THE MEXICAN WAR.
SPEECH
Os
HON. J. W. TIBBATTS, OF KENTUCKY,
DELIVERED
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 8, 1847.
The House being in Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union on "The Bill to raise, for
a limited time, an additional Military Force, and
for other purposes"—
Mr. TIBBATTS addressed the committee as
follows:
Mr. CHAIRMAN: I feel sensibly at this moment
that " hope deferred maketh the heart sick." I
have mingled in the contest for the floor, and endeavored to obtain it for three or four days, and
now having succeeded in my effort, I am so worried by the excitement of the contest that I fear I
will not be able to discuss the important questions
arising out of this bill, and the amendments proposed to it, in a manner either creditable or satisfactory to myself, or do justice to those questions
themselves. I regret that the narrow bounds allowed by the one-hour rule absolutely precludes
the possibility of discussing almost any of these
important questions in a manner which would be
satisfactory either to myself or the House.
I have, sir, listened with a great deal of attention
and patience to many of the speeches which have
been delivered in this House during the present
session of Congress, and I am constrained to say,
that, in my opinion, some of them on both sides
of the House have been in very bad taste, and such
as are hardly proper to be delivered in the representative assembly of a great nation. I have, sir,
witnessed with great regret the introduction of the
exciting question of slavery into this discussion.
I consider the discussion of that question as entirely out of place on a bill like that now under the
consideration of the committee, and peculiarly improper at a time like this.
I will not at this time attempt to discuss that
question at large. I think it, however, not only
proper but necessary that I should notice some of
the remarks made on yesterday by the gentleman
from New York, [Mr. GROVER.] That gentleman
assumed that the representatives from the southern
States had abandoned the principles of the Missouri compromise, on a vote taken during the
pendency of the Oregon bill at the last session of
Congress. if the gentleman from New York understands the actual state of the facts in relation to
that matter, and the feelings of the representatives
Printed at the Office of Blair & &l.'s.
from the slave holding States, then his accusation
is not only an act of gross injustice to us, but an
insidious attempt to deceive the people of the
North, The Missouri compromise was not the
question at issue on that occasion. The fact that
certain members from the South on that occasion
voted against the amendment proposed is no evidence that the members from the South are opposed to, or intend to abandon, the principles of
the Missouri compromise. On the contrary, every
act in that Congress on the part of the members
from the South, when that question came under
consideration, shows that they stand up by the
compromise; and for the purpose of disabusing the
public mind on that subject, I will referto one or
two facts connected with the admission of Texas.
There were three propositions introduced by members from slave States on that subject—one by my
colleague on the left, [Mr. BOYD,] one by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. M. BROWN,] and
one by myself'. In all thes
e propositions this corn,
promise was looked to particularly, and especially
provided for. In the proposition offered by myself there was this provision:
SEC. 2. Awl be it further enacted, That in all that portion
of the territory which lies north of thirty-six degrees and
thirty minutes north latitude, slavery and involuntary servitude (otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted) shall be,
and is hereby, forever prohibited."
In the proposition of the gentleman from Tennessee there was this provision: " And such States
' as may be formed out of that portion of said ter' ritory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty
minutes north latitude, commonly known as the
Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into
the Union, with or without slavery, as the peo' pie of each State asking admission may desire;"
and the same provision was contained in the proposition offered by my colleague, which finally
passed the House, and to that all the southern
members, who voted in favor of the annexation,
gave their assent. I know very well that the Missouri compromise provided only for the territory
ceded by France, but g,entlemen must abide by the
spirit of the compromise.
Yet, the gentleman from New York gravely
2
"
charges the Representatives from the South with gration to them from the South. Thus the North
a desire to avoid the principles of the compromise. would in effect have the whole of New Mexico and
The charge is a most unjust one. I think that I the Californias for their emigrants.
I know that the terms of the compromise are
can safely assert that there is not a southern member here who would violate the principles of the confined to the territory we had acquired from
France;
but " he who sticks in the letter sticks in
Missouri compromise, in order to acquire territory: if there be one I do not know who he is—if the bark," will apply to the interpretation that
there is one, let him .rise in his place and answer. would confine the principles of that compromise
There is no answer. Then, sir, I assert that there to the territory with regard to which it was adoptis not one, and I speak for all the South, when I ed. If other new territory is not expressed by
say that we are not disposed to violate the princi- name, it was certainly included within the spirit
ples of the Missouri compromise; and, sir, I am of the enactment.
