The daily union. [volume], September 12, 1848, Image 1

About The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
#
iTDTTKO U Y T M OM a K IT C u I K. a a ^ v^/y^/ J%_ j | to our spbot1ibeke
THUMAS laTCHIK fc JOHN V. HK1SS, 1 |T II [^ ii I flfl? fl ?1 * I ~ I ? I ff^I lill ^ ^
noriHTOtl and khuiiii. W , I I I Ml If I I jl B RJ IB I BIB III II UUttul ?l?oijfciii? aqi imranl iu wuw/ Ii/ httor, tk> p^?l?
?? l-JV /*5V lVv lV/V' t J /i^K^UVvV/V 4lVo JW
f i The COUNTRY FA PER la published try weekly duang the ?*DAILY.
pir/w. - - #10 <*
I 41U1.S of Cou|r?. mod oemi-weekly during the roc?.
g, v,, wkEkLY. ipuiilishrd tri weekly during the *?>*ioii _ __ ? __ . _ flubacriptioua for I pciiod 1? than i year will bo received ou
wU?Lt. ?'<- "?"?> ; ^ VOLUME IV. " I.IUERTV, THK UNIOW, AMI) THE CONSTITUTION." IVVMBKB HO ~ our , ?*.
< i?*< ? ? tutmtMd .. . 1 ' - 1 -T aeiulmf u? m ? D AIL V ulawlbw., With WAlwri, I.lKMI
WKKKLV .utwr.ribera, wAM* . >l.??l1, or ? WttKLY >ut fi??
cop'*4 ?' 1" DAILT, tar 40 uu ,crilwr? with ?I0 vncloMd, will bo OOtiU.i to on* copy ( th? mm
'; : : : 5: CITY OF WASHINGTON, TUESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 12, 1848. ^sKErEK&SLMM.....
riTe C4|.ta? ! Uw WtlLKLT, ....... 8 (HI J l MWur*?.
VMAAIliM OftlkA " Ik Oil __ . - --
SPEECH ur MK. TIIRRKV,
or TENNESSEE,
Ju Senate of tlu United States, February 11, 1848?On
ihe bill reported from the Coinmitee on Military Affairs
to rai?e, for a limited time, an additional military force.
Mr. TUKNEY said:
Mr. President I believe that s|>eedy action on the
bill now under consideration is rif the highest importance
to the country; and I would now cheerfully yield the
floor if the vote could be taken immediately on that question.
But as the discussion has become protracted, and a
duty seems to be imposed upon all to state their views on
1great subject involved in the bill, I deem it to be
iiO|>er to submit to the consideration of the Senate and
the country the sentiments and opinions which 1 entertain
in reference to this subject.
Ill the first place, sir, I desire to express my cheerful
assent to the most elaborate discussion of the question
now before us. I find fault with no gentleman for the
fullest expression of bis opinions, although that expression
of opinion may be calculated, in my judgment, to
artect injuriously the interests of his country If I believed,
as senators on this Hoor profess to believe, that
this war is unjust and unconstitutional, I should unite <
with the senators from New Hamiishire, [Mr. Hale,] i
Massachusetts, [Mr. Davis,] and Ohio, [Mr. Corwin ]
I should take no middle course. Sir, 1 hold that no mid- ]
die course can be taken. If our country be in the wrong
in this war?if the war has been unconstitutionally waged,
lur the attainment of the ambitious views of the Executive?patriotism,
justice, every consideration, demand that
the war should be stopped. In such a case, 1 should
lion, an it appeared to be ? No gentleman entertained
such an idea. A motion was made to strike out the preamble,
and reasons were assigned for striking it out, but
no such reason as that we had invaded the Mexican territory.
Far from it, as I will be able to show, conclusively,
from the documents. The reason assigned was,
tbc uncertainty as to the fact whether war did, in point
of fact, exist.
Well, we are now engaged in war; and as it is, as I
shall maintain, a just war, I hold that it ought to be prosecuted
to the utmost. A great deal of complaint has been
made because the war has not been brought to a close.
Is it, I ask, in the power of this government to bring the
war to a close in an honorable manner, securing to the
country the gieai objects for which it has been prosecuted
? 1 am of opinion that the war would long since have
been brought to a close but for our own divisions. If
the whole American people could have thought alike in
relation to this war, and the objects of its prosecution,
we should long since have had it brought to a close.
Our divisions, and the knowledge of theni on the part of
the Mexican government, have protracted this war.
Mexico sees a powerful party in the United States arrayed
against the war, and she is thus encouraged to persist
in her obstinacy, in the hope that, eventually, she
may obtain such a treaty as she desires. And here let
me ask, What sort of a treaty would that be which those
who oppose the war could consistently accept.'
It is natural that men should differ about almost every subject
submitted to the consideration of the human mind; but
it is rather singular that difference of opinion should be confined
to strict party lines. We all united here in voting
trie men and money demanded by the Executive for the
prosecution of the war at the last session of Congress.
inen, our cause was aumnieu 10 ne just: dui aner some
progress is made, we find ourselves divided in opinion,
not in regard to the manner in which the war should be
prosecuted, not in regard to the mode in which it had been
so far conducted, but in relation to its origin, its causes,
and its objects; and this division of opinion corresponded
exactly to party lines. I am free to confess, that in the
contemplation of such a state of things, there is almost
enough to shatter confidence in the stability and petpetuity
of our free institutions and form of government. If this
were the first time that we witnesseu division of opinion,
and that, too, upon questions connected with our foreign
relations, I should almost be tempted to say that the days
of the republic were numbered. But we are not left
without hope, even in the midst of this divided state
of public opinion. In the struggle for independence,
there was great division of popular sentiment; and
again, in the war of 1812, a similar divided state of
public opinion existed, and that, too, according to strict
|uirty lines. VVe all know the effect of such a course
upon the enemy. They see us divided amongst ourselves.
Tr.ey are thus led to entertain hopes which otherwise
they would not for a moment cherish. Especially does
this division of sentiment operate to our disadvantage,
when it is known by the enemy that, according to our
system of government, our rulers have to be selected
every four years, and that ihat period is now rapidly approaching.
The enemy is thus encouraged to cherish
strong hopes of obtaining a more advantageous settlement
after the'presidential election, which they suppose
may introduce another party into power in the administration
of the public affairs. We heard the other day
from my colleague, that party was a tyrant. That was a
true and just remark. We have seen it exemplified in
our own Male, previous to the appearance 01 tne leners
of the distinguished statesmen of New York and of Kentucky
in opposition to annexation, I believe there was
not a single individual of either party opposed U> that
measure ; not only so, but, in iny opinion, the feelings of
ail members of both parties in that section of the country
were engaged in favor of the measure. Yet, notwithstanding
this slate of feeling, such was the power, such
the tyranny, of party and party discipline, that in that
State a majority of tne people were induced to cast their
votes in favor of the man who opposed it, and against
the man who advocated it. This they did, not in accordance
with their own judgment or feelings, but under the
iron rod of this tyrant |iariy and party discipline.
