{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32192/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32192","id":"gutenberg_32192","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32192","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","United States -- Politics and government -- 1845-1849"],"text":"E-text prepared by Julia Miller, Joseph R. Hauser, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from\npage images generously made available by Internet Archive/American\nLibraries (http://www.archive.org/details/americana)\n\n\n\nNote: Images of the original pages are available through\n      Internet Archive/American Libraries. See\n      http://www.archive.org/details/peacewithmexicob00gallrich\n\n\n\n\n\nPEACE WITH MEXICO.\n\nby\n\nALBERT GALLATIN.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBartlett & Welford:\nNo. 7 Astor House, New York.\n\n\n\n\nI.--THE LAW OF NATIONS.\n\n\nIt seems certain that Mexico must ultimately submit to such terms of\npeace as the United States shall dictate. An heterogeneous population of\nseven millions, with very limited resources and no credit; distracted by\ninternal dissensions, and by the ambition of its chiefs, a prey by turns\nto anarchy and to military usurpers; occupying among the nations of the\ncivilized world, either physically or mentally, whether in political\neducation, social state, or any other respect, but an inferior position;\ncannot contend successfully with an energetic, intelligent, enlightened\nand united nation of twenty millions, possessed of unlimited resources\nand credit, and enjoying all the benefits of a regular, strong, and free\ngovernment. All this was anticipated; but the extraordinary successes of\nthe Americans have exceeded the most sanguine expectations. All the\nadvanced posts of the enemy, New Mexico, California, the line of the\nlower Rio Norte, and all the sea ports, which it was deemed necessary to\noccupy, have been subdued. And a small force, apparently incompetent to\nthe object, has penetrated near three hundred miles into the interior,\nand is now in quiet possession of the far-famed metropolis of the\nMexican dominions. The superior skill and talents of our distinguished\ngenerals, and the unparalleled bravery of our troops, have surmounted\nall obstacles. By whomsoever commanded on either side; however strong\nthe positions and fortifications of the Mexicans, and with a tremendous\nnumerical superiority, there has not been a single engagement, in which\nthey have not been completely defeated. The most remarkable and\nunexpected feature of that warfare is, that volunteers, wholly\nundisciplined in every sense of the word, have vied in devotedness and\nbravery with the regular forces, and have proved themselves, in every\ninstance, superior in the open field to the best regular forces of\nMexico. These forces are now annihilated or dispersed; and the Mexicans\nare reduced to a petty warfare of guerillas which, however annoying,\ncannot be productive of any important results.\n\nIt is true, that these splendid successes have been purchased at a price\nfar exceeding their value. It is true that, neither the glory of these\nmilitary deeds, nor the ultimate utility of our conquests can\ncompensate the lamentable loss of the many thousand valuable lives\nsacrificed in the field, of the still greater number who have met with\nan obscure death, or been disabled by disease and fatigue. It is true\nthat their relatives, their parents, their wives and children find no\nconsolation, for the misery inflicted upon them, in the still greater\nlosses experienced by the Mexicans. But if, disregarding private\ncalamities and all the evils of a general nature, the necessary\nconsequences of this war, we revert solely to the relative position of\nthe two countries, the impotence of the Mexicans and their total\ninability to continue the war, with any appearance of success, are still\nmanifest.\n\nThe question then occurs: What are the terms which the United States\nhave a right to impose on Mexico? All agree that it must be an\n\"honorable peace;\" but the true meaning of this word must in the first\nplace be ascertained.\n\nThe notion, that anything can be truly honorable which is contrary to\njustice, will, as an abstract proposition, be repudiated by every\ncitizen of the United States. Will any one dare to assert, that a peace\ncan be honorable, which does not conform with justice?\n\nThere is no difficulty in discovering the principles by which the\nrelations between civilized and Christian nations should be regulated,\nand the reciprocal duties which they owe to each other. These\nprinciples, these duties have long since been proclaimed; and the true\nlaw of nations is nothing else than the conformity to the sublime\nprecepts of the Gospel morality, precepts equally applicable to the\nrelations between man and man, and to the intercourse between nation and\nnation. \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" \"Love your enemies.\"\n\"As you would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.\"\nThe sanctity of these commands is acknowledged, without a single\nexception, by every denomination of Christians, or of men professing to\nbe such. The sceptical philosopher admits and admires the precept. To\nthis holy rule we should inflexibly adhere when dictating the terms of\npeace. The United States, though they have the power, have no right to\nimpose terms inconsistent with justice. It would be a shameful\ndereliction of principle, on the part of those who were averse to the\nannexation of Texas, to countenance any attempt to claim an acquisition\nof territory, or other advantage, on account of the success of our\narms.\n\nBut in judging the acts of our Government, it must be admitted that\nstatesmen think a conformity to these usages which constitute the law of\nnations, not as it should be, but as it is practically, sufficient to\njustify their conduct. And by that inferior standard, those acts and our\nduties in relation to Mexico will be tested.\n\n\n\n\nII.--INDEMNITIES TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.\n\n\nThe United States had, and continue to have, an indubitable right to\ndemand a full indemnity, for any wrongs inflicted on our citizens by the\nGovernment of Mexico, in violation of treaties or of the acknowledged\nlaw of nations. The negotiations for satisfying those just demands, had\nbeen interrupted by the annexation of Texas. When an attempt was\nsubsequently made to renew them, it was therefore just and proper, that\nboth subjects should be discussed at the same time: and it is now\nabsolutely necessary, that those just claims should be fully provided\nfor, in any treaty of peace that may be concluded, and that the payment\nshould be secured against any possible contingency. I take it for\ngranted that no claims have been, or shall be sustained by our\nGovernment, but such as are founded on treaties or the acknowledged law\nof nations.\n\nWhenever a nation becomes involved in war, the manifestoes, and every\nother public act issued for the purpose of justifying its conduct,\nalways embrace every ground of complaint which can possibly be alleged.\nBut admitting, that the refusal to satisfy the claims for indemnity of\nour citizens might have been a just cause of war, it is most certain,\nthat those claims were not the cause of that in which we are now\ninvolved.\n\nIt may be proper, in the first place, to observe, that the refusal of\ndoing justice, in cases of this kind, or the long delays in providing\nfor them, have not generally produced actual war. Almost always long\nprotracted negotiations have been alone resorted to. This has been\nstrikingly the case with the United States. The claims of Great Britain\nfor British debts, secured by the treaty of 1783, were not settled and\npaid till the year 1803; and it was only subsequent to that year, that\nthe claims of the United States, for depredations committed in 1793,\nwere satisfied. The very plain question of slaves, carried away by the\nBritish forces in 1815, in open violation of the treaty of 1814, was not\nsettled and the indemnity paid till the year 1826. The claims against\nFrance for depredations, committed in the years 1806 to 1813, were not\nsettled and paid for till the year 1834. In all those cases, peace was\npreserved by patience and forbearance.\n\nWith respect to the Mexican indemnities, the subject had been laid more\nthan once before Congress, not without suggestions that strong measures\nshould be resorted to. But Congress, in whom alone is vested the power\nof declaring war, uniformly declined doing it.\n\nA convention was entered into on the 11th of April, 1839, between the\nUnited States and Mexico, by virtue of which a joint commission was\nappointed for the examination and settlement of those claims. The powers\nof the Commissioners terminated, according to the convention, in\nFebruary, 1842. The total amount of the American claims, presented to\nthe commission, amounted to 6,291,605 dollars. Of these, 2,026,140\ndollars were allowed by the commission; a further sum of 928,628 dollars\nwas allowed by the commissioners of the United States, rejected by the\nMexican commissioners, and left undecided by the umpire, and claims\namounting to 3,336,837 dollars had not been examined.