But the gentleman from New York [Mr.
much mistaken if the people of the North will be
GRO-VEsaythinempouarsticn
disposed to do so either.
I- think it would be desirable to fix on a perma- on the manner of settling new territory there is no
nent boundary between this country and Mexico, interference with the rights of the South. I insist
different from the Rio del Norte. The Rio Grande that there is a direct interference with their rights
is not, in my opinion, a proper boundary for a great as partners in the ownership of any territory obnation—I would prefer fixing the boundary at tained by the common blood and treasure of both
some great mountain barrier in some part of the South and North of all parties.
It was truly observed by the gentleman from
Monte del Madre; and I would pay a fair equivalent for all the territory north of such a barrier. Georgia [Mr. Toombs] to-day, that the North in
I would not advocate, under any circumstances, that compromise yielded nothing; because it was
the annexation of more territory to the Union ex- the clear right of the South to settle anywhere, on
cept by a fair purchase, and on the payment of a any territory acquired by the common blood and
just compensation. But, if gentlemen are to sue- common treasure of all the States. The yielding
ceed in surrounding the South with a cordon of was on the part of the South. She surrendered a
free States, from which the people of the South part of that which was her clear and unquestionare to be excluded—if the .people of the South arc able right; the North yielded nothing.
It will not, I presume, be necessary for me, Mr.
to be told, that, in acquiring territory, for which
their blood is to be spilled and their treasure ex- Chairman, to respond to, or repel the charge of
pended, they are realizing benefits for others, subserviency to the Executive, so often made by
in which they are to have no share, and that they gentlemen on the other side of the House against
are in effect to be excluded from territory which those on this side, who are advocates and suptheir own blood and treasure has helped to win, porters of the war. I do not think that such a
then I am against keeping one foot of Mexican charge is likely to be urged against me. I think
territory—I am opposed to carrying on the war that I know myself so well, and that my sention any such terms.
ments and acts are so well known by others, that
Where, I ask, is the justice in excluding the no one will believe that a charge of that kind would
South from territory for which they are now fight- attach to me. It is well known that I differ from
ing shoulder to shoulder with our northern brethren? the Executive on some important points of public
The people of the North would have the whole of policy, and that I have at all times freely expressed
Oregon; they would get Santa Fe, the Bay of San that difference of opinion, and, on more than one
Francisco, and Monterey, on the Pacific. All these occasion, followed the dictates of my own judgwould go to the people of the North, on the princi- ment, in opposition to the declared wishes of the
ples of the Missouri compromise. And as to New Executive. Nor shall I hesitate at any time both
Mexico and so much of California as is south of to speak and to vote against his wishes, when I
the compromise line, it is not desired by slave- believe the President to be wrong. I hardly need
holders. All that the South would get to the south advert, in this connexion, to my position in referof the Rio Grande would he an outlet for their ence to the harbor and river bill. My position in
slaves to migrate south wardly. I cannot believe relation to that bill, will, I think, relieve me from
that the North, then, would be unwilling to stand the necessity of vindicating my independence of
by the compromise. But if an impassable wall is anything like a servile adherence to the Executive.
to be built up around the southern States, I had That position, I will here take occasion to say, I
rather that we should withdraw our armies at once, intend to maintain. Believing the provisions of
and give up every foot of Mexican territory. The that bill to be right, I design to continue to press
great argument of gentlemen has been, that the war the claims of the people of the West; and 1 will
would give us California. But all that is valuable not abandon them, until I am convinced, beyond
in California for commercial or agricultural
all doubt, that my efforts are altogether in vain,
pur-poses lies north of the compromise line. Santa and that it is useless to press them any longer.
Fe is in 36° 50'; Monterey, of the Pacific, in 36 0
In regard to the proposed tax upon tea and
36';andSFrcisoby,39°. coffee, I openly and strenuously opposed it at the
Neither New Mexico nor California embraces last session of Congress, and I have done the same
any territory south of the line of 36° 30' which at this session, notwithstanding the preStsing repwould be desirable to emigrants from the slave- resentations of the Secretary of the Treasury.
holding States. Besides, the country is too remote Whether in doing so, I have also opposed the
from that commerce in which they are interested; wishes of the President, I cannot tell, as nothing
and it is not probable that there would be any emiis said about it in the message from which the
3
views of the Executive may be inferred. But plate. This would tax men according to their
if the President had recommended that tax, it wealth.
would not have altered my opinion upon the subGentlemen said that this was mere demagoging.