Hut that might he regarded as aquestion merely of expediency?one,
to be sure, involving the great interests
and prosperity of the country, hut not equal in im|>ortance
hi that now under consideration. The present question
b:r3 a totally different aspect; and I think that, in the
course of tne argument presented by my colleague, he
admitted that he and I agreed as to the vote which we
should give on it, when we left our constituents. I le in
'"fins us that he came here with the exudation ot vo
tint; the men and the money necessary to carry on the
war I think that in so voting, he would have acted in
accordance with the views of a majority of the people
of that State which he has the honor in part to represent.
Now, the people being in favor of this war, having full
confidence in its justice, and entertaining the opinion thai
>t ought to be vigorously prosecuted to a iwaceful termination,
the next consideration is, can the power of this
tyrant parly so influence them as to cause thein to wheel
to the right about, counter-march, and take sides in favor
of the ene ny ? The question now before us is out
ol infinitely greater im;iortaiice than any mere question
of expediency. On mere partisan questions, |>arty feeling
may control public opinion ; but when the national
honor, interest, and safety are all involved in a war with
? foreign power, and at the moment of time when thouaande
of our patriotic citizens are in the field offering up
certainly unite wun me gentleman irom i>ew Hampshire
lu (lie declaration that I could give no vote of thanks to i
individuals engaged in the prosecution of the war for purposes
of robbery and ulunder. I should feel that those
who were engaged in fighting the battles of the country
in tins war were to be regarded in the light of the mid- i
night assassin, who seeks, through bloodshed, to seize
upon his plunder, and that every genuine lover of his
country was bound to arrest the progress of such a war.
But 1 ditler altogether from the views which these i
gentlemen have expressed; and 1 think that, entertaining
such views, their policy is by no means consistent? i
tiiey should bring this war to a close. This leads ine to
the inquiry, not as to the details of this bill, or the
character of the troops to be raised, but directly in regard
to the justice of the war.
In the consideration of this question, I must call the
attention of the Senate and the country to one important
fuct. When the bill recognising the existence of this
war was before this bodv. we did not hear from ariv
quarter in this chamber that the war would be unjust. '
We heard from no Senator that the war grew out
of the removal of the army from Corpus Cliristi to
the Kio Grande. Not a syllable of complaint was
uttered in relation to that question; and yet then,
1 contend, was tne proper time at which it should
have been brought up. 1 am surprised that sena- |
tors did not then take that ground of opposition to i
the bill declaring that war existed by the act of M< xico. I
Was there a single individual here then, who believed j
that there was a possibility, by any legislative action of |
ours, to raise troops, and convey tnem to the Rio Grande j
in season to reinforce General Taylor, and relieve hiin |
. from the dangerous condition in which it was supposed !
he was placed? Did any gentleman then suppose that'
the troops would arrive in time to relieve Gen. Taylor?
lie was at Fort Brown, surrounded by the Mexican .
army, and having at his depot only a small quantity of
provisions. He was without the means of subsistence
fur more than a few days. He was of necessity obliged
to seek supplies, and, in order to do so, to encounter the
enemy in the open field. Did any senator believe that it
was possible for the government, by any legislative action,
to raise an additional military force, and convey
them to the Kio Gran le in time to render any aid in extricating
General Taylor from his then dangerous condi
their lives in the cause of their country, I am sure the
|teople will refuse to ol?ey the dictum of party, if it doe*
not accord with their 0W11 sense of right and patriotic devotion
to the cause of their country. .At least, I think 1
may answer for the people of Tennessee, that they will
never rally under the Hag of party in opposition to their
own judgment and patriotic feeling. That, sir, is m>
native State, and I claim to know something of the feelings
which influence its peojile. She whose sons have
fallen in Mexico?who has sent forth her volunteers at
the first tap of the drum?who has contributed three or
four times perhaps, indeed I may safely say ten times the
amonnt of troops called for from her limits?cannot, I
am sure, sacrifice those patriotic feelings, and take sides
against their country.
But we are told that a change lias been made in the
jKilicy of the administration with legard to the war; that
the entire subjugation of Mexico is now contemplated ;
that the war was just in its origin, but that it is now prosecuted
for the accomplishment of obieets which would, if
attained, he fatal to our own institutions. In order to
counteract the evil effects of this alleged new policy, it is
contended that we should withdraw the troops, and allow
the enemy to have perfect freedom for all manner of excess,
plunder, and assassination. Sir, I can see nothing 111
the message of the President, or in any other public document,
to justify any such conclusions; and if I were disposed
to charge the opposition with it?and 1 am not so
disused? I think I would not be without some ground for
the allegation, that that is a mere pretext to justify their
rxiinnaitinn tn this war I innrht uaV7 that tlta irontLman
an the other aide, unable to sustain themselves, are seeking,
011 the eve of a presidential election, to present a new
issue, more favorable to their success; that they have
discovered that the ground heretofore occupied by them?
that the war is unnecessary and unconstitutional, and
therefore no indemnity ought to be demanded or received
for the immense exjiense incurred in its prosecution?
meets with no favor with the people, and, therefore,
to avoid the odium of this condemned position, they seek
to shift their ground by presenting a new issue. Sir,
these gentlemen have no right to assume for us measures
and positions we never assumed forourrelves; and therefore
I shall hold them to the issues which they themselves,
upon mature consideration and full consultation,
submitted to the public, as presenting the true position of
the two great parties of this country ii|ion the existing
war with Mexico. 1 shall not attempt to go into that,
nor to answer the objections urged against the prosecution
of the war; hut proceed at once to the consideration of
the inquiry?what did produce this war ? Was it the annexation
of Texas .' or was it the removal of the army
from Corpus Christi to the Kio Grande ? That is the
issue made bv the opposition since the war commenced.
1 hold, as 1 then held, that the annexation of Texas was
the cause of Mexico waging war against the United
States. Whether the army had been removed to the
Rio Grande or not, war was the inevitable result growing
out of the act of annexation. How far, then, is this administration
responsible .' Annexation took place under
the Tyler administration ; and as the Senator from Maryland,
not now in his seat, [Mr. Johnson,] after having
made, us 1 conceive, an able and conclusive argument in
regard to the justice of this war, chose to cast some reflections
on the administration for provoking war in the
mode of annexation, 1 shall advert for a few moments to
the subject.
What were the powers and duty of the President under
the resolutions of annexation They are all defined in
the third resolution, which is as follows:
" Ami be it further rtwlvcd. That it ihe President of the
United States Utah, in his judgment and discretion, deem it
most advisable, instead ol proceeding to submit the foregoing
resolution to the republic of Texas, as an overture on
the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate
with that republic ; then?"
Let it he remembered that the legislative power took
the matter into their own hands, and imposed upon tin*
President the duty of submitting to the republic of
Texas the plan of annexation. They gave him the choice
of selecting either the House or the Senate resolutions.
