the idea of dismemberment and conquest: And having thus cleared my
skirts of the charge of avarice and rapacity; having thus placed myself on
high ground in the eyes of all nations; having thus escaped the danger of
domestic difficulty, I should proceed with activity and energy to bring our
opponents to a speedy and just settlement of all the questions really at issue
between us—of debt, of depredations, and of boundary.
Gentlemen are strangely mistaken, in my opinion, when they suppose
that this would encourage and inspirit our enemy, and that. she would then
continue the fight, till compelled to cease it from mere exhaustion. They
do riot appreciate the true grounds of the embittered opposition pervading all
-classes, from the President to the 'lowest peasant, with which this conflict is
carried on against us. It 1 not the fear on the part of Mexico that she may
lobe a portion of her domain, that produces her desperate and rancorous resistance. It is not with her a question of property, of territory, more or less.
It is one of pride, of insulted national feeling. It is the insolent attempt,
as she deems it',) on our part, to seize at will upon her dominions, and dispose of her provinces at pleasure, that has roused and set on fire the old
Castilian blood. It is the arrogant assertion of superiority, and the real or
affected contempt with which we have treated their race, that now nerves
their arms and swells their veins. Despised, outraged, trampled upon, (as
thy copceive,) despair gives them courage, and fury will supply them with
arms. Neither the character, nor the history of the people to whom we are
opposed, has been studied by those who expected them speedily to yield
under threats of dismemberment or fear of conquest. Who are they , then?
They are not merely the poor, feeble, down-trodden Indians who fled before Cortez at the first blast of his trumpet: The best blood of the hidalgos
of Spain flows in many of their vein:; they have cherished recollections of
their ancient renown. These are the same people who for seventy years
kept up war upon Holland—a war redounding neither to the honor nor the
profit of the Spanish monarchy, -hut one evincing the indomitable spirit and
haughty obstinacy of the nation by which it was waged. These are the
brethren of that people, who, with extatic fury and persevering resolution,
resisted and finally expelled from their soil that mighty conqueror, whose
power over-shadowed the earth, and whose name was synonymous with
victory. He seized upon Madrid (as we may seize upon Mexico,) hut
Spain was not conquered. His brother sat upon the Spanish throne, and
this was but the beginning of the war. These, too, are the people who so
late- defied the Spanish monarchy in arms; vanquished in every field,
they rose with vindictive fury to renew the contest. Destitute of treasure, of
organization, their fields ravaged, their cities plundered and burnt, their arrnies overthrown, with Tell determination and desperate resolve, with single
arms, and scattered bands, they kept alive the lingering conflict.
It is with these people, insulted and outraged as they deem themselves,
-that we are yet to obtain a peace—a peace, firm and durable. And we are
told, that to disavow the intent of conquest is the readiest mode to encourage
opposition. Is this wilful blindness, or is it disingenuous pretence? What
can there be more offensive to a proud nation, what more galling and
in-sulting, than a threat to divide and parcel out her provinces. Have gentlemen forgotten the manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick? Have they forgotten the mad fury with which France, torn and divided as she was by internal dissensions, almost without a Government and withimt a soldiery,
rose up as one man to hurl from her territory an invader who dared to
threaten disturbance to her ancient boundaries—boundaries fixed by nature,
by blood, and by time? But our manifesto would mess, of peace.
We would say to our enemy, " why shall you longer maintain -this struggle,
in the mere spirit of chivalry and defiance? We want nothing of you but
what we have uniformly claimed as our boundary. The injuries done to
our commerce and our people must be repaired; the debt acknowledged- by
your treaties must be paid; for these causes the war is now prosecuted, and
upon the adjustment of .these difficulties you shall have peace." This
would, in my view, be indeed a magnanimous course; it would reach the ,
intelcadhr,quietpasonfr-et.Supos,
--
in her vain-glorious spirit, that Mexico should suppose she had driven us
from a point; so much the better for us and for them, and for the world.
Would our dignity suffer abatement? Would the world suppose that fear
had quelled our proud spirit? With aims in our hands, with our navy
hovering on her coasts, with our armies swarming under her walls, with our
flag floating her skies, she would still see enough to know the hopelessness
of the contest, when all adequate motive for its continuance was taken away.
In any event we should have done right, we should have done that which
our ow necessities demand. We should present to the world the glorious
spectacle of a great, power W, and free nation, ready but not willing
toper-anfhsimperlactoundfwhiqerosavbn
always forgiven. The noble, the god-like virtue of forbearance would for
once be exercised upon a great theatre!