ject, nor have removed my opposition to it, be- It is not demagoging. I have no inducement to
cause 1 believe that such a tax would be unneces- play the demagogue. I have no political aspirasary. I know that such a tax would be one very tions. This is the last time that I shall occupy a
easily collected, but it would not on that account place on this floor. I do not seek for office; I inbe any the less unjust. I hold that the people tend to retire to private life at the close of the presshould be taxed according to their ability to pay; ent term. I have often expressed my determination
or, in other words, in proportion to their property. to do so. I have seen nothing to change that deThis should be the fundamental principle in all termination. This is the last time I shall ever hold
systems of taxation. I know that in arranging a a political office so far as it depends upon my own
tariff on imports, it is impracticable to arrive at will or wishes. There can be no ground for such
this standard with entire accuracy; hut we ought a charge against me. In the way I have suggested,
to aim at it, and come as near to it as possible, in ten or fifteen millions of revenue might be raised
laying duties for revenue. But a tax on tea and off of the vices and luxuries of the country. I
coffee would not only not accord with this princi- hope my friend near me, the " Chancellor of the
ple, but would be in an inverse proportion to men's Exchequer," [Mr. McKay,] will furnish us with
property or ability to pay; it would approach the details necessary to carry out such a measure.
nearly to a poll - tax; it would tax the people not in If all these sources will not raise sufficient revenue,
proportion to their ability to pay; but, on the con- then we must .borrow some to help out. There
trary, the chief weight of the tax would be a bur- are the money-lenders; if they will not lend us
den upon the laboring classes, because they con- their money, after being placed in a position to be
sume far more of both articles than the wealthy. able to do it, (which I hope the proper committee
In most instances it would be, in filet, a tax upon will enable them to do; and, if not, I will myself
the labor and industry of the women and children at the proper time, propose a measure for that purof the laboring classes: because those articles are pose,) let us tax them, and get it out of them in
in a great measure purchased by the proceeds of that way. [Much laughter, and cries of " that
their labor and industry. I am, sir, therefore op- will do."] If they will not lend their money to
posed to such a tax. Neither, if it were just, do I enable the Government to carry on the war, let us
think it necessary. There are many other modes tax them and compel them to contribute their proby which revenue can be raised to sustain the portion to carry it on.
country in any emergency. I am not afraid to
But I have a word to say to the gentleman from
tax the people of this country upon any just prin- Georgia, [Mr. Toombs who seems to be so anxciple; but I regard a tax upon tea and coffee as ious to tax tea and coffee. The gentleman should
unjust and unnecessary. I will 'make a proposi- have recollected, when he was endeavoring td protion, and ask the Clerk to read it, expressive of nounce a censure on those on this side of the
my view of the best policy with regard to taxation House, who were opposed to taxing those articles,
at this time. [The Clerk then read the following that he was pronouncing a sweeping rebuke and
amendment to the bill, which Mr. T. proposed to condemnation upon his own party, who, univeroffer when it should be in order:]
sally, with the solitary exception of the gentleman
himself, voted against the tax.
' , And he it further enacted, That from and after the pasThen, again, sir, I am opposed to the appointsage of this act, and Willi the conclusion of the war with
ment of a lieutenant general, a measure which is
Mexico, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, on all
goods, wares, and merchandise, subject to the payment of proposed by the Executive, but which I consider
duties by the act entitled 'An act reducing the duty on imunnecessary. But I suppose that it will not be
ports, and for other purposes,' approved July 30th, 1848 ., a
necessary for me to say anything upon that subject,
duty of five per cent. ad valorem, in addition to the duties
as
I presume that that question is settled.
imposed by said act."
Mr. JACOB THOMPSON was here understood
I do not know of any article now taxed, that to say, that thee honorable gentleman was mistaken
would not bear the proposed increase of five per in supposing that that question was settled.
cent. Our imports being over a hundred millions
Mr. TIBBATTS would ask the gentleman the
of dollars, this amendment will produce five mil- reason for his entertaining the opinion that such
lions of revenue—more than twice as much as could an officer was necessary.
be raised off of tea and coffee, and just as easily
Mr. THOMPSON would gladly do so, if the
collected. This will obviate the necessity of taxing gentleman yielded the floor.
tea and coffee. If this will not afford enough reveMr. TIBBATTS. I would take pleasure in donue, then tax the vices of the country. Impose ing so, Mr. Chairman, but I fear that the gentlea direct tax on the manufacture and sale of liquors.