Thus lie acted merely as a ministerial agent. It was not
like a case of ordinary negotiation, in which, after a
proposition had been submitted, there was the right to
withdraw it if it were declined. The law required him to
make the proposition to the republic of Texas, giving him
only the discretionary power which 1 have just described.
That selection of the mode of annexation was made before
the present administration came into power. It was
made by the Tyler administration, in the last hours of its
existence; and the selection being made, and the proposition
submitted, the law was complied with. The President
had discharged his duty under it, and his power over the
subject was consequently exhausted. It only remained,
then, to he seen whether 1'exas would assent to the
terms proceed. I am free to admit, that if the Senate
resolution had been adopted, the war might have been
avoided; but, as the House resolutions were selected, it
was not in the power of man to avert the war. If the
Senate resolution had been adopted, negotiations might
have been ojiened, and Texas might have been annexed
by joint resolution at the next session of Congress, according
to the terms agreed upon between the two pat ties.
In the mean time, annexation not having taken
place, she might have been consulted about it. Compensation
might have been made, and an amicable settlement
been effected. By the adoption of the House resolutions,
however, all the power of averting the war was taken
from the President, to whom no discretion was left.
In proceeding to establish the fact that annexation
caused the war, 1 shall refer to the record. And I shall
begin with the position occupied by the whig party in
1844, pending the presidential election. There was then
but one universal sentiment in the |>arty, expressed in the
language of the distinguished citizen of Kentucky who
was regarded as the embodiment of their principles. And
what was that sentiment? The great issue then was.
Will you have Texas and a war, or no Texas and peace ?
That was the great issue which was submitted to the
American people. The whig party then occupied, as 1
think they do now, the side of Mexico. They said annexation
would produce war; that annexation was war.
That is not their argument now. We are now told that
the administration could have avoided the war. Here let
me read an extract from the celebrated Raleigh letter of
Mr. Clay, of 17th April, 1814:
" Recognition did not atfoct or impair the rights of Mexico,
or change the relntioni which subsisted between her
and Texas, e'ho, on the contrary, has preserved^ all Iter
rights, an.1 lias continued to assort, and, so mr as i kiiow,
yet asserts, her riglit to reduce Texas to obedience ai a part
of the republic of Mexico."
Mr. Clay then goes on say:
"Under these c ire u in stances, if the government of the
United .States were to annex Texas, it w mid acquire alone
with it all the incumbrances which Texas is under ; and
among them the actual or suspended war between Mexico
and Texas. Of that consequence there cannot be a doubt.
Annexation and war with Vlexico are identical. Now, lor
one, 1 certainly am not willing to engage this country in a
loreign war for the object ol acquiring lexas."
Thus, sir, we see the great issue in 1814 was that of
annexation; and Mr. Clay, the candidate of the whig
party for the presidency, took ground expressly, that to
annex Texas was to make war with Mexico, and for that
reason he was opposed to annexation. More, sir; the
whole whig parly of the nation, from one end of the
Union to the other, after this letter made its appearance,
took the same ground, and supported Mr. Clay for the
presidency, for the avowed purpose of defeating the annexation
of Texas, and thereby avoid a war with Mexico.
But, sir, the democratic party advocated the annexation
of Texas; and to maintain their position, they assumed,
that to annex Texas to the United States gave
no just cause of war, because Texas was a free and
independent republic, and had so been acknowledged
to be by all the prominent nations of the world, and
therefore Texas had, under the laws of nations, :ia much
right and power to make and conclude a treaty of annexation,
or tor any other object, as Mexico herself, or any
ouier nation wnaiever; mai mis neinu; me coiiuuioii 01
Texas, the United States had, by the Taws of nations, a
right to treat with Texas for annexation, or for any other
purpose, without giving offence or any just cause of war
to Mexico; and that, if it was necessary to exercise this
right, as they believed it was, in order to promote the interest
of the nation, and the happiness and prosperity ol
the people, they would not lie deterred from doing so by
the foolish gascodade and the unjust and illegal prcten
sions of Mexico. Thus, sir, the issue was joined, and
the people rendered their verdict in November, ts-tt, in
favor ot annexation; and it was accordingly done. Hut,
sir, war was the consequence of annexation; the whig
prediction has been verified. Hut, strange to tell, notwithstanding
all this, they now abandon the position
occupied by them in 1344, and say that anexation did not
produce the war, and, in fact, that it was no just cause
of war; thus plainly admitting that their position was
erroneous, and that the position of the democrats was the
correet and true one. Having thus abandoned this ground,
and being extremely anxious to cast censure on the present
administration, they now say this war was brought
on by tiie President, unnecessarily and unconstitutionally.
by the removal of the ariny to the Kio Uninile t? tnie
true ' I hold that the annexation of Texan is the sole
and exclusive cause of the war. This Question I propose
to examine: now for the proof. 1 shall read, Mr. President,
an extract from a letter written by the Mexican
Minister of Foreign Affairs to our minister in Mexico, t
dated Mexico, May the 30th, 1341; it is as follows t
" 1 liul lbs tlrm iiml Constant resolution litis been, mid is, 11
to [unserve the Integrity and dignity of the nation ; that, at
this lime, as vary opportune lor lite reproduction of bis pro- n
test, as be gives tbem here as express as if they were in full .
?signally recalling to tnind, hs special, tliat of ihe 23d ol i.
August, 1843, in tbc words, "That Mexico will consider n- I)
a declaration of wiir against the Mexican republic, tbc rati ci
lication of tliat agreeinent fur the incorporation of Texas n
into tbe territory of the United States." o
Thus we see, Mr. President, that the letter of Mr.
Clay?and which was adopted by the whig [tarty as their ri
text in 1844?is identical in sentiment, and almost verba- il
tim in language, with the. letter of the Mexican minister d
just read Again, sir, the same Mexican minister, in hi- a
letterof the '3d of July, 1844, reaffirmed the statenputs in c
his letter just read, and 1 will not consume the time of n
the Senate by reading it; but, as I desire to go a little b
further back, I will read an extract from the letter of s,
Mr. Almonte, the Mexican minister, to Mr Upshur, Sec- p
retary of Slate, dated November 3, 1843. He says: *
"And be moreover declares, by express order of bis gov- I
errirnent, tliat on sanction being given by tbe Executive ol tl
tile United States, to tbe inoorjioration of Texas into tin o
United Stales, he will consider bis mission ended ; seeing a
ihat, us tbe Secretary of Stale will have learned, tbe Mext- s
can government is resolved to declare war as soon as it receives
information of such an act." 1
November 11,1813, reaffirmed. Jj
i will refer you now, sir, to the letter of Mr. Almonte a
to Mr. Upshur of the llth of November, 1843, in which j
he says that?