\n\nA new convention, dated January 30, 1843, granted to the Mexicans a\nfurther delay for the payment of the claims which had been admitted, by\nvirtue of which the interest due to the claimants was made payable on\nthe 30th April, 1843, and the principal of the awards, and the interest\naccruing thereon, was stipulated to be paid in five years, in twenty\nequal instalments every three months. The claimants received the\ninterest due on the 30th April, 1843, and the three first instalments.\nThe agent of the United States having, under peculiar circumstances,\ngiven a receipt for the instalments due in April and July, 1844, before\nthey had been actually paid by Mexico, the payment has been assumed by\nthe United States and discharged to the claimants.\n\nA third convention was concluded at Mexico on the 20th November, 1843,\nby the Plenipotentiaries of the two Governments, by which provision was\nmade for ascertaining and paying the claims, on which no final decision\nhad been made. In January, 1844, this convention was ratified by the\nSenate of the United States, with two amendments, which were referred\nto the Government of Mexico, but respecting which no answer has ever\nbeen made. On the 12th of April, 1844, a treaty was concluded by the\nPresident with Texas, for the annexation of that republic to the United\nStates. This treaty, though not ratified by the Senate, placed the two\ncountries in a new position, and arrested for a while all negotiations.\nIt was only on the 1st of March, 1845, that Congress passed a joint\nresolution for the annexation.\n\nIt appears most clearly, that the United States are justly entitled to a\nfull indemnity for the injuries done to their citizens; that, before the\nannexation of Texas, there was every prospect of securing that\nindemnity; and that those injuries, even if they had been a just cause\nfor war, were in no shape whatever the cause of that in which we are now\ninvolved.\n\nAre the United States justly entitled to indemnity for any other cause?\nThis question cannot be otherwise solved, than by an inquiry into the\nfacts, and ascertaining by whom, and how, the war was provoked.\n\n\n\n\nIII.--ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.\n\n\nAt the time when the annexation of Texas took place, Texas had been\nrecognized as an independent power, both by the United States and by\nseveral of the principal European powers; but its independence had not\nbeen recognized by Mexico, and the two contending parties continued to\nbe at war. Under those circumstances, there is not the slightest doubt\nthat the annexation of Texas was tantamount to a declaration of war\nagainst Mexico. Nothing can be more clear and undeniable than that,\nwhenever two nations are at war, if a third Power shall enter into a\ntreaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, with either of the\nbelligerents, and if such treaty is not contingent, and is to take\neffect immediately and pending the war, such treaty is a declaration of\nwar against the other party. The causes of the war between the two\nbelligerents do not alter the fact. Supposing that the third party, the\ninterfering Power, should have concluded the treaty of alliance with\nthat belligerent who was clearly engaged in a most just war, the treaty\nwould not be the less a declaration of war against the other\nbelligerent.\n\nIf Great Britain and France were at war, and the United States were to\nenter into such a treaty with either, can there be the slightest doubt\nthat this would be actual war against the other party? that it would be\nconsidered as such, and that it must have been intended for that\npurpose? If at this moment, either France or England were to make such a\ntreaty with Mexico, thereby binding themselves to defend and protect it\nwith all their forces against any other Power whatever, would not the\nUnited States instantaneously view such a treaty as a declaration of\nwar, and act accordingly?\n\nBut the annexation of Texas, by the United States, was even more than a\ntreaty of offensive and defensive alliance. It embraced all the\nconditions and all the duties growing out of the alliance; and it\nimposed them forever. From the moment when Texas had been annexed, the\nUnited States became bound to protect and defend her, so far as her\nlegitimate boundaries extended, against any invasion, or attack, on the\npart of Mexico: and they have uniformly acted accordingly.\n\nThere is no impartial publicist that will not acknowledge the\nindubitable truth of these positions: it appears to me impossible, that\nthey should be seriously denied by a single person.\n\nIt appears that Mexico was at that time disposed to acknowledge the\nindependence of Texas, but on the express condition, that it should not\nbe annexed to the United States; and it has been suggested, that this\nwas done under the influence of some European Powers. Whether this last\nassertion be true or not, is not known to me. But the condition was\nremarkable and offensive.\n\nUnder an apprehension that Texas might be tempted to accept the terms\nproposed, the Government of the United States may have deemed it\nexpedient to defeat the plan, by offering that annexation, which had\nbeen formerly declined, when the Government of Texas was anxious for it.\n\nIt may be admitted that, whether independent or annexed to the United\nStates, Texas must be a slave-holding state, so long as slavery shall\ncontinue to exist in North America. Its whole population, with hardly\nany exception, consisted of citizens of the United States. Both for that\nreason, and on account of its geographical position, it was much more\nnatural, that Texas should be a member of the United States, than of the\nMexican Confederation. Viewed purely as a question of expediency, the\nannexation might be considered as beneficial to both parties. But\nexpediency is not justice. Mexico and Texas had a perfect right to\nadjust their differences and make peace, on any terms they might deem\nproper. The anxiety to prevent this result indicated a previous\ndisposition ultimately to occupy Texas: and when the annexation was\naccomplished; when it was seen, that the United States had appropriated\nto themselves all the advantages resulting from the American settlements\nin Texas, and from their subsequent insurrection; the purity of the\nmotives of our Government became open to suspicion.\n\nSetting aside the justice of the proceeding, it is true that it had been\nanticipated, by those who took an active part in the annexation, that\nthe weakness of Mexico would compel it to yield, or at least induce her\nnot to resort to actual war. This was verified by the fact: and had\nGovernment remained in the hands with whom the plan originated, war\nmight probably have been avoided. But when no longer in power, they\ncould neither regulate the impulse they had given, nor control the\nreckless spirits they had evoked.\n\nMexico, sensible of her weakness, declined war, and only resorted to a\nsuspension of diplomatic intercourse; but a profound sense of the injury\ninflicted by the United States has ever since rankled in their minds. It\nwill be found, through all their diplomatic correspondence, through all\ntheir manifestoes, that the Mexicans, even to this day, perpetually\nrecur to this never-forgotten offensive measure. And, on the other hand,\nthe subsequent administration of our Government seems to have altogether\nforgotten this primary act of injustice, and, in their negotiations, to\nhave acted as if this was only an accomplished fact, and had been a\nmatter of course.\n\n\n\n\nIV.--NEGOTIATIONS AND WAR.\n\n\nIn September, 1845, the President of the United States directed their\nconsul at Mexico to ascertain from the Mexican Government, whether it\nwould receive an _Envoy_ from the United States, intrusted with full\npower to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two\nGovernments.\n\nThe answer of Mr. De la Pena y Pena, Minister of the Foreign Relations\nof Mexico, was, \"That although the Mexican nation was deeply injured by\nthe United States, through the acts committed by them in the department\nof Texas, which belongs to his nation, his Government was disposed to\nreceive the _Commissioner_ of the United States who might come to the\ncapital, with full powers from his Government to settle the present\ndispute in a peaceful, reasonable and honorable manner;\" thus giving a\nnew proof that, even in the midst of its injuries and of its firm\ndecision to exact adequate reparation for them, the Government of Mexico\ndoes not reply with contumely to the measures of reason and peace to\nwhich it was invited by its adversary.\n\nThe Mexican Minister at the same time intimated, that the previous\nrecall of the whole Naval force of the United States, then lying in\nsight of the port of Vera Cruz, was indispensable; and this was\naccordingly done by our Government.\n\nBut it is essential to observe that, whilst Mr. Black had, according to\nhis instructions, inquired, whether the Mexican Government would receive\nan _Envoy_ from the United States, with full power to adjust all the\nquestions in dispute between the two Governments, the Mexican Minister\nhad answered, that his Government was disposed to receive the\n_Commissioner_ of the United States, who might come with full powers to\nsettle the present dispute in a peaceful, reasonable and honorable\nmanner.\n\nMr. Slidell was, in November following, appointed Envoy Extraordinary\nand Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America near the\nGovernment of the Mexican Republic; and he arrived in Mexico on the\nsixth of December.