man would occupy too much of my time, and he
Spirits are now taxed 100 per cent. ad valorem, will no doubt have an opportunity before this deand wines 50 per cent. Instead of giving all the bate closes. I cannot myself, sir, see any necesprofit arising from so heavy a protection now made sity at all for the appointment of this officer. I
on these articles to the retailers and manufacturers, understand that one reason given for it is, that the
put a portion of it into the treasury. This would relations existing between General Scot and Genbe better than taxing the support and industry of eral Taylor are of so delicate a character as to rethe women and children. If there is still a deficit, quire some interposition, and to prevent difficulties
then tax the luxuries of the country. I would im- which may arise between them on account of the
pose a tax on pleasure carriages, on gold and silver claims which each may suppose himself to have
4
the command of the army, If the presence of
General Scott was likely to produce such embarrassments, why was he sent? Is General Taylor
incompetent to the command ?—a general who has
won every battle he has been engaged in ? Was
there any want of generalship exhibited in the victories at Palo Alto and Resaca, where he conquered three times his own number of disciplined
troops; or in the storming of Monterey, a town so
strongly fortified that it has been termed the Gibraltar of Northern Mexico? The nation glories in
these victories. Were they any proof that Taylor
is no general ? Are we now to consider these
vic-tories, in which we have taken so much pride, and
of which we have boasted so much, as no evidence
of generalship?
Is General Scott incompetent? He proved himself a brave and gallant officer in the last war—he
has given no evidence to the contrary since. He
has as yet had no opportunity to test his qualities
in this.
In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, the unfortunate and ill-timed introduction of this question of
slavery, renders it necessary to terminate this as
an aggressive war as soon as it is practicable, (a
question to which I intend to come presently;)
and if this be the policy which will he finally
adopted, the appointment of a lieutenant general
to continue the war will be wholly unnecessary.
But, Mr. Chairman, though, being, on this side
of the House, I would not yield a blind subserviency to the wishes or dictation of the Executive,
neither would I, ware I on the other, be guilty of
a factious and unreasonable opposition to the
meas-urcondbyit.
On the subject of the rights of Texas and the
war with Mexico, I have spoken on several occasions during the three last sessions of Congress.
I will not attempt to repeat what I said on those
occasions. There is not only a concurrence, but
I may say a coincidence of opinion between the
,Executive and myself on these subjects. However gentlemen may make a hold tirade of declamation, vague assertion, and loud clamor against
the Executive in regard to the commencement of
the war, the facts existing in relation to this matter are so undeniable, and the results necessarily
deducible from them upon the principles of reason
and common sense, are so conclusive, that all these
angry tirades fall at once to the ground, and the
President is placed in a position so impregnable,
that he must stand unscathed in the eyes of all
unprejudiced men.
Will gentlemen show me when Texas composed
an integral part of the empire of Mexico ? Did
not Texas protest against the treaty, and rebel
against Spain before the treaty was ratified, which
ceded her to that power? Was not Texas acknowledged to be an independent republic by Mexico,
when she was admitted as a member of the Mexican confederation ? Was Texas bound to submit
to the usurpation of Santa Ana, when he overthrew that Government ? Did she not resist successfully the attempt of Santa Ana to subject her?
Did she not achieve her independence of Mexico,
and vindicate her power against Santa Ana on the
field of battle, by conquering him and making him
a prisoner at San Jacinto ? Did she not compel
,
him to acknowledge her independence, and establish her boundary to the Rio Grande, even before
the independence of Mexico was acknowledged by
Spain ? And though Santa Ana was a prisoner, was
not the treaty which was made by him afterwards
ratified by Filasola, the general actually commanding the Mexican armies? and did he not, in accordance therewith, withdraw his troops to the west of
the Rio Grande ? Gentlemen will not deny that
the United States, under every Administration, up
to the cession to Spain, in 1819, claimed the Rio
Grande as the western boundary of Texas; that
this claim was formally asserted by Mr. Monroe,
when he sent a special messenger in June, 1818, to
Galveston, to warn off certain foreign adventurers
who were about to- settle in that vicinity, or at any
place north of the Rio Grande; that by the act of
the Texan Congress, of the 19th December, 1836,
the Rio Grande was, from its mouth to its source,
declared to be the western boundary of Texas, and
her jurisdiction, both civil and political, extended
over it; that from the establishment of her
inde-pendence to the act admitting her as a State of this
Union, a period of more than nine years, Texas
exercised acts of sovereignty and jurisdiction over
the country between the Nueces and the Rio
Grande; that she had established courts of justice,
and extended her civil and criminal jurisdiction
over it; that she had established post offices and
post roads, and a custom-house, and collected duties in it; that it was represented, both in the Senate and House of Representatives of the Texan
Congress, by a senator and representative residing
in it ; that this senator and representative took
part in the act of annexation, and gave their assent
to it; that the Congress of the United States formally recognised the Rio Grande, and not the
Nueces, as the western boundary of Texas, by
establishing a custom-house at Corpus Christi, and
the establishment of post offices and post routes in
it, and by receiving a member of Congress whose
district embraces that country.