I body and oj the Executive of the Union. Unfortunately, however,
it has been otherwise ; anil, contrary to his hopes anil 8
his most sincere prayers, he sees consummate!), on the part ti
oftlie American government, an act of aggression the most (j
unju-t which can he found recorded in the annals of modern c
history, namely, that of despoiling a friendly nation like j(
Mexico of a considerable portion oilier territory.
" For those reasons, the undersigned, in compliance witli
his instructions, fiiius himself required to protest, as he 0
does in fact protest, in the most solemn manner, in the '
name of his government, against llie law passed on the e
28th of the last month, by the general Congress of the United "
States, arid approved on the 1st of the present month by 1
the President of those Slates, whereby the province of Texat,
an integrant portion of the Mexican territory, it agreed 1
anil admitted into the American Union. The undersigned, i"
moreover, protests, in the name of his government, that the j ]:
saiil law can in nowise invalidate the rights on which Mex- I ']
ico relies to recover the above mentioned province of Ttxat. '
of which the now teel hertelf unjattly despoiled, and that the I
will maintain and uphold thete right* at all timet by evei y "
meant which may be in her power.
" The undersigned will say. in conclusion, to the honora- 0
lile Secretary of State of the United Slates, in order that he 1
may be pleased to communicate it to the President of the 1
United States, that, in consequence of this law against
which he itas just protested, Ins mission near this govern- p
ment lias ceased from this day. Wherefore the undersigned
prays the honorable Secretary of State to he pleased to
deliver him his passports, as he has made arrangements to
leave this city without delay lor Now York.
" The ttndeisigoed avails hiinselt," &c. ll
This letter, Mr. President, establishes several impor- j
i taut facts: the first of which is, the annexation of Texas i
! closed the doors to all further negotiation between the <1
two governments, and made th# resort to arms the only 1
means of settling their differences. The second fact es- j1
tahlished is, that the war would he for the whole of i'
iV.? ??hl?? A ...I 'third f.,M u>lil/>h 1 thl.ilr lu I L
one of great importance, is this: Mr. Almonte states 0
that he "had flattered himself with the idea, that on this <
question the good judgment and sound counsels of the
citizens most distinguished and intimately acquainted
with the conduct of the public affairs of this republic
would have prevailed," &c. Sir, does not Mr. Almonte,
by his language, point directly to Mr. Clay as the man ot
good judgment, and to Mr. Clay's letter and the whig i
speeches in support of it, as containing the sound counsels
of the citizens most distinguished, which he had
hoped would have prevailed? 1 may be mistaken, but it
seems to me to be a self-evident conclusion. Wbat effect,
then, did this letter and these speeches have upon
the Mexican mind? What would Mexico say and think
when she witnessed not only politicians but states, in
their sovereign capacity, declaring that annexation would
lead to a dissolution of the Union ? Such resolutions were
passed bv the legislature of Massachusetts. Would
not the Mexicans from these facts naturally conclude
that, in a war with us for the reconquest of Texas, we
would be distracted and divided among ourselves, and
that we could not, therefore, bring the whole powers and
energies of our government to bear in the prosecution of
such a war ? Sir, I doubt not she did so believe ; and,
at the commencement of the war, from the unanimity
which seemed to pervade all parties in recognising the
existence of the war, and voting men and money for its
prosecution, 1 did believe that she had been deluded into
that belief by these acts of the whig party; but, sir, since
the whig party have obtained a majori. , in the Mouse of
llepreseutaaves, wmcn enaoies uicm 10 murai any mean- i
ure that Jias for its object a further prosecution of the t
war to a speedy ami ait honorable termination, and there- |
by to force the government to withdraw our army from I
Mexico, to the dishonor and disgrace of our country, to !
the sacrifice of the claims of our citizens, and also of the i
best interests of the government, by sacrificing her claim i
on Mexico for a reasonable indemnity for the expenses i
of this war?1 am induced, from what 1 daily see and i
hear, to fear that Mexico was not mistaken in her I
conclusion, and that our divisions here, growing out
of annexation, or from some other cause, are so I
gieat and of such a character as to weaken, if not i
entirely to suspend, the further prosecution of the war I
until after another election, when I doubt not the peo- I
pie will send representatives here who will sustain the i
honor and interests of the nation, es|iecially when en- i
gaged in a foreign war, and that war growing out of an i
act which they themselves directed should he done. Thus, i
sir, our diplomatic intercourse ended with Mexico, and i
with it our friendly relations; and all under the l'j ler ad- i
ministration. This was the condition of things whim the
present administration came into power; and how it dis- i
charged its duly by endeavoring to reopen negotiation I
and to preserve peace, remains to be seen. To ac.com- |
piish these objects was the business, and, I think, the
earnest desire of the President; and to accomplish which,
among the first acts of his administration was to ojien
with Mexico a sort of unofficial correspondence through
our consul at her capital. This resulted in an agreement
on the part of Mexico to receive a minister from this gov- i
eminent, for the nuruose of adiustinor and settling, if possi
Me, the boundary between the'two countries, am! all other
dtlterencen between the two govermne.its; and in pursu
.nice of this understanding, and to preserve peace, the minister
was immediately despatched to Mexico with full and
ample (towers to adjust and settle all questions of differ
eiiee between the two Couutries. Was he received ? and
why was be not' He was not received; and 1 will now
give you the reason assigned by the Mexican Minister of
Foreign Affairs for his rejection. 1 shall read, sir, an ex
"Though 'Up undersigned has declared, bv die express ji
order of hi* government, ihui war will bo the inevitable |j
ronsei/aence 0/ the annexation of Texat to the United Statei,
he certainly has not done so with the object of intimidating .
the government of the honorable -Secretary of Slate, bin l'
with a view of showing how far Mexico would carry her ?
resistance to an annexation of that nature." n
Now, Mr. President, is it not a little strange that the ^
whig party here, in and out of this body, should, after '
the issue tendered hy their leader in his letter of the nth "
of April, 1844, and which was by them so ably and eloquently
maintained throughout the canvass of 1M4?be- "
ing, as they were, backed and sustained in their |>osilion l'
and assertions by the letters which 1 have read, and 0
many more equally as strong, which I have not thought "
necessary to read; and when, also, their predictions and M
assertions have turned out precisely as they asserted v
they would?should now abandon all they then said on v
this subject as unworthy of notice, and acknowledge that
the position then assumed by the democracy was the true e
and correct one ? All now agree that annexation was no "
just cause of war. If, then, 1 shall be enabled to prove '
my position, that this is the exclusive cause of the war, 1 v
shall have established the great fact, that the war in tl
which we are now engaged with Mexico is a just war (|
on our part, and, consequently, that the charge which ii
has been and now is so repeatedly made, that the wai j 1
was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally brought on by J k
the Executive, must be admitted to be unfounded, and 1ll
has not the semblance of truth to sustain it. Sir, I will
proceed with the proofs, for they are of such a conclusive
character, that they need no comments to carry conviction
to every impartial mind.
1 now call the attention of the Senate to the letter of J.