\n\nMr. Herrera, the President of Mexico, was undoubtedly disposed to settle\nthe disputes between the two countries. But taking advantage of the\nirritation of the mass of the people, his political opponents were\nattempting to overset him for having made, as they said, unworthy\nconcessions. The arrival of Mr. Slidell disturbed him extremely; and Mr.\nPena y Pena declared to Mr. Black, that his appearance in the capital at\nthis time might prove destructive to the Government, and thus defeat the\nwhole affair. Under these circumstances General Herrera complained,\nwithout any foundation, that Mr. Slidell had come sooner than had been\nunderstood; he resorted to several frivolous objections against the\ntenor of his powers; and he intimated that the difficulties respecting\nTexas must be adjusted before any other subject of discussion should be\ntaken into consideration.\n\nBut the main question was, whether Mexico should receive Mr. Slidell in\nthe character of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, to\nreside in the republic. It was insisted by the Mexican Government, that\nit had only agreed to receive a commissioner, to treat on the questions\nwhich had arisen from the events in Texas; and that until this was done,\nthe suspended diplomatic intercourse could not be restored, and a\nresiding minister plenipotentiary be admitted.\n\nWhy our Government should have insisted, that the intended negotiation\nshould be carried on by a residing Envoy Extraordinary and Minister\nPlenipotentiary, is altogether unintelligible. The questions at issue\nmight have been discussed and settled as easily, fully and\nsatisfactorily, by commissioners appointed for that special purpose, as\nby residing ministers or envoys. It is well known that whenever\ndiplomatic relations have been superseded by war, treaties of peace are\nalways negotiated by commissioners appointed for that special purpose,\nwho are personally amply protected by the law of nations, but who are\nnever received as resident ministers, till after the peace has restored\nthe ordinary diplomatic intercourse. Thus the treaty of peace of 1783,\nbetween France and England, was negotiated and concluded at Paris by\nBritish commissioners, whom it would have been deemed absurd to admit as\nresident envoys or ministers, before peace had been made.\n\nThe only distinction which can possibly be made between the two cases\nis, that there was not as yet actual war between Mexico and the United\nStates. But the annexation of Texas was no ordinary occurrence. It was a\nmost clear act of unprovoked aggression; a deep and most offensive\ninjury; in fact, a declaration of war, if Mexico had accepted it as\nsuch. In lieu of this, that country had only resorted to a suspension of\nthe ordinary diplomatic relations. It would seem as if our Government\nhad considered this as an act of unparalleled audacity, which Mexico\nmust be compelled to retract, before any negotiations for the\narrangement of existing difficulties could take place; as an insult to\nthe Government and to the nation, which must compel it to assert its\njust rights and _to avenge its injured honor_.\n\nGeneral Herrera was not mistaken in his anticipations. His government\nwas overset in the latter end of the month of December, 1845, and fell\ninto the hands of those who had denounced him for having listened to\novertures of an arrangement of the difficulties between the two nations.\n\nWhen Mexico felt its inability to contend with the United States; and,\ninstead of considering the annexation of Texas to be, as it really was,\ntantamount to a declaration of war, only suspended the ordinary\ndiplomatic relations between the two countries, its Government, if\ndirected by wise counsels, and not impeded by popular irritation, should\nat once, since it had already agreed to recognize the independence of\nTexas, have entered into a negotiation with the United States. At that\ntime there would have been no intrinsic difficulty in making a final\narrangement founded on an unconditional recognition of the independence\nof Texas, within its legitimate boundaries. Popular feeling and the\nambition of contending military leaders, prevented that peaceable\ntermination of those unfortunate dissensions.\n\nYet, when Mexico refused to receive Mr. Slidell as an Envoy\nExtraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, the United States should\nhave remembered, that we had been the aggressors, that we had committed\nan act acknowledged, as well by the practical law of nations, as by\ncommon sense and common justice, to be tantamount to a declaration of\nwar; and they should have waited with patience, till the feelings\nexcited by our own conduct had subsided.\n\nGeneral Taylor had been instructed by the War Department, as early as\nMay 28, 1845, to cause the forces under his command to be put into a\nposition where they might most promptly and efficiently act in defence\nof Texas, in the event that it should become necessary or proper to\nemploy them for that purpose. By subsequent instructions, and after the\npeople of Texas had accepted the proposition of annexation, he was\ndirected to select and occupy a position adapted to repel invasion, as\nnear the boundary line, the Rio Grande, as prudence would dictate; and\nthat, with this view, a part of his forces at least should be west of\nthe river Nueces. It was certainly the duty of the President to protect\nTexas against invasion, from the moment it had been annexed to the\nUnited States; and as that republic was in actual possession of Corpus\nChristi, which was the position selected by General Taylor, there was\nnothing, in the position he had taken, indicative of any danger of\nactual hostilities.\n\nBut our Government seems to have considered the refusal, on the part of\nMexico, to receive Mr. Slidell as a resident Envoy of the United States,\nas necessarily leading to war. The Secretary of State, in his letter to\nMr. Slidell of January 28, 1846, says:--\"Should the Mexican Government\nfinally refuse to receive you, the cup of forbearance will then have\nbeen exhausted. Nothing can remain but to take the redress of the\ninjuries to our citizens, and the insults to our Government, into our\nown hands.\" And again, \"Should the Mexican Government finally refuse to\nreceive you, then demand passports from the proper authority, and return\nto the United States. It will then become the duty of the President to\nsubmit the whole case to Congress, and call upon the nation to assert\nits just rights, and avenge its injured honor.\"\n\nWith the same object in view, the Secretary of War did, by his letter\ndated January 13, 1846, instruct General Taylor \"to advance and occupy,\nwith the troops under his command, positions on or near the east bank of\nthe Rio del Norte.... It is presumed Point Isabel will be considered by\nyou an eligible position. This point, or some one near it, and points\nopposite Matamoras and Mier, and in the vicinity of Laredo, are\nsuggested for your consideration.... Should you attempt to exercise the\nright, which the United States have in common with Mexico, to the free\nnavigation of this river, it is probable that Mexico would interpose\nresistance. You will not attempt to enforce this right without further\ninstructions.... It is not designed, in our present relations with\nMexico, that you should treat her as an enemy; but, should she assume\nthat character by a declaration of war, or any open act of hostility\ntowards us, you will not act merely on the defensive if your relative\nmeans enable you to do otherwise.\"\n\nThe administration was therefore of opinion, that this military\noccupation of the territory in question was not an act of hostility,\ntowards Mexico, or treating her as an enemy. Now, I do aver, without\nfear of contradiction, that whenever a territory claimed by two powers\nis, and has been for a length of time in the possession of one of them,\nif the other should invade and take possession of it by a military\nforce, such an act is an open act of hostility according to the\nacknowledged and practical law of nations. In this case the law of\nnations only recognizes a clear and positive fact.\n\nThe sequel is well known. General Taylor, with his troops, left Corpus\nChristi, March 8th to 11th, 1846, and entered the desert which\nseparates that place from the vicinity of the del Norte. On the 21st he\nwas encamped three miles south of the Arroyo, or Little Colorado, having\nby the route he took marched 135 miles, and being nearly north of\nMatamoras about thirty miles distant. He had on the 19th met a party of\nirregular Mexican cavalry, who informed him that they had peremptory\norders, if he passed the river, to fire upon his troops, and that it\nwould be considered a declaration of war. The river was however crossed\nwithout a single shot having been fired. In a proclamation issued on the\n12th, General Mejia, who commanded the forces of the Department of\nTamaulipas, asserts, that the limits of Texas are certain and\nrecognized, and never had extended beyond the river Nueces, that the\ncabinet of the United States coveted the regions on the left bank of the\nRio Bravo, and that the American army was now advancing to take\npossession of a large part of Tamaulipas. On the 24th March General\nTaylor reached a point on the route from Matamoras to Point Isabel,\neighteen miles from the former, and ten from the latter place, where a\ndeputation sent him a formal Protest of the Prefect of the Northern\nDistrict of the Department of Tamaulipas, declaring, in behalf of the\ncitizens of the district, that they never will consent to separate\nthemselves from the Mexican Republic, and to unite themselves with the\nUnited States. On the 12th of April, the Mexican General, Ampudia,\nrequired General Taylor to break up his camp within twenty-four hours,\nand to retire to the other bank of the Nueces river, and notified him\nthat, if he insisted in remaining upon the soil of the Department of\nTamaulipas, it would clearly result that arms alone must decide the\nquestion; in which case, he declared that the Mexicans would accept the\nwar to which they had been provoked. On the 24th of April, General\nArista arrived in Matamoras, and on the same day, informed General\nTaylor, that he considered hostilities commenced, and would prosecute\nthem. On the same day, a party of sixty-three American dragoons, who had\nbeen sent some distance up the left bank of the river, became engaged\nwith a very large force of the enemy, and after a short affair, in which\nabout sixteen were killed or wounded, were surrounded and compelled to\nsurrender. These facts were laid before Congress by the President in his\nmessage of the 11th of May.