With these facts existing, what alternative had
the President, but to order the army to the Rio
Grande, when it was known that the Mexicans
were concentrating a large force and great supplies
in that quarter? Can any gentleman suppose himself able to deceive the people into a belief that
Mexico had concentrated new forces and collected
such great munitions of war at Matamoros only to
take possession of the little strip of country between
the Rio Grande and the Nueces ? Does not everybody know that it was the avowed purpose of the
Mexican Government to reconquer Texas to the
banks of the Sabine ? Let them not believe that
the people can be deceived into any such belief;
they are far too intelligent for that.
It is very clear that the Mexican authorities had
no such idle purpose in view. That their object
was to make war upon the United States if our
troops were found west of the Sabine, the letters
and orders of Paredes abundantly show. When
gentlemen assert that the President unnecessarily
brought on the war by directing General Taylor to
take post west of the Nueces, they assume a poSiLion for Mexico which Mexico despises. The
Sabine was claimed by her as her boundary, and
to it her forces would have marched if they had
5
not been prevented by our gallant little army, acting under the direction of the President.
But the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
WINTHROP] gravely insists that no power in -this
Government can declare war but the Congress of
the United States. Well, who has ever contended
that any other power could? Where is the man
who ever contended that the power rested in any
other quarter ? Has the President himself ever so
contended or controverted that doctrine ? Has the
Democratic party done it ? Did the President declare this war? So far as there has been a declaration of war, it has been made by Congress, and
not by the President.
The gentleman has referred us to Madison and
Washington, to prove that Congress alone can declare War, which nobody denies; but has either
Washington or Madison denied that the President
of the United States has power to defend the country when it is invaded ? That is what a President
may do under the Constitution, and that is what
the President has done. When Texas was invaded, he defended her, and repelled the invaders.
What imaginable right had he to say that Texas
extended only to the Nueces ? That was a question he had no power over. He knew officially
that she claimed to the Rio Grande; and if he had
not defended her boundaries as claimed by Texas
herself, he would have been shamefully recreant
to his duty. This is the question. Texas claimed
the Rio Grande as her boundary. Congress reserved to itself the right to settle this question of
boundary with Mexico. The President had
no-thing to do with this question. It was his duty to
make a defensive war to protect the boundary as
claimed by Texas. So far he has acted within
his clearly-defined constitutional powers and duties.
But after the act of Congress of the 13th of May,
1846, the war was taken out of the hands of the
President; it ceased to be a defensive, and was converted into an offensive war. By whose act was
that—the act of Congress or of the Executive ?,
After the passage of that act, the war was the war
of Congress, and not of the Executive; he ceased
to act as President in waging a defensive war, by
virtue of his clearly-defined powers and duties
under the Constitution. The President, so far as
this was a defensive war, acted strictly within his
constitutional powers and his constitutional duties;
so far as it is and has been an offensive war, he
has acted under the authority of the act of Congress declaring the war, and it will be his duty
to proceed with the war until Congress shall express some opinion upon the subject. The efforts
which have been made by the President to close
the war by amicable negotiation, at the very time
when our soldiers are flushed with victory, and
our armies covered with honor and glory, cannot
but redound to his credit, and be considered by the
civilized world as becoming the head of a wise and
magnanimous nation.
The great mistake with gentlemen in the Opposition in all this matter, and one which leads them
into interminable difficulties, is, that under an erroneous view of the Constitution, they invest the President with a character and powers which he does
not possess. They call this the war of the Presi-
dent, and wish to know of him how long it is to
last, and in what manner, and for what purposes,
he intends to conduct it. The question then is,
whose war is it? The war of the President? How
cad that be ? It must be obvious to gentlemen, upon
a moment's consideration, that it is not the President's war, but, that it is our war—the war of Congress; a war aged
by the command of Congress,
w
and not by the volition of the President.