N. Almonte to the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr.
Calhoun,] then Secretary of State, dated the 6th of
March, 1845, which is as follows:
"The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary ot the Mexican republic, has the honor to
address the honorable John C. Calhoun, Secretary of State
of the United States of America, with .the object of making
known to him the profound regret with which he has seen
that the general Congress of the Union has passed a law I
giving its consent and admitting into the American con- a
Federacy the province of Texas. p
"The undersigned had flattered himself with the idea, ?
that on this question the gootl judgment and sound counsels f
of the citizens most distinguished and most intimately ac- .
attainted with the conduct (if the jiubtic affairs of this repub- j.
lie tnoultt have nrevailetl ill the deliberations of the [csritlotivc ! *
lact from the letter of Mr. Ian/as to Mr Slidell. dated
he 12th of March, 1S45. Here, sir, speaking of the an lexation
of Texas, he says:
"A fact such as this, or, to speak with ({renter exactness, so
lOtilile an act of usurpation, erca'eii uu imperious neees11y
that Mexico, for her own honor, should repel it with
ro|>er tiruiiiess and dignity. The supreme goverment had.
elorehaud, deuhired mat it would look upon siielt ail act as
rsus btUi; aud, as a consequence of this declaration, neeoation
was, hy its very nature, at an end, and war was thinly
recourse of the Mexican government."
Sir, not one word of complaint is here uttered about the
Binov&l of the artny to the Rio Grande. In point of fact,
he army nail not been removed, and was not for fourteen
at* thereafter. Mexico, therefore, did not, and has not,
I any tune, complained of tins act, or asserted it to lie the
aiise of war On the contrary, before the army was retoved
to the Itio Grande, and when every effort was
eing made to reopen negotiations and to preserve peace,
lie tells our minister, wTin had been sent for that puruse,
thut annexation closed the door to negotiation, and
ar was the only rccouise of the Mexican government,
'his argument, then, of the whig partv in this country?
lat the removal of the army to the Rio (Jrando brought
n this unnecessary and unconstitutional war?is flatly
nd positively denied by the Mexican authorities. This,
ir, is an idea lirst conceived in the United Stn'es, and
ever thought of in Mexico. 1 had hoped that there was
jo much love of country and patriotism among all pares
of our own countrymen to permit any from inventing
ml asserting charges and allegations which had no I'ounation
in lact, for the purpose of placing our own country
i the wrong and our enemy in the right, when engaged
1 a war wiih a foreign nation. But in this it seems 1
ave hven mistaken.
Mr. President, 1 desire to go further, and to refute and put
own, I hope forever, another position assumed in this
ountry equally unfounded: that is, that peace could
ave been preserved by sending a special commissioner to
lexico, with power to settle all questions growing out of
le annexation of Texas, instead of sending, as we did, a
nnister clothed with those powers. In a letter lrom 0111
Mitsui, Mr. Hluck.in Mexico, to the Secretary of State, he
etailsa conversation which he had with Mr. renay Pena,
te Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the subject
f Mr. Slidell's mission to Mexico. This letter is date !
:ie Isth of December, is t.r>, and refers to a conversation
rhich took place on the 29th of November preceding, in
rhich the Mexican minister, after speaking of the urrial
of Mr. Slidell at VeraCruz, said:
"Tliat ought noi to be. The government did not expect an
nvoy from the United Suites until January, us they were
ol prepared to receive hint; and lie desired, if possible,
tat he would outcome t<> the capita!, nor even disembark
t this time ; and that the consul should endeavor to preent
his doing so, as his appearance in the capital at this
mo might prove destructive to the government, an I thus
ofeat the whole allUir. You know the opposition are callsg
us traitors tor entering into this arrangement with you.
[tiles consul] told him that 1 regretted tins had not been
iiim'ti iu time, as the envoy would now be on his way to
ti? capital, and that the Mexican government had set no
line liirhis arrival; to which the minister replied, that lie
now there was no time set. Mr. Fona y IVna proceeded Curlier
to say, that tile government itself was well disposed,
let ready to proceed in the negotiation; but that, if the
Hair whs commenced now, u would endanger its exislnce;
that the government were preparing the thing, col. cting
the opinion and consent of ilie departments, which
hey expected to have finished by January, and then they
vould be able to proceed with more security ; that the gov
rnment were .afraid that this appearance of the envoy at
iiit time would produce a revolution against it, which
night terminate in its destruction."
This, Mr. President, was the true reason why Mr.
ilidell was not received by the Herrera administration,
t was, as Mr. Peiia y Peiia said, because they were
ifraid of a revolution which might terminate in the exmlsion
from power of the then administration. And,
ir, were these fears thus expressed by Mr. Peiia weilounded
? Sir, the revolution did take place, and did reult,
as predicted, in the expulsion from power of the
ferrern administration, on the 30th of December, 1644.
But, sir, this is not all my proof. I have more and
fronger still. I shall read, sir, an extract from the leter
ol Herrera to the Mexican minister of foreign affairs,
echoing an acceptance of the appointment of one of the
ommissioners to treat with the United States. This
etter is dated the iWth of August, 1847, in which he says:
"As a Mexican who desires the welfare of his country, I
ught to state to your excellency that, being at the head of
he government in the year 1845, just pissed, when thegovrninent
of the United States first moved in sending a eomnisrioner
to arrange the differences which, on account ol
lie Texas question, disturbed the harmony which ought to
xi.il between two coterminous republics ; for no other act
liau showing ili.it there would be no obstacle to his preseutng
himself and having bis propositions beard, tny admin
titration was calumniated in die mosi atrocious manner ;
ar this act alone the revolution which displaced me from
io command was set oil loot; and if 1 were now lo lake
uirt in the same ijuestion, it would give occasion for a relewal
of the scenes which then took [dace ; and the best reult
from existing circumstances through negotiations, howver
honorable, would be worse received than it might be
fthey were undertaken by persons win may fiave hud yo
lart in that alfair
To this letter the Mexican minister answered on the
text day, as follows :
Mexico, August 26, 1817.
" Most excki.lknt sir: I have made known to his exoelsncy
the ucttng President you excellency's note ol yestcrlay,
in which y. u doeliuo accepting the trust of com mi stouer
for . the purpose of listening to the propositions for
it'Hcti which the government of the Untied States wishes to
uako through ttieir own commissioner; and, in reply, he
lirccts ine to inform you, as I have the honor to do, that
ho very reasons upon which your excellency relies were
hose which led to your appointment, since they show that
wo distinct administrations, according to their dill'creiit
ircuinstances, have concurred in one essential [joint,
tamely, the propriety of hearing propositions, tho avowed
iljjeet of which is to terminate tho evils of the war. Oonso|tieuily,
his excellency insists upon his desire that your exlellency
should take charge ol tins weighty and delicate
justness, lor wnich purpose he appeals to your well-known
jatriottsin, and to the good disposition which you have
iviuced to serve the republic."