Some, however, think, Mr. Chairman, that this would be but a lame and
impotent conclusiou. What should we get by the• war, we are asked? I
-ask, what did we expect? The President hits denied that the war is waged
•for conquest. He has said it has been thrust upon us. If the war shrill be
successful and if it has been righteously commented and prosecuted, we
shall have gained much. We shall have taught our enemy our overwhelming superiority. We shall have secured with her- permanent peace.
Her eyes and, her ears will hereafter he opened to our just demands. If she
_deserved punishment, we shall have inflicted upon her the utmost evils of a
desolating war; broken her-strength, diminished her wealth, depopulated
her territory, disorganized her government, and thus given her a solemn
warning against the indulgence of that petulant spirit of which she has continually exhibited the most revolting specimens. The acquisition of territory is not the necessary result of successful war, even where territory is desirable. What did Russia gain by the 20 years' war with Napole on, carried on at an expense of the lives of millions of men and of billions of money? Nothing but the assertion of the independence of nations, and the
securjty of permanent peace.
What did we gain by out last war with Great Britain, glorious as it was,
and successful as it has been deemed? Nothing but the maintenance of our
dignity and the respect of the nations of the earth. And with such results
we must be content. Ours is not a nation made for conquest; peace should
ever be our study, and war should be regarded as the last of evils, except
dishonor.
I have thus finished,, IVIr. Chairman, what, I had to say in regard to this
Mexican war. But, I cannot sit, down without, for a moment, tinning my
eyes back upon the past two years. On the 4th of March, 1845, the -pre-
10
sent President came into power; he found this great people really prosperous and ha py—at peace with all nations, and with no question pending
ich mightwhic not have been settled with ease by calm and digniwith any
fled negot on. The land flourished and blossomed as the rose ; no
man complained of oppression; the national debt was a bugatelle; the people, and their various modes of industry, had become fashioned to the existing laws; the banks were sound, and the currency corresponded to the
demands of commerce. We were, indeed, a happy, as well as a great and
respected people!
Two years are not yet gone, and how has the scene been changed! I
mean to draw no exaggerated picture, nor in the least to resort to fancy.
With a prurient ambition, utterly beyond his abilities, (and as if he were
not already sufficiently misplaced,) the President sets out by new courses of
policy, and new schemes of finance, and new modes of diplomacy, to illustrate his name and his reign. With a school boy's fondness for abstract
and exploded theories, and a profound ignorance of the experimental philosophy of Government, he proposes, at once, and with a confidence correspondent
currency,to that ignorance, a complete change in our whole system of finance,
, and revenue, affecting, in its results, every interest of the whole people. With-a presumption only equalled by his want of moral resolution, he
challenges the title of one territory and moves in arms to take possession of
another. By the patronage of the Government, and the cohesive bonds of
party, he is sustained in- all his moves, and the nation is made to feel the
results of his policy. With England he attempts to play the bully, but is
at last compelled to confess -himself a craven. Europe looks upon his ignominy, and America hides her diminished head. He turns upon Mexico
to wreak his baffled spite, and attempts to wrench from her her fairest provinces to avenge his loss of the barren wastes of Oregon. In the eagerness
of his vanity, lie tramples upon the Constitution, and puts in jeopardy tie
lives, and the treasure, and the character of the nation. Busy, mischievous, and filled with self-conceit, there is no rest to the ac t ivity with which
he pursues his vagaries, and no pause from an apprehension that he may
possibly be wrong. Aspiring to the title of a conqueror, no 'consideration
of domestic difficulties can restrain his onward march; carrying on a war,
with one hand he demands a loan, while with the other he cuts off the
sources of revenue. He builds deep the vaults of a specie treasury, and
fills them with the filthy rags of Government credit. With the same hand,
and perhaps with the same faith, he signs a bill annexing Texas and rejects
one for internal improvement. These things have been done in this short
period by him who has been, by the people's will, made our President.
We begin already to feel their results, though the "end is not yet." Our
national character has suffered at home and abroad; we are charged at once
with rapacity and cowardice; our domestic industry is shackled, and ready
to be broken up; our Treasury is exhausted; our revenues are crippled; our
citizens have been slain; a public debt has been, begun; the piers of our
harbors are falling to ruin for want of repairs; our rivers are the graves of
our vessels, for the want of laborers; the Union is threatened, through the fell
spirit of conquest; and confidence is lost in the stability of our institutions.
Mr. Chairman, we have "fallen upon evil days;" "the times are sadly
out of joint;" the vessel is among the breakers-; the helmsman must be
changed, or shipwreck is inevitable.
1