Congress having declared war, and authorized
armies and navies to be raised, the President, by
force of the Constitution, becomes the "
comander-ihf,"tgalsmoherind
navies; he ceases to act as President under authority of the Constitution, and assumes his new position of commander-in-chief, and acts under the authority of the laws of Congress, just as any other
officer or soldier engaged in the war, and is at all
times under the control of Congress.
Gentlemen make another mistake: they confound the office with the powers of the officer. The
office of commander-in-chief is created by the Constitution, and the officer to fill that office is appointed by the Constitution: the President is appointed
by the Constitution to that office; but here the Constitution stops. When the President acts as President, he derives his powers from the Constitution;
but the Constitution confers no powers upon him
as commander-in-chief. When he acts in that capacity, he derives his powers from the laws of Congress. Congress, it is true, cannot create an office
superior to his; but Congress can at all times prescribe laws to govern and control him, and extend
or limit his power.
Do not gentlemen, then, see, that the moment
the country is engaged in an offensive war the relation of the President in regard to the war is
changed ?—that he no longer acts as President of
the United States, but only as commander-in-chief
of the army and navy?—that he has no power whatever in relation to the war derived from the Constitution merely ?—that his directions must all proceed
from Congress ?that he is subject entirely to our
action, when we choose to act?—that in fact he is no
longer responsible for the existence of the war ?—
that we have taken that responsibility upon our own
shoulders?— that we can look to him as responsible
only for the proper use of the means we may
place under his control, and obedience to the rules
we may prescribe to him?
Under this view of the case, it will be seen that
we who voted for the war are responsible for the
war; and I tell gentlemen on the other side who
voted for the war, and who vote for supplies and
denounce the war, that they are only pronouncing
a condemnation upon themselves. The question,
how and for what purposes is , this war to be prosecuted? is not to be put by them to the President;
it is not for him to answer this question. The
President of the United States is the only prOper
person to put that question, and the only authority
to answer it is Congress.
If, then, the war, as some of you have often
said, is an " unjust war, an unholy war," how do
you excuse yourselves for voting for it, and for
supplies to carry it on? You voted for the war,
and you are mistaken, if the war be unjust and
unholy, when you suppose that your hands are
clean of the blood which has flowed and is to flow
from it; on the contrary, the stain will be of the
deeper dye, if you believe what you say. You
voted for the war, and it will not relieve you from
the responsibility, that you protested against the
truth of the preamble to the bill. It is a matter of
no importance; the preamble can cut no figure in
this business; whether it be true or false, is wholly
immaterial. The act is yours; you have declared
the war; you have commanded the President to
wage the war; and you have given to him the men
and money to prosecute it: he is bound to carry
it on; he has no right or power to stop till Congress tells him to stop; and if it be wrong, Congress,
and not the President, is responsible for the consequences. We commanded him to wage this
war, and we voted him men and money to do it
with. He has obeyed our will; he has acted under the direction of the law made by us, which
confers upon him, as upon any other military commander, all the powers he possesses, and not tinder
oily constitutional authority as President. This
law we can alter or change at pleasure, and the
President would be bound to submit to such alterations and changes as we might make. Gentlemen, then, instead of asking the President " how
long, and for what purposes, he intends to carry
on this war ?" would do better by asking that question of Congress. As things now are, so long as
Congress suffers the act to remain in full force, unlimited and unqualified, the President will be bound
to obey our will—to go on and prosecute the war
as long as Congress supplies him with the means
to do it. He must go on to blockade the ports of
the enemy—to invade his territories; he must wage
the war, until he has overrun all Mexico, province
after province until her castles are dismantled
and battered down, and her cities laid in ashes:
he must take their towns, storm their forts, and
subdue their country, until her people are exterminated, or reduced to submission: he must carry
the horrors of war into every town, and village,
and hamlet: and it is Congress, and not the President, who will be responsible for the consequences.
The President is but the agent of Congress, bound
to do its bidding: he can know only its commands;
and unless Congress shall stay his hand, he will
be compelled to pursue the war with Mexico to
the uttermost. It may result that this war will be
accompanied with all its ravages, its cruelties, and
its horrors: ay--even until
"
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of Woody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell ; mowing like grass
Their fresh, fair virgins, and flowering infants.'
Such may be the consequences, unless Congress
put some limitation' upon it. And if the war
proceeds even to these sad and awful lengths, the
blood will be on our hands, and not on those of
the President. You have voted for the war, and
the men and money to carry it on; and the attempt to shift the responsibility from your own
shoulders to those of the President will he vain and
futile. If you believe that the war is unjust, there
is no apology which you can make to your consciences or to the world for having voted for it, or
for voting supplies to sustain it.