Not one word in all this as to the character of Mr.
slidell, whether he was to appear un ler the name of a
innister or that of a commissioner?his powers and duies
being the same under both titles. No, sir; this preext
did not enter into the objections to his reception by
he Mexican government. So far from it, that fierrera,
lie tnen President, who rejected Mr. Slidell for the reatoiis
given by Mr. Peiia y Pena, now, 111 this note, subitanttally
reaffirms what was '"said by Mr. Pena to Mr.
Hack. Sir, comment 011 these documents is unnecessary
; tliey arc self-evident.
lint, sir. I will now return to the main question; that
?, i./m ?umc.\fiiiuu [iiuuutc me wcii : i nave i cau )uu a
lorlion of the correspondence of the Mexican governnent,
which 1 tliink fully sustains my position. 1 now
iroceed to examine our own correspondence, with a view
o see, if 1 can, what they thought would be the result of
inch a policy. This, sir, becomes the more important, as
he senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] who was
hen Secretary of State, and as such negotiated the
reaty of annexation, has denounced the war as unjust,
indthe preamble in the act, asserting that it was brought
in by the act of Mexico, as being false and untrue;
ind who asserts that the war was brought on by the
ixecutive removing our army to the Kio Grande. What,
lir, did he think would be the effect of annexation? 1
ropose to compare his opinions when Secretary with
lis opinions now, when a Senator. In June, li)4i,ttK>
Senator, as Secretary of State, addressed a letter to our
iiinisler in Mexico; and, in speaking of the treaty of
mnexation, he said, we would, indeed, have been glad,
n doing so, to have acted with the concurrence of Mexco,
if circumstances had permitted?not because lie beieved
that she had any rightful claim of sovereignty to
i c \<m, in niui uic hiutr was 1101 compeicm in iiseu
o transfer the full ami complete right and title to its terriory,
but because, in our desire to preserve the most
Friendly relations with Mexico, we were disposed to treat
tier with resjiect, however unfounded we believed her
:laim to Texas to be. It was in confoimity with that desire
that the instructions were given to make the communication
to the Government ot Mexico, announcing the
signature ol the treaty, and our readiness to adjust all
juestions which might grow out of it between the two
:ountries, ou the most liberal terms.
Why desire the concurrence of Mexico, if war was not
apprehended from the act of annexation And why say
Lo Mexico, that we are willing to settle all questions
trowing out of annexation on the most lilterul terms:
What are the questions growing out of annexation reIcrred
to in this letter' The resolutions of annexation
recognise but one, and that is the question of boundary.
Sir, in my opinion, the Secretary was willing to purchase
from Mexico the claim to the whole of Texas; or, in
other words, he was willing to pay to Mexico a round
sum of money, by way of buying Ins i?eace. This, sir.
is what he mean* by nettling all questions on the most
liberal terms. If 1 am mistaken in this view, he is present,
ami can correct me. Then, sir. I ask, why propose
to purchase a peace, if there was no danger of a war.'
On the ldtli of September, 1844, the honorable senator
wrote another letter to our minister iu Mexico, from
which 1 will now read an extract. He says:
"Nor will our honor, any more than our welfare and safeIV,
permit her to attack Texas whila the question ol an
uexttlion i? pending. if'MexioO ha? thought proper lo uk<
off. nee, it is we, who invreil a renewal ul the proposition,
ami not she, who accepted it, who ought to be hold responsible
; and we, us the responsible party, eannot, wtthon
implicating our honor, permit another to suffer in our place
PntertHimng these views, Mexico would make a trreal mistake
tf she should suppose that the Fiesideut would regno!
with tndrfferencc the renewal ot the war which she l.aprosecuietl
axHiust Texas. Our honor and our interest art
bo'li involved."
Mr. President, thits is a warlike document. It is, air,
that our honor anil our intercut were both involved in de
tending and protecting Texas against Mexico, landing the
question of annexation. This, sir, was, I think, a correct
sentiment?one the people would have sustained
Sir, they would never consent to a sacrifice of their national
honor or of national interest. He then intended to
fight Mexico, if she invaded Texas. This is inv
construction of this letter; and 1 would he pleased
to hear from the distinguished senator from Texas,
who was then the President of that republic,
and to whom a copy of this letter was sent?in order,
as 1 had supposed, to satisfy him that this government
would in good faith defend and protect Texas, pending
the question of annexation, and thereby preserve both
the honor and interest of this nation?whether he did not
view it in the same light. Bui, sir, 1 now fear that this
letter would have been the means not only of sacrificing
our honor and our interest, but it would also have been
the means, if Texas had been invaded, of deceiving her,
and of enabling Mexico to invade her. Texas was then
relying upon us for succor and tlefence; our failure to
comply with her exudations would have misled her,and
she would not have been prepared to meet and expel the
enemy.
Now, sir, I will read you an extract from the letter
written he our Secretarv to (teneral Howard ami run.
taining a copy of the one I have just read, lieneial
Howard was instructed to deliver that copy to the President
of Texas The letter which 1 now read bears date
the 10th of September, 1844, (the same date of the other,)
and in which he says:
" All that lie can do is, to make suitable representations
to tlie Mexican government egtitust the renewal of the war,
pending the question of annexation, and the savage manner
in winch it is proposed to conduct it, accompanied by appropriate
protests arid nid.cations of the feelings with which
he regards both; and to recommend to Conge ss to adopt
measures to repel any uttack which inay he made."
Now, sir, it seems all this show of fight about national
honor and interest turns out to be nothing hut wind?a
war of words, and gasconade. How do these two letters,
written on the same day, comport with the honor and
interest of this government ? But, sir, 1 will proceed.
I will now read an extract from the letter of the Secretary
which announced to the Mexican government that a
treaty for the annexation of Texas had been signed. This
letter is dated the l'Jth of Anril. 1844. in which he savs :
" Seeing this, this government has been compelled, bv
the necessity of the case, and a regard to it- constitutional
obligations, lo take the step it has, as the only certain and
effectual means ol' preventing it; it has taken it in lull
view of all possible consequences, but not without a desire
and a hope that a full and fair disclosure of all the causes
which induced it lo do so would prevent the disturbance of
the harmony subsisting between I he two courinies, which
the United states is anxious lo preserve.
Now, Mr. President, if the senator from South Carolina
apprehended no danger of war from annexation,
what does he mean hy saying he had " taken the step in
full view of all possible consequencesWhat steiir
Annexation. What consequences of that step did lie
have in^ull view.' Sir, it was war, and nothing else.
Then, sir, he believed at that time that annexation would
produce war: time has proved his opinion to have been
correct; and yet he denounces the war. Sir, I do not
envy any laurel he inay win by tbe pursuit of such a
course.
1 have other evidence, Mr. President, which, I think,
is in itself conclusive to every impartial mind. Sir, it is
the letter of the four Mexican commissioners ts Mr.