\n\n\n\n\nV.--THE CLAIM OF TEXAS TO THE RIO DEL NORTE, AS ITS BOUNDARY, EXAMINED.\n\n\nFrom what precedes it appears, that the Government of the United States\nconsidered the refusal of Mexico to receive a resident Envoy, or\nminister as a sufficient cause for war; and the Rio del Norte as the\nlegitimate boundary of Texas. The first opinion is now of no importance;\nbut the question of boundary, which was the immediate cause of\nhostilities, has to this day been the greatest impediment to the\nrestoration of peace. I feel satisfied, that if this was settled, there\nwould be no insuperable difficulty in arranging other pretensions.\n\nThe United States claim no other portion of the Mexican dominions,\nunless it be by right of conquest. The tract of country between the Rio\nNueces and the del Norte, is the only one, which has been claimed by\nboth parties, as respectively belonging either to Texas or to Mexico. As\nregards every other part of the Mexican possessions, the United States\nnever had claimed any portion of it. The iniquity of acquiring any\nportion of it, otherwise than by fair compact freely consented to by\nMexico, is self-evident. It is, in every respect, most important to\nexamine the grounds on which the claim of the United States to the only\nterritory claimed by both nations is founded. It is the main question at\nissue.\n\nThe Republic of Texas did, by an act of December 1836, declare the Rio\ndel Norte to be its boundary. It will not be seriously contended, that a\nnation has a right, by a law of its own, to determine what is or shall\nbe the boundary between it and another country. The act was nothing more\nthan the expression of the wishes or pretensions of the Government. Its\nonly practical effect was that, emanating from its Congress or\nlegislative body, it made it imperative on the Executive, not to\nconclude any peace with Mexico, unless that boundary was agreed to. As\nregards right, the act of Texas is a perfect nullity. We want the\narguments and documents by which the claim is sustained.\n\nOn a first view the pretension is truly startling. There is no\nexception: the Rio Norte from its source to its mouth is declared to be\nthe rightful boundary of Texas. That river has its source within the\ndepartment, province, or state of New Mexico, which it traverses through\nits whole length from north to south, dividing it into two unequal\nparts. The largest and most populous, including Santa Fe, the capital,\nlies on the left bank of the river, and is therefore embraced within the\nclaim of Texas. Now this province of New Mexico was first visited and\noccupied by the Spaniards under Vasquez Coronado, in the years 1540 to\n1542. It was at that time voluntarily evacuated, subsequently\nre-visited, and some settlements made about the year 1583: finally\nconquered in 1595 by the Spaniards, under the command of Onate. An\ninsurrection of the Indians drove away the Spaniards in the year 1680.\nThey re-entered it the ensuing year, and after a long resistance\nre-conquered it. This was an internal conflict with the Aborigines; but\nas related to foreign powers, the sovereignty of the Spaniards over the\nterritory was never called in question; and it was, in express terms,\nmade the western boundary of Louisiana in the Royal Charter of the\nFrench Government.\n\nThe conquest of the province by Onate, took place five-and-twenty years\nprior to the landing of the Pilgrims in New England, and twelve years\nbefore any permanent settlement had been made in North America, on the\nshores of the Atlantic, by either England, France, Holland, Sweden, or\nany other power, but that in Florida by Spain herself.\n\nI have in vain sought for any document, emanating from the Republic or\nState of Texas, for the purpose of sustaining its claim either to New\nMexico or to the country bordering on the lower portion of the del\nNorte. The only official papers within my reach, in which the claim of\nTexas is sustained, are the President's messages of May 11 and Dec. 3rd,\n1846; and these refer only to the country bordering on the lower part of\nthe del Norte. The portion of the message of May 11th, 1846, relating to\nthat subject, is as follows: \"Meantime Texas, by the final action of our\nCongress, had become an integral part of our Union. The Congress of\nTexas, by its act of December 19, 1836, had declared the Rio del Norte\nto be the boundary of that republic. Its jurisdiction had been extended\nand exercised beyond the Nueces. The country between that river and the\ndel Norte had been represented in the Congress and in the Convention of\nTexas; had thus taken part in the act of annexation itself; and is now\nincluded within one of our congressional districts. Our own Congress\nhad, moreover, with great unanimity, by the act approved December 31,\n1845, recognized the country beyond the Nueces as a part of our\nterritory, by including it within our own revenue system; and a revenue\nofficer, to reside within that district, has been appointed, by and with\nthe advice and consent of the Senate. It became, therefore, of urgent\nnecessity to provide for the defence of that portion of our country.\nAccordingly, on the 13th of January last, instructions were issued to\nthe general in command of these troops to occupy the left bank of the\ndel Norte....\n\nThe movement of the troops to the del Norte was made by the commanding\ngeneral, under positive instructions to abstain from all aggressive acts\ntowards Mexico or Mexican citizens, and to regard the relations between\nthat Republic and the United States as peaceful, unless she should\ndeclare war, or commit acts of hostility indicative of a state of war.\nHe was specially directed to protect private property, and respect\npersonal rights.\"\n\nIn his annual message of December 8, 1846, the President states that\nTexas, as ceded to the United States by France in 1803, has been always\nclaimed as extending west to the Rio Grande; that this fact is\nestablished by declarations of our Government during Mr. Jefferson's and\nMr. Monroe's administrations; and that the Texas which was ceded to\nSpain by the Florida treaty of 1819, embraced all the country now\nclaimed by the State of Texas between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.\n\nHe then repeats the Acts of Texas with reference to their boundaries;\nstating that \"during a period of more than nine years, which intervened\nbetween the adoption of her constitution and her annexation as one of\nthe States of our Union, Texas asserted and exercised many acts of\nsovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants west of\nthe Nueces; such as organizing and defining limits of counties extending\nto the Rio Grande; establishing courts of justice, and extending her\njudicial system over the territory; establishing also a custom-house,\npost-offices, a land-office, &c.\"\n\nThe President designates by the name of _Texas_, the cession of\nLouisiana by France to the United States; and he again calls the\nterritory ceded to Spain by the Florida treaty of 1819, _the Texas_. He\nintimates that the claim of the United States to the territory between\nthe Sabine and the Rio Norte, was derived from the boundaries of Texas,\nand that by claiming as far west as this river, the United States did\nrecognize that it was the boundary of _the Texas_. I really do not\nunderstand what is meant by this assertion.\n\nThe United States claimed the Rio Norte as being the legitimate boundary\nof _Louisiana_, and not of Texas. Neither they nor France had ever been\nin possession of the country beyond the Sabine. Spain had always held\npossession, and had divided the territory into provinces as she pleased.\nOne of these was called Texas, and its boundaries had been designated\nand altered at her will. With these the United States had no concern. If\ntheir claim could be sustained, it must be by proving that Louisiana\nextended of right thus far. This had no connection with the boundaries\nwhich Spain might have assigned to her province of Texas. These might\nhave extended beyond the Rio del Norte, or have been east of the Rio\nNueces. There is not the slightest connection between the legitimate\nboundaries of Louisiana, and those of the Spanish province of Texas. The\npresumed identity is a mere supposition.