Then, when gentlemen ask the question, " How
long and for what purpose is this war to continue?"
the answer is easy and obvious: until Congress
shall put a stop to it. The true inquiry, then, for
gentlemen to make, is, " How long and for what
purpose will Congress continue to order the President to prosecute the war?" If the war is to go
on, then I am for pushing it with the utmost vigor.
But how is the war to be terminated ? This is a
question of great and obvious importance. There
are but three ways out of which to choose:
1st. To abandon Mexico, and withdraw our
forces from it.
2d. To decide how much of her conquered territory we mean to hold, and fortify the boundary.
3d. To adopt another line of invasion, and to
go onward to the palaces of the Montezumas, and
there dictate a treaty.
Which of these shall we adopt? The President,
in selecting, must be bound by the instructions received from Congress.
As to abandoning the country we have taken before Mexico is brought to terms, I look upon that
as entirely out of the question. I would be utterly
opposed to any termination of the war which did
not secure to our citizens the payment of their just
claims against Mexico, and give us indemnity for
the cost of the war. I hold the war perfectly just;
and I am in nowise disposed to abandon it until
we have secured an honorable peace.
Then we have to choose between one of the two
other alternatives. One of these is, to invade the
country anew by the way of Vera Cruz, and march
to the palaces of the Montezumas. If it is the opinion of the majority of Congress that this course shall
be adopted, I am prepared to support the measure,
by voting the requisite amount of men and money,
and carry it fully out. But I presume that nobody
in his senses expects that we can do so with a handful of men. Can ten regiments of regulars and
mire regiments of volunteers effect an enterprise
like this ? Let no man flatter himself with such an
expectation. The people of Mexico are resolved
to stand for the defence of their country; we have
no friends among them. They believe themselves
to be in the right, whatever may be our opinion
on the subject; they feel that they are fighting for
their homes, their liberty, and their religion. Can
any man be so infatuated as to expect to conquer
eight millions of people, penetrated and united by
such a conviction, with a regular army of ten
thousand men and some corps of volunteers? The
thing, sir, is impossible. We may attempt it; we
may strew our line of march, we may pave the
road from Vera Cruz to Mexico, with the bones of
our brave warriors, sacrificed to an impracticable
enterprise, and dropping under the infliction of the
diseases incident to a sickly climate; we may perform prodigies of valor and scatter desolation and
death from the proudest halls in the palaces of the
Montezumas to the humblest casa in the empire of
Mexico; but we cannot conquer the nation. Eight
millions of people fighting for all they hold dear,
are not to be conquered. Drive them from the
plains and they' will take to the mountains, and
battling from height to height, they will defend
themseves to the last.
What, sir, is the object of this war ? For what
7
purposes was it commenced ? First, to defend
the territory of the State of Texas which the Mexicans had invaded; as a defensive war in repelling
an unjust invasion on the part of Mexico.
If this plan is to be adopted, then the additional
regiments of regulars are necessary. I am not
sir, one of those who would be willing to prosecute war for the acquisition of territory unjustly,
Second-ly,tfrMxiondemyurctzs;o
nor do I believe that there is a member on this side
to make reprisals for their just claims against that Of the House who would be. (In what I now say
Government for the spoliation of their property, I am not speaking for the President, for the Presiand the outrages on their persons, as far as this dent, as I have said, is under orders from Congress,
can be done by money, which Mexico has unjust- to prosecute the war as Congress may direct.) I
ly refused or neglected to pay. And, thirdly, to would not take from Mexico one foot of territory
indemnify ourselves for the expenses of the war. without paying her for it a just equivalent; nor do
So far as self-defence is concerned, that end is I consider it at all desirable that we should take
accomplished. We have driven her discomfited our payment in territory because of the slavery
question, which we see already agitated in relation
armies from our borders—we have pursued them
far into their own country; no Mexican soldier to all newly acquired territory. I hold that war
is
entirely unjustifiable except as a measure of
places his foot within a hundred miles of our
borders; no further aggression is threatened by necessity. The man or the nation that would
them, or apprehended or anticipated by us. Our wage it wantonly, or without cause clearly and inenemy has been humbled and prostrated; and but disputably good, would deserve the execration of
for her own civil dissensions, and a misapprehen- mankind. No man of proper feelings can desire
sion of our intentions, would yield themselves con- war for the sake of war. There is no calamity so
quered. They have felt the force of our power, dreadful—no curse can afflict them so much, as a
and have been brought to a sense of their own war between two or more nations. In this epoch
weakness. They have met with nothing but of civilization and refinoment, we are admonished