Trist, when negotiating a treaty of peace, on the Oth day
of September last, in which they say:
" The existing war hue been undertaken solely on account
ol the territory of the State of Texas, respecting which the
North Americun republic presents as its title the act of the
said State Uy which it was annexed to the North American
Confederation, after having proclaimed its independence ol
Mexico. The Mexican republic offering (as we have informed
your excellency) to consent, lor a proper indemnilloation,
to the pretensions of the government of Washington
to the territory of Texas, the cause of the war has dis
I appeared, and the war itielf ought to cea>e."
Now, Mr. President,ciin any impartial mind any-longer
imagine what language could be stronger? I repeat it,
the existing war was commenced solely on account of
Texas. This is a war, then, for Texas. Who commenced
it ? Surely we did not, tor we had possession of Texas.
Then it was commenced by Mexico for the purpose of
reconquering Texas; and in this, as in everything else
that has been written or said by Mexico as to the cause
of this war, we hear not one word of complaint about the
removal of the army to the Kio Grande as having any
agency in bringing on the war, or of hastening hostilities
between the two countries, and therefore it is that I have
insisted that this question owes its origin to, and is advocated
alone by, citizens in this country, and for purposes
best known to themselves; and the same remark holds
good in relation to the other question, that our minister
was rejected simply because he was not a commissioner.
1 have now presented, Mr. President, my documentary
evidence to show that this war is waged by Mexico for
and 011 account of the annexation of Texas to the United
Statps ; and in doing this, 1 have not discussed the boundary
of Texas, because that question is not involved in
this war; and further, because, as Mexico has made no
question about boundary, except for the whole of Texas
to the Sabine, the whig party here are estopped by their
own record, manufactured by themselves for the avowed
purpose of placing themselves right before the country
and before posterity. On this subiect, sir. when the bill
recognising the existence of the war was before the Senate,
then was the lime to inquire into the cause of the
war, ami whether it had been brought on by our army
invading the territory of Mexico, or by the Mexican
army by invading American territory. This question was
then considered, and senators then made up their minds
and took their positions. And to show the position assumed
by the whig senators, I will read from the Congressional
Globe a few remarks made by the senator
from Kentucky, [Mr. Chittenden :]
"Mr. Crittenden exprosre I a desire tlmt the ground taken
upon this subject by tht> minority should tie recorded upon
the journal; and lor this purpose, tie moved to strike out
from tlie lirst section of the bill the words 'to prosecute said
war to a speedy and successful termination,'and iuseit,
'lor tho purpose of repotting the invasion, the President is
hereby,'" Xc.
In favor of this motion, and for the reasons given by
the senator from Kentucky, the entire whig party in the
Senate recorded their votes. What invasion was to be
repelled by this motiqn ? It was to repel the Mexican invaders,
and to drive them from our soil. They had
crossed the Rio Grande, and therefore were, in the opinion
of the whig senators as well as of those of the democrats,
invading our country. How, sir, could this he,
unless the Rio Grande is the boundary ? Sir, 1 hold these
senators to this record ; they made it themselves, and are
therefore estopped from contradicting it. I am aware, Mr
IV..?,,U?I tl,.., >!.? ncinrnkl.. ..f ll.? .1..
discussion when the hill was under the consideration of
the Senate; but, sir, did any senator in that discussion
pretend or assert that that part of the preamble to the act
which asserts that the war was brought on by the act of
Mexico, was not true No, sir; 1 have looked over the tie
bate in vain, and can find no such thing. On the contrary,
alI seemed to agree that if the war existed at all, it
was brought on by the act of Mexico. By what act did
Mexico bring on the war? She crossed the Rio Grande,
and thus invaded our country, and after doing so, commenced
hostilities?shedding American blood on American
soil. Now, sir, to show that 1 am right in this
view, 1 shall call the attention of the Senate to what
was said on this subject at the time. I shall read, sir,
from the Congressional Globe, as follows:
"Mr. Manqhm ha.l made up his mind t > vote for the bill ;
I but lie entered his most ?oU inn protest against the hasty
declaration of the preamble about the existence of the
I war, and tie would n k the Penaio that that protest be en|
tered on the Journal."
I Messrs. J. M. Clayton and Dayton entered similar
I protests.
Thus. Mi ('resident, it is seen that the only objection
to the preamble consisted in the fact that some senators
doubted whether hostilities had commenced, and not
that the act which produced hostilities, or the hostile act
itself, was the act of Mexico.
But, Mr. President, there is still another answer to
this charge, that this war was produced by the removal
of the army to the Rio Grande. If this was an illegal
and an unconstitutional invasion of Mexico, the President
is not alone responsible for it. He, sir, is not a military
man, hut he is a remarkably cautious and prndent one.
and in this instance, as well as in every important step in
the prosecution of this war, he has acted upon the advice
of those who not only had a knowledge of military
science, but who were on the ground, ana hail the hesi
means of obtaining all the necessary information to en
able them to form a correct and sound judgment as U
what ought to be done If, then, he is to be cenaum
_ JM
for this act, after using all the means in hi* power to obtain
correct information, what ought to be done with
those u|kn whose professional skill and ample means of
information he acted Gentlemen ought to remember
that there are those who are equally responsible with the
President. Now, sir, for the purpose of showing that the
President was justified in his course, and that General
Taylor (an authority 1 am sure the senators on the other
side of this chamber will not question) advised the removal
of the army to the Rio Grande, 1 will read an extract
from the despatch of General Taylor, of the 4th day
of October, ls-15, in which he nays:
" For ihese reason*, our posiiion lhu? far has, 1 think,
been the best possible ; but now that tbe entire force will
soon be concentrated, it inay well be a question whether
the views ot the government will he best carried put by our
leinaining at this point. It is with great diffidence that 1
make any suggestion* on topics which may becoma matter
of delicate negotiation ; but il our government- in settling
the question ot boundary, make* the line of the llioGrande
an ultimatum, I cannot doubt that the settlement will be
greatly laminated and hastened by our taking jtoaeeMion at
Our strength uud stale ul preparation should be displayed in
u inariiiur not to he mistaken. However salutary may be
the effect produced upon the border people by our presence
here, we are loo far from the frontier to impress the government
of Mexico with our readiness to vindicate, by torcn of
firms if necessary, our tide to the country as liar as the Rio
Grande. The army of occupation will in a few duys lie
concentrated at this point in condition lor vigorous and
efficient service. Mexico having as yet made no |>osilive
declaration o! war, nor committed any overt aot of hostilities,
I do not leel at liberty, uuder my instructions, paiticularly
those of July the 8th, to make a forward movement
to the Kio Grande without authority from the War Department."