\n\nIt is not necessary to discuss the soundness of the pretensions to the\nRio Norte, asserted by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe, since they were\nyielded in exchange of Florida and some other objects by the treaty of\n1819; a treaty extremely popular at the time, and the execution of which\nwas pressed with great zeal and perseverance.\n\nWhenever ultimately ceded to Mexico, that republic fixed its boundaries\nas it thought proper. Texas and Cohahuila were declared to form a state;\nand the Rio Nueces was, made the boundary of Texas. When Texas declared\nitself independent, it was the insurrection of only part of a state; for\nCohahuila remained united to Mexico. But the Rio Nueces was the boundary\nbetween the department of Texas and the state of Tamaulipas. The whole\ncontested territory lies within the limits of Tamaulipas, which never\nwas, under the Mexican Government, connected in any shape with Texas.\n\nThe question now under consideration is only that between the United\nStates and Mexico; and in that view of the subject, it is quite\nimmaterial whether the acts of the United States emanated from Congress,\nor from the Executive. No act of either, recognizing the country beyond\nthe Nueces, as a part of the territory of the United States, can be\nalleged against Mexico, as a proof of their right to the country thus\nclaimed. Any such act is only an assertion, a declaration, but not an\nargument sustaining the right. It is, however, proper to observe here,\nthat the port of delivery west of the Nueces, erected by the act of\nCongress \"To establish a collection district in the state of Texas,\" was\nat Corpus Christi, a place which was in the actual possession of that\nstate.\n\nIt must also be premised that, in the joint resolution for the\nannexation of Texas, the question of the boundary between it and Mexico\nwas expressly reserved, as one which should be settled by treaty between\nthe United States and Mexico.\n\nThe only arguments in the President's message, which sustain the right\nof Texas to territory beyond the Nueces, are contained in those\npassages, in which it is asserted, that the jurisdiction of Texas had\nbeen extended and exercised beyond the Nueces: that the country between\nthat river and the del Norte had been represented in the Congress and\nConvention of Texas, had taken part in the annexation itself, and was\nnow included within one of our congressional districts.\n\nBut it is not stated in the President's message, how far beyond the\nNueces, the jurisdiction of Texas had been extended, nor what part of\nthe country between that river and the del Norte had been represented in\nthe Congress and convention of Texas, and was then included within one\nof our congressional districts.\n\nNow the actual jurisdiction beyond the Nueces never extended farther\nthan the adjacent settlement of San Patricio, consisting of about twenty\nfamilies. That small district, though beyond the Nueces, was contiguous\nto, and in the actual possession of Texas. On this account it might be\nrightfully included within the limits, which we were bound to protect\nagainst Mexican invasion.\n\nBut what was the country between this small settlement of San Patricio,\nor between Corpus Christi and the Rio del Norte, over which it might be\nsupposed from the message, that the jurisdiction of Texas had been\nextended; so as to be included within one of our congressional\ndistricts? Here again, Texas had erected that small settlement into a\ncounty called San Patricio, and declared that this county extended to\nthe Rio del Norte. This, like all other declaratory acts of the same\nkind, was only an assertion not affecting the question of right. The\nState of Texas might, with equal propriety, have declared that their\nboundary extended to the Sierra Madre or to the Pacific. The true\nquestion of right to any territory beyond the Mexican limits of the\nDepartment of Texas depends on the facts: By whom was the territory in\nquestion actually inhabited and occupied? and had the inhabitants united\nwith Texas in the insurrection against Mexico?\n\nThe whole country beyond the settlement of San Patricio and Corpus\nChristi, till within a few miles of the del Norte, is a perfect desert,\none hundred and sixty miles wide by the route pursued by General Taylor,\nas stated by himself, and near one hundred and twenty miles in a\nstraight line.\n\nThe only settled part of it is along the left bank of the del Norte, and\nbut a few miles in breadth. This belt was settled, inhabited, and\noccupied exclusively by Mexicans. It included the town of Loredo; and\nMexico had a custom-house at Brazos, north of the mouth of the river.\nTill occupied by the American arms it had ever been, and was at the time\nwhen invaded by General Taylor, a part of the Department of Tamaulipas,\nand subject to the jurisdiction of the Prefect of the Northern District\nof that department.\n\nIn the course of the war between Mexico and Texas, incursions had been\noccasionally made by each party into the territories of the other. A\nMexican officer had, once or twice, obtained temporary occupation of San\nAntonio, within the limits of Texas; and the Texans had on one occasion\ntaken Loredo itself, and more than once had carried their arms, not only\nto the left bank of the del Norte, but even beyond that river. In both\ncases the aggressive parties had been repulsed and expelled. The last\nTexan expedition of that kind took place in December, 1842, and\nterminated in their defeat at Mier.\n\nThat the country, adjacent to the left bank of the river, was\nexclusively in the possession of the Mexicans, was well known to our\nGovernment.\n\nWhen General Taylor marched to the del Norte, he issued an order (No.\n30), translated into the Spanish, ordering all under his command, to\nobserve with the most scrupulous respect the rights of all the\ninhabitants, who might be found in peaceful prosecution of their\nrespective occupations, as well on the left as on the right side of the\nRio Grande. No interference, he adds, will be allowed with the civil\nrights or religious privileges of the inhabitants.\n\nIn June, 1845, General Taylor had been directed to select and occupy, on\nor near the Rio Grande del Norte, such a site as would be best adapted\nto repel invasion and to protect our Western border. But on the 8th of\nJuly following, the Secretary of War (Mr. Marcy) addressed the following\nletter to him.\n\n\"This Department is informed that Mexico has some military\nestablishments on the East side of the Rio Grande, which are, and for\nsome time have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops. In carrying\nout the instructions heretofore received, you will be careful to avoid\nany acts of aggression, unless an actual state of war should exist. The\nMexican forces at the posts in their possession, and which have been so,\nwill not be disturbed as long as the relations of peace between the\nUnited States and Mexico continue.\"\n\nOn the 30th July, 1845, the Secretary again addresses Gen. Taylor as\nfollows: \"You are expected to occupy, protect and defend the territory\nof Texas, to the extent that it has been occupied by the people of\nTexas. The Rio Grande is claimed to be the boundary between the two\ncountries, and up to this boundary you are to extend your protection,\nonly _excepting_ any posts on the Eastern side thereof, which are in the\nactual occupancy of Mexican forces, or _Mexican settlements_, over which\nthe Republic of Texas did not exercise jurisdiction at the period of\nannexation, or shortly before that event. It is expected, in selecting\nthe establishment for your troops, you will approach as near the\nboundary line, the Rio Grande, as prudence will dictate. With this view,\nthe President desires that your position, for a part of your forces at\nleast, should be west of the River Nueces.\"\n\nThe Mexican settlements, thus excepted, are not those over which Texas\ndid not claim jurisdiction, but those on the East bank of the Rio\nGrande, over which Texas did not _exercise_ jurisdiction at the period\nmentioned. The President had no authority to give up the boundary\nclaimed by Texas; but it is clear that at the time, when war was not\ncontemplated, the Administration was of opinion that, till the question\nwas definitively settled, the occupancy by the Mexicans of the territory\nadjacent the left bank of the del Norte ought not to be disturbed.\nNeither the subsequent refusal by Mexico to receive a residing Envoy,\nnor the successes of the American arms have affected the question of\nright. The claim of Texas, whether to New Mexico, or to the lower\nportion of the Rio Norte, was identically the same, as invalid and\ngroundless in one case as in the other. Why a distinction has been made\nby the Executive has not been stated. The fact is that he has\nestablished a temporary government for New Mexico, as a country\nconquered, and without any regard to the claim of Texas; whilst, on the\nother hand, he has permitted that State to extend its jurisdiction over\nthe country lying on the left bank of the del Norte, which, like New\nMexico, had been conquered by the arms of the United States. Not a\nshadow of proof has been adduced to sustain the pretensions of Texas to\nthat district; and justice imperiously requires that it should by the\ntreaty of peace be restored to Mexico.