humiliating reverses and defeats. Their citizens by humanity and every good consideration to proby hundreds have been slaughtered. State after mote the advancement of industry, commerce, and
state and province after province, have been lost friendly relations. But peace, sir, ought to be,
by them and won by the valor of our soldiers; and compatible with the privileges and independence of
the American flag now floats triumphant over con- nations; we instinctively repel force by force when
quests more extensive than the original extent of all means of reconciliation are exhausted. Such
our republic. So far, then, as self-defence is con- was our position with Mexico a year ago. She
cerned, the object of the war is fully accomplished. had robbed and plundered and incarcerated our
What else remains ? Indemnity for the claims citizens, and she had for a long period of years
of our citizens, and for the expenses of the war, refused and neglected to make indemnity. She
so unjustly brought on us by Mexico. Are we had insulted our flag; and finally, refusing all overlikely, by a further invasion of her territory, to tures of peace, she had collected a large army and
force these indemnities to be paid in money ? I munitions of war on our border, with the view of'
think we cannot do this; for the money she has invading our territory, and emboldened by our
none. Are we in this way to get peace ? We can- mildness, she crossed our lines and murdered Amernot do that either; for there is no party in Mexico ican citizens on American soil. This war is no
which would dare to make peace with us under longer necessary to defend our territory. There
existing circumstances. The simple remedy left is no danger of a new invasion, nor is there any
us is, to hold her territory until she shall make necessity for seizing upon any more territory as
peace and indemnify us. Surely we have already indemnification for our citizens who have been
enough of her territory for the purposes of indem- wronged and plundered, or of the country, which
nification. We have possession of California, has been put to heavy expenses by the war. The
New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, New Leon, only further object of the war is to obtain an honand Tamaulipas. This is certainly territory am- orable peace. For this purpose, the two modes I
ple and abundant for indemnification. Why not have alluded to, are left. Congress should choose
then stand where we are—occupy these provinces, the one or the other, and act according to that
or so much of them as we may, deem advisable for choice. I am for adopting that plan which will
indemnification—extend our revenue laws over her close this war in the most speedy manner, and in
ports—fortify. our position, and spare the further the way most consistent with economy and humaneffusion of blood ? Then let us say to Mexico, ity. Let either be adopted, I am for prosecuting
" You have invaded us without cause on your it with proper vigor and effect, and, whether we
part, when we had many just causes of complaint adopt the one mode or the other, these ten regjagainst you: we have repelled your invasion; we ments of regulars are necessary.
As to the bill under consideration f I will vote for
invaded you in return, and we have taken
a portion of your territory for the purpose of in- it, whether it shall be made to provide for a force
demnification; we have enough for that purpose, of regulars or volunteers. The President, howand we intend to hold on to it until a peace is con- ever, asks for ten regiments of regulars: I am wilcluded, which we are ready to enter, on terms ling to coincide with the President. Is it proper
honorable to you as well as ourselves." If Mex- to strike from the bill the clause which gives the
ico listen to our offer, and give us satisfactory se- President the appointment of the officers ? I 4 think
curity for the payment of our claims, then let us not. On him rests the responsibility of prosecusurrender up to her her territory: if she do not, ting the war under the orders of Congress; and
then let us hold on to it; and let her take it back if even if I differed with him in his views in regard
to the war, (which it is plain I do not,) yet as the
she can.
have
War exists, and Congress, has charged, him with
the prosecution of it, I am in favor of giving him
the description of troops he asks for. Volunteers
might answer a very good purpose, if the plan is
to push a new invasion; but even then, a larger
force of regulars would also be necessary; but if
we are to stand where we are, regulars will be
preferable to volunteers: if the object be to hold
the country by garrisons, then regulars will clearly
be preferable to volunteers. Every person who is
familiar with the character and deportment of volunteer troops, must know that they are not susceptible of that rigid control which is needed in
garrison defence. They would never rest contented if cooped up behind fortifications. They go
out to fight, and they wish to fight off-hand. They
would not submit to be pent up in garrisons. I
am not afraid to trust the President with the appointment of these officers. On this point I differ
with some of my friends on this side of the House;
indeed, sir, I was not altogether prepared to see
such a proposition coming from this side of the
House: it seems to me to imply a want of faith in
the President, which I did not expect in such a
quarter.
,