Thus, sir, we see that the President acted upon the advice
and strong recommendation* of General Taylor;
and if the acl was wrong, and he is to be censured for it, a
much greater degree ol blame and censure ought to fall
on the military man possessing all the means of informs
IKMl, WHO UUV1MCU li. mil, on, i nave in/ i/Ciiauiu iu taoi
on ;itiy one. Far from it. 1 think it wan a proper and a
judicious act; one in which all the (Kitties concerned are
justly entitled to praise.' Sir, what would have been the
indignation felt throughout this country if the army had
been retained at Corpus Cliristi, and the Mexican army had
crossed the Rio (irande, and on their march to the interior
of Texas had devastated the country, murdered and
plundered the citizens, burnt their houses, and destroyed
their farms ? \Vould we then have been told by the whig
orators that this was all right? No, sir; they would
have been the loudest and the most bitter in their denunciations
oi the President for not doing what he has done.
But, Mr. President, I have heard other charge* made
against the President for the manner and mode of conducting
this war. Some say he did not call out men enough;
others, that he called out too many; and others find fault
with his plans ot campaign. One word, sir, in answer to
all these objections. 1 he President, 1 admit, is responsible
for all these things. He is to manage and conduct the
war; and I would inquire whether any error of his character
has been committed ? I deny it. Everybody seems
astonished at the success of our armies; we have gained
every battle, and have made astonishing progress, taking
their principal towns and strong places: then, we had
troops enough in the field, and our plans must have been
well laid and well executed. But, sir, it would be very remarkable
if no error had been (as 1 think, in point of fact,
no error was) committed in all this business. If any had
seen committed, who would be to blame tor it ? I have admitted
the President would be responsible; but,
sir, others would be to blame also j for I have no doubt
that the President, prudent and cautious as he is, had the
advice of the commanding general of the aru.y upon
every plan of a campaign, and also of the number of men
necessary to execute such plan with certain success.
This \.e know to have been nis course at the commencement
of the war, and 1 doubt not he has continued it.
But, Mr. President, the senators on the other side of
this chamber inquire, with an air of triumph, why we
do not bring this war to a close ? Why not make X peace ?
For what purpose do we desire further to prosecute it ? 4
Sir, we have thus far prosecuted this W*r with TM|>ar
alleled success; and I doubt not we wottW have had a
peace long since but for our own divisions in delation to
the justice of this war. Mexico knows as well as we do
when our presidential elections take place. She knows
that the leaders of the whig party of this country have
taken open and bold ground against the war?denounced
it as unjust, unnecessary, and unconstitutional?waged by
us for the purpose of conquest, robbery, and plunder.
Can we expect, under these circumstances, a peace until
after the presidential election? If the whigsshould be
successful, Mexico would expect a favorable peace?one
that would surrender to them the country at least to
the Rio Grande, if not to the Nueces; and as the war is
both unconstitutional and unjust, they would expect a v
reasonable indemnity for the expense, suffering, and loss
produced by it; and could the whig party refuse this if
the war is unjust ? They would be justly entitled to it.
Again-, sir, Mexico would tell them, You know you had
no right to annex Texas, and that this illegal and uncon- '
stitutional act produced this bloody and disastrous war,
and therefore you ought to pay us forTexas also. What
answer, consistent with his former position, could a whig
President inake ? None that I can conceive. I am asked
how i would end the war ? My answer is, that 1 would
fight it out. True, sir, we have vanquished the armies of 1
Mexico in every battle that has been fought, and have
taken possession of a large portion of their territory, in- S
eluding the capital, many of her populous cities, and
her strongly-fortified places; yet she is not subdued. She
still |iersists in her refusal to treat for peace, and will continue
to do so until she is whipped into submission. When
that time arrives?when she asks for jieace, and proposes
to make atonement for past wrongs and aggressions, 1
shall be ready to discuss the terms of peace. .
Mr. President, I will now give a statement of a few |
questions growing out of this war, in which the leaders
of the whig party and the Mexicans most heartily concur:
1. The whigs held that to annex Texas was to make
war with Mexico. So said Mexico; but this having
been decided by the people, the whigs now agree with
us, that it was no just cause of war. Shifting their po- |
sition, they now say that the removal of the army to the
Ilio Grande produced the war. .'
2. That the war is unjust and unconstitutional. The
Mexicans assert the same thing.
3 That it is unjust and oppressive to levy contributions
on Mexico. So say the Mexicans.
4. That (o demand an indemnity from Mexico torMp
expenses of the war, is oppressive, and amounts lolK- ;
bery. The Mexicans take the same ground.
5. That this is a war waged and prosecuted for conquest.
So say the Mexicans.
ti. That, as the war is unjust and unconstitutional, and
in the extreme oppressive to Mexico, we ought to withdraw
our army. So says Mexico. I
I have now", Mr. President, given my opinions; and if
1 am in error, I have the consolation that ferr on tile side
of my country.
Wuhlnston University oi Uatllmor*. >A
Mtdiral Drjtar'mtnJ. u
THR minimi session lor 1848-'9 will fntnmence on the 3
Inst Monday in Qclober next, % i,h introductory leo- , j
lures.
The daily lectures therenfler will be delivered in the cl- J
egnnt and commodious building* which have been erected >|
tor the Medical Department on Lombard stree', a few doors }|
east of Hanover street. For n medical school, arranged 5?
fi i?on the most nmnle seal*, fhev eomortse everv reoilisito
lor ilie purposes of instruction.
The very extorsive buildings on Broadway, near B.ilti- jjj
more street, heretofore used by this faculty, will be retained jj
tor hospital purposes and for the delivery ol clinical lec- t|
tures. M
The museum is entirely new, and in the obstetrical de- <;s
partment is not surpassed by any other in the United
Slates. i;
Mtdital Faculty. I
John C. 8. Monritr, M. D., Professor of Theory and
Practice of Medicine.
Edward Foreman, M. D., Professor of Chemistry and
Pharmacy.
William T. Leonard, M. D-, Professor of Anatomy and
Physiology.
William H. Stores, M. D., Professor of Institutes of
Medicine, Medical Jurisprudence, and Mental Diseases,
t teorok McOook, M. D., Professor of Institutes and Prao- j'
tice of Bureery. I;
George C. M. Horerts, M. D., Professor of Obstetrics J
tnd Diseases of Women and Children.
Thomas K. Bond. A. M . M. D., Professor of Therapeutics.
Materia Meilicn, and Hygiene.
Wakkman IIryarly, M D , Demonstrator of Anatomy.
Tickets jf 15 euoh-?Diploma 920?Demonstrator yiO? ,5
Matriculation $5. For circulars, address
If if/ Hirui V TVan. 11
Sfpt- 5?eotlNov.
National ?Tiling bitniTTi F
JUST RECEIVED, direct from the I*land of 8c Thoma*,
|>er brig Ainaioetin, Gape Dorrjr, a lot of tfce (Inert
genuine green nittln ever brought to thU market, which
will be served ijp daily lit soup, and all the varioua mode* t
. of cookery, au.i in thn bett iKndbre style. AI?o, frdm .Vor,
lolk, fresh oyster*, rpired oyster*, sbeepshead. mackerel,
hoyQsh, arc., Ate., all of which will be served up at the
shortett notice
} (kf' Families served a* usua
I Aug. 1??if W. WALKER.
I