\n\nIt so happens that the boundary, which may be traced in conformity with\nthis principle, is a natural one, and that, as a measure of expediency,\nnone more eligible could have been devised. A desert of one hundred and\ntwenty miles separates the most Southwesterly Texan settlements of\nCorpus Christi and San Patricio, from those of the Mexicans, on the left\nbank of the del Norte, than which no boundary could be devised, better\ncalculated to prevent collisions hereafter between the two nations. It\nwill be sufficient, for that purpose, to draw a nominal line through the\ndesert, leaving all the waters that empty into the Rio Norte to Mexico,\nand all those that empty into the Rio Nueces to Texas, together with\nsuch other provisions, respecting fortifications and military posts, as\nmay be necessary for the preservation of peace.\n\nThe line of the Rio Norte is one, from which Mexico would be perpetually\nthreatened, and from which their adjacent town on the eastern bank may\nbe bombarded. Such an intolerable nuisance would perpetuate most hostile\nfeelings. With such a narrow river as the Rio del Norte, and with a\njoint right of navigation, repeated collisions would be unavoidable.\n\nAmong these, when there was nothing but a fordable river to cross,\nslaves would perpetually escape from Texas: and where would be the\nremedy? Are the United States prepared to impose by a treaty on Mexico,\nwhere slavery is unknown, the obligation to surrender fugitive slaves?\n\nMexico is greatly the weaker power, and requires a boundary, which will\ngive her as much security as is practicable. It is not required, either\nfor the preservation of peace, or for any other legitimate purpose, that\nthe United States should occupy a threatening position. It cannot be\nrationally supposed, that Mexico will ever make an aggressive war\nagainst them; and even in such case, the desert would protect them\nagainst an invasion. If a war should ever again take place between the\ntwo countries, the overwhelming superiority of the Navy of the United\nStates will enable them to carry on their operations wherever they\nplease. They would, within a month, re-occupy the left bank of the Rio\nNorte, and within a short time, effect a landing and carry the war to\nany quarter they pleased.\n\nMust the war be still prosecuted for an object of no intrinsic value, to\nwhich the United States have no legitimate right, which justice requires\nthem to yield, and which even expediency does not require?\n\n\n\n\nVI.--RECAPITULATION.\n\n\nIt is an indisputable fact, that the annexation of Texas, then at war\nwith Mexico, was tantamount to a declaration of war, and that the\ncomparative weakness of Mexico alone prevented its Government from\nconsidering it as such.\n\nUnder these circumstances, it was evidently the duty of the United\nStates to use every means to soothe and conciliate the Mexicans, and to\nwait with patience for an unconditional recognition of the independence\nof Texas, till the feelings excited by our aggression had subsided.\n\nIt has been shown that after Mexico had resorted, as a substitute for\nwar, to the harmless suspension of the ordinary diplomatic intercourse,\nthe attempt to make it retract that measure, before any negotiations for\nthe restoration of harmony between the two countries should be entered\ninto, was neither countenanced by the acknowledged law of nations, nor\nnecessary for any useful purpose, nor consistent with a proper and just\nsense of the relative position in which the aggressive measure of the\nUnited States had placed the two countries. But that the refusal of\nMexico to submit to that additional contumely, should have been\nconsidered as an insult to the United States, betrays the pride of\npower, rather than a just sense of what is due to the true dignity and\nhonor of this nation.\n\nIt has been demonstrated, that the republic of Texas had not a shadow of\nright to the territory adjacent to the left bank of the lower portion of\nthe Rio Norte; that though she claimed, she never had actually exercised\njurisdiction over any portion of it; that the Mexicans were the sole\ninhabitants; and in actual possession of that district; that therefore\nits forcible occupation by the army of the United States was, according\nto the acknowledged law of nations, as well as in fact, an act of open\nhostility and war: that the resistance of the Mexicans to that invasion\nwas legitimate; and that therefore the war was unprovoked by them, and\ncommenced by the United States.\n\nIf any doubt should remain of the correctness of these statements, let\nthem be tested by the divine and undeniable precept, \"Do unto others as\nyou would be done by.\"\n\nIf at this moment France was to contract a treaty of defensive and\noffensive alliance with Mexico, a treaty taking effect immediately, and\npending the war between the United States and Mexico, and binding\nherself to defend it with all her forces against any and every other\nPower, would not the United States at once consider such a treaty as a\ndeclaration of war against them?\n\nIf, in lieu of declaring war against Great Britain, in the year 1812,\nthe United States had only suspended the ordinary diplomatic relations\nbetween the two countries; and Great Britain had declared that she would\nnot enter into any negotiation for the settlement of all the subjects of\ndifference between the two countries, unless the United States should,\nas a preliminary condition, restore those relations; would not this have\nbeen considered as a most insolent demand, and to which the United\nStates never would submit?\n\nIf the United States were, and had been for more than a century, in\npossession of a tract of country, exclusively inhabited and governed by\nthem, disturbed only by the occasional forays of an enemy; would they\nnot consider the forcible military invasion and occupation of such a\ndistrict by a third Power, as open and unprovoked war, commenced against\nthem? And could their resistance to the invasion render them liable to\nthe imputation of having themselves commenced the war?\n\nYet it would seem as if the splendid and almost romantic successes of\nthe American arms had, for a while, made the people of the United States\ndeaf to any other consideration than an enthusiastic and exclusive love\nof military glory; as if, forgetting the origin of the war, and with an\nentire disregard for the dictates of justice, they thought that those\nsuccesses gave the nation a right to dismember Mexico, and to\nappropriate to themselves that which did not belong to them.\n\nBut I do not despair, for I have faith in our institutions and in the\npeople; and I will now ask them whether this was their mission? and\nwhether they were placed by Providence on this continent for the purpose\nof cultivating false glory, and of sinking to the level of those vulgar\nconquerors who have at all times desolated the earth.\n\n\n\n\nVII.--THE MISSION OF THE UNITED STATES.\n\n\nThe people of the United States have been placed by Providence in a\nposition never before enjoyed by any other nation. They are possessed of\na most extensive territory, with a very fertile soil, a variety of\nclimates and productions, and a capacity of sustaining a population\ngreater, in proportion to its extent, than any other territory of the\nsame size on the face of the globe.\n\nBy a concourse of various circumstances, they found themselves, at the\nepoch of their independence, in the full enjoyment of religious, civil,\nand political liberty, entirely free from any hereditary monopoly of\nwealth or power. The people at large were in full and quiet possession\nof all those natural rights, for which the people of other countries\nhave for a long time contended, and still do contend. They were, and you\nstill are the supreme sovereigns, acknowledged as such by all. For the\nproper exercise of these uncontrolled powers and privileges, you are\nresponsible to posterity, to the world at large, and to the Almighty\nBeing who has poured on you such unparalleled blessings.\n\nYour mission is, to improve the state of the world, to be the \"Model\nRepublic,\" to show that men are capable of governing themselves, and\nthat this simple and natural form of government is that also which\nconfers most happiness on all, is productive of the greatest development\nof the intellectual faculties, above all, that which is attended with\nthe highest standard of private and political virtue and morality.\n\nYour forefathers, the founders of the Republic, imbued with a deep\nfeeling of their rights and duties, did not deviate from those\nprinciples. The sound sense, the wisdom, the probity, the respect for\npublic faith, with which the internal concerns of the nation were\nmanaged, made our institutions an object of general admiration. Here,\nfor the first time, was the experiment attempted with any prospect of\nsuccess, and on a large scale, of a Representative Democratic Republic.\nIf it failed, the last hope of the friends of mankind was lost or\nindefinitely postponed; and the eyes of the world were turned towards\nyou. Whenever real, or pretended apprehensions of the imminent danger of\ntrusting the people at large with power, were expressed, the answer ever\nwas, \"Look at America!\"\n\nIn their external relations the United States, before this unfortunate\nwar, had, whilst sustaining their just rights, ever acted in strict\nconformity with the dictates of justice, and displayed the utmost\nmoderation. They never had voluntarily injured any other nation. Every\nacquisition of territory from Foreign Powers was honestly made, the\nresult of Treaties, not imposed, but freely assented to by the other\nparty. The preservation of peace was ever a primary object. The recourse\nto arms was always in self defence. On its expediency there may have\nbeen a difference of opinion; that, in the only two instances of\nconflict with civilized nations which occurred during a period of sixty\nthree years, (1783 to 1846), the just rights of the United States had\nbeen invaded by a long continued series of aggressions, is undeniable.\nIn the first instance, war was not declared; and there were only partial\nhostilities between France and England. The Congress of the United\nStates, the only legitimate organ of the nation for that purpose, did,\nin 1812, declare war against Great Britain. Independent of depredations\non our commerce, she had, for twenty years, carried on an actual war\nagainst the United States. I say, actual war, since there is now but one\nopinion on that subject; a renewal of the impressment of men sailing\nunder the protection of our flag would be tantamount to a declaration of\nwar. The partial opposition to the war of 1812, did not rest on a denial\nof the aggressions of England and of the justice of our cause, but on\nthe fact that, with the exception of impressments, similar infractions\nof our just rights had been committed by France, and on the most\nerroneous belief, that the administration was partial to that country,\nand insincere in their apparent efforts to restore peace.\n\nAt present, all these principles would seem to have been abandoned. The\nmost just, a purely defensive war, and no other is justifiable, is\nnecessarily attended with a train of great and unavoidable evils. What\nshall we say of one, iniquitous in its origin, and provoked by\nourselves, of a war of aggression, which is now publicly avowed to be\none of intended conquest.\n\nIf persisted in, its necessary consequences will be, a permanent\nincrease of our military establishment and of executive patronage: its\ngeneral tendency, to make man hate man, to awaken his worst passions, to\naccustom him to the taste of blood. It has already demoralized no\ninconsiderable portion of the nation.\n\nThe general peace, which has been preserved between the great European\npowers during the last thirty years, may not be ascribed to the purest\nmotives. Be these what they may, this long and unusual repose has been\nmost beneficial to the cause of humanity. Nothing can be more injurious\nto it, more lamentable, more scandalous, than the war between two\nadjacent republics of North America.\n\nYour mission was, to be a model for all other governments and for all\nother less favored nations, to adhere to the most elevated principles of\npolitical morality, to apply all your faculties to the gradual\nimprovement of your own institutions and social state, and, by your\nexample, to exert a moral influence most beneficial to mankind at large.\nInstead of this, an appeal has been made to your worst passions; to\ncupidity, to the thirst of unjust aggrandizement by brutal force; to the\nlove of military fame and of false glory; and it has even been tried to\npervert the noblest feelings of your nature. The attempt is made to make\nyou abandon the lofty position which your fathers occupied, to\nsubstitute for it the political morality and heathen patriotism of the\nheroes and statesmen of antiquity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have said, that it was attempted to pervert even your virtues.\nDevotedness to country, or patriotism, is a most essential virtue, since\nthe national existence of any society depends upon it. Unfortunately,\nour most virtuous dispositions are perverted, not only by our vices and\nselfishness, but also by their own excess. Even the most holy of our\nattributes, the religious feeling, may be perverted from that cause, as\nwas but too lamentably exhibited in the persecutions, even unto death,\nof those who were deemed heretics. It is not, therefore, astonishing,\nthat patriotism, carried to excess, should also be perverted. In the\nentire devotedness to their country, the people, everywhere and at all\ntimes, have been too apt to forget the duties imposed upon them by\njustice towards other nations. It is against this natural propensity\nthat you should be specially on your guard. The blame does not attach to\nthose who, led by their patriotic feelings, though erroneous, flock\naround the national standard. On the contrary, no men are more worthy of\nadmiration, better entitled to the thanks of their country, than those\nwho, after war has once taken place, actuated only by the purest\nmotives, daily and with the utmost self-devotedness, brave death and\nstake their own lives in the conflict against the actual enemy. I must\nconfess, that I do not extend the same charity to those civilians, who\ncoolly and deliberately plunge the country into any unjust or\nunnecessary war.\n\nWe should have but one conscience; and most happy would it be for\nmankind, were statesmen and politicians only as honest, in their\nmanagement of the internal or external national concerns, as they are in\nprivate life. The irreproachable private character of the President, and\nof all the members of his administration, is known and respected. There\nis not one of them who would not spurn with indignation the most remote\nhint that, on similar pretences to those alleged for dismembering\nMexico, he might be capable of an attempt to appropriate to himself his\nneighbor's farm.\n\nIn the total absence of any argument that can justify the war in which\nwe are now involved, resort has been had to a most extraordinary\nassertion. It is said, that the people of the United States have an\nhereditary, superiority of race over the Mexicans, which gives them the\nright to subjugate and keep in bondage the inferior nation. This, it is\nalso alleged, will be the means of enlightening the degraded Mexicans,\nof improving their social state, and of ultimately increasing the\nhappiness of the masses.\n\nIs it compatible with the principle of Democracy, which rejects every\nhereditary claim of individuals, to admit an hereditary superiority of\nraces? You very properly deny, that the son can, independent of his own\nmerit, derive any right or privilege whatever, from the merit or any\nother social superiority of his father. Can you for a moment suppose,\nthat a very doubtful descent from men, who lived one thousand years ago,\nhas transmitted to you a superiority over your fellow-men? But the\nAnglo-Saxons were inferior to the Goths, from whom the Spaniards claim\nto be descended; and they were in no respect superior to the Franks and\nto the Burgundians. It is not to their Anglo-Saxon descent, but to a\nvariety of causes, among which the subsequent mixture of Frenchified\nNormans, Angevins and Gascons must not be forgotten, that the English\nare indebted for their superior institutions. In the progressive\nimprovement of mankind, much more has been due to religious and\npolitical institutions, than to races. Whenever the European nations,\nwhich, from their language, are presumed to belong to the Latin or the\nSclavonian race, shall have conquered institutions similar to those of\nEngland, there will be no trace left of the pretended superiority of one\nof those races above the other. At this time, the claim is but a pretext\nfor covering and justifying unjust usurpation and unbounded ambition.\n\nBut admitting, with respect to Mexico, the superiority of race, this\nconfers no superiority of rights. Among ourselves, the most ignorant,\nthe most inferior, either in physical or mental faculties, is recognized\nas having equal rights, and he has an equal vote with any one, however\nsuperior to him in all those respects. This is founded on the immutable\nprinciple that no one man is born with the right of governing another\nman. He may, indeed, acquire a moral influence over others, and no other\nis legitimate. The same principle will apply to nations. However\nsuperior the Anglo-American race may be to that of Mexico, this gives\nthe Americans no right to infringe upon the rights of the inferior race.\nThe people of the United States may rightfully, and will, if they use\nthe proper means, exercise a most beneficial moral influence over the\nMexicans, and other less enlightened nations of America. Beyond this\nthey have no right to go.\n\nThe allegation that the subjugation of Mexico would be the means of\nenlightening the Mexicans, of improving their social state, and of\nincreasing their happiness, is but the shallow attempt to disguise\nunbounded cupidity and ambition. Truth never was or can be propagated by\nfire, and sword, or by any other than purely moral means. By these, and\nby these alone, the Christian religion was propagated, and enabled, in\nless than three hundred years, to conquer idolatry. During the whole of\nthat period, Christianity was tainted by no other blood than that of its\nmartyrs.\n\nThe duties of the people of the United States towards other nations are\nobvious. Never losing sight of the divine precept, \"Do to others as you\nwould be done by,\" they have only to consult their own conscience. For\nour benevolent Creator has implanted in the hearts of men the moral\nsense of right and wrong, and that sympathy for other men, the\nevidences of which are of daily occurrence.\n\nIt seems unnecessary to add anything respecting that false glory which,\nfrom habit and the general tenor of our early education, we are taught\nto admire. The task has already been repeatedly performed, in a far more\nable and impressive manner, than anything I could say on the subject. It\nis sufficient to say that, at this time, neither the dignity or honor of\nthe nation demand a further sacrifice of invaluable lives, or even of\nmoney. The very reverse is the case. The true honor and dignity of the\nnation are inseparable from justice. Pride and vanity alone demand the\nsacrifice. Though so dearly purchased, the astonishing successes of the\nAmerican arms have at least put it in the power of the United States to\ngrant any terms of peace, without incurring the imputation of being\nactuated by any but the most elevated motives. It would seem that the\nmost proud and vain must be satiated with glory, and that the most\nreckless and bellicose should be sufficiently glutted with human gore.\n\nA more truly glorious termination of the war, a more splendid spectacle,\nan example more highly useful to mankind at large, cannot well be\nconceived, than that of the victorious forces of the United States\nvoluntarily abandoning all their conquests, without requiring anything\nelse than that which was strictly due to our citizens.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.--TERMS OF PEACE.\n\n\nI have said that the unfounded claim of Texas to the territory between\nthe Nueces and the Rio Norte, was the greatest impediment to peace. Of\nthis there can be no doubt. For if, relinquishing the spirit of military\nconquest, nothing shall be required but the indemnities due to our\ncitizens, the United States have only to accept the terms which have\nbeen offered by the Mexican Government. It consents to yield a territory\nfive degrees of latitude, or near 350 miles in breadth, and extending\nfrom New Mexico to the Pacific. Although the greater part of this is\nquite worthless, yet the portion of California lying between the Sierra\nNeveda and the Pacific, and including the port of San Francisco, is\ncertainly worth much more than the amount of indemnities justly due to\nour citizens. It is only in order to satisfy those claims, that an\naccession of territory may become necessary.\n\nIt is not believed that the Executive will favor the wild suggestions of\na subjugation, or annexation of the whole of Mexico, or of any of its\ninterior provinces. And, if I understand the terms offered by Mr. Trist,\nthere was no intention to include within the cessions required, the\nProvince of New Mexico. But the demand of both Old and New California,\nor of a sea-coast of more than thirteen hundred miles in length (lat.\n23 deg. to 42 deg.), is extravagant and unnecessary. The Peninsula is\naltogether worthless, and there is nothing worth contending for South\nof San Diego, or about lat. 32 deg.\n\nIn saying that, if conquest is not the object of the war, and if the\npretended claim of Texas to the Rio del Norte shall be abandoned, there\ncannot be any insuperable obstacle to the restoration of peace, it is by\nno means intended to assert that the terms heretofore proposed by either\nparty are at this time proper. And I apprehend that the different views\nof the subject entertained by those who sincerely desire a speedy and\njust peace, may create some difficulty. There are some important\nconsiderations which may become the subject of subsequent arrangements.\nFor the present, nothing more is strictly required than to adopt the\nprinciple of _status ante bellum_, or, in other words, to evacuate the\nMexican territory, and to provide for the payment of the indemnities due\nto our citizens. The scruples of those who object to any cession\nwhatever of territory, except on terms unacceptable to the Southern\nStates, might be removed by a provision, that would only pledge a\nterritory sufficient for the purpose, and leave it in the possession of\nthe United States until the indemnities had been fully paid.\n\nWas I to listen exclusively to my own feelings and opinions, I would\nsay, that, if the propositions which I have attempted to establish are\ncorrect; if I am not mistaken in my sincere conviction, that the war was\nunprovoked by the Mexicans, and has been one of iniquitous aggression on\nour part; it necessarily follows that, according to the dictates of\njustice, the United States are bound to indemnify them, for having\ninvaded their territory, bombarded their towns, and inflicted all the\nmiseries of war on a people, who were fighting in defence of their own\nhomes. If all this be true, the United States would give but an\ninadequate compensation for the injuries they have inflicted, by\nassuming the payment of the indemnities justly due to their own\ncitizens.\n\nEven if a fair purchase of territory should be convenient to both\nparties, it would be far preferable to postpone it for the present,\namong other reasons, in order that it should not have the appearance of\nbeing imposed on Mexico. There are also some important considerations,\nto which it may not be improper to call at this time the public\nattention.\n\nOur population may at this time be assumed, as amounting to twenty\nmillions. Although the ratio of natural increase has already been\nlessened, from thirty three to about thirty per cent in ten years, the\ndeficiency has been, and will probably continue, for a while, to be\ncompensated by the prodigious increase of immigration from foreign\ncountries. An increase of thirty per cent, would add to our population\nsix millions, within ten, and near fourteen millions in twenty years. At\nthe rate of only twenty five per cent, it will add five millions in ten,\nand more than eleven millions in twenty years. That the fertile\nuncultivated land, within the limits of the States admitted, or\nimmediately admissible in the Union, could sustain three times that\nnumber is indubitable. But the indomitable energy, the locomotive\npropensities, and all the habits of the settlers of new countries are\nsuch, that, not even the united efforts of both Governments can or will\nprevent their occupying within twenty if not within ten years, every\ndistrict, as far as the Pacific, and whether within the limits of the\nUnited States or of Mexico, which shall not have previously been\nactually and _bona fide_ occupied and settled by others. It may be said\nthat this is justifiable by Natural Law; that, for the same reason,\nwhich sets aside the right of discovery, if not followed by actual\noccupation within a reasonable time, the rights of Spain and Mexico have\nbeen forfeited by their neglect, or inability, during a period of three\nhundred years, to colonize a country, which, during the whole of that\nperiod, they held undisputed by any other foreign nation. And it may\nperhaps be observed that, had the Government of the United States waited\nfor the operation of natural and irresistible causes, these alone would\nhave given them, without a war, more than they want at this moment.\n\nHowever plausible all this may appear, it is nevertheless certain, that\nit will be an acquisition of territory for the benefit of the people of\nthe United States, and in violation of solemn treaties. Not only\ncollisions must be avoided, and the renewal of another illicit\nannexation be prevented; but the two countries must coolly consider\ntheir relative position; and whatever portion of territory, not actually\nsettled by the Mexicans, and of no real utility to them, they may be\ndisposed to cede, must be acquired by a treaty freely assented to, and\nfor a reasonable compensation. But this is not the time for the\ndiscussion of a proper final arrangement. We must wait till peace shall\nhave been restored, and angry feelings shall have subsided. At present\nthe only object is Peace, immediate peace, a just peace, and no\nacquisition of territory, but that which may be absolutely necessary for\neffecting the great object in view. The most simple terms, those which\nwill only provide for the adjustment of the Texas boundary and for the\npayment of the indemnities due to our citizens, and, in every other\nrespect, restore things as they stood before the beginning of\nhostilities, appear to me the most eligible. For that purpose I may be\npermitted to wish, that the discussion of the terms should not be\nembarrassed by the introduction of any other matter. There are other\nconsiderations, highly important, and not foreign to the great question\nof an extension of territory, but which may, without any inconvenience\nor commitment, be postponed, and should not be permitted to impede the\nimmediate termination of this lamentable war.\n\nI have gone farther than I intended. It is said that a rallying point is\nwanted by the friends of peace. Let them unite, boldly express their\nopinions, and use their utmost endeavors in promoting an immediate\ntermination of the war. For the people, no other banner is necessary.\nBut their representatives in Congress assembled are alone competent to\nascertain, alone vested with the legitimate power of deciding what\ncourse should be pursued at this momentous crisis, what are the best\nmeans for carrying into effect their own views, whatever these may be.\nWe may wait with hope and confidence the result of their deliberations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have tried, in this essay, to confine myself to the questions at issue\nbetween the United States and Mexico. Whether the Executive has, in any\nrespect, exceeded his legitimate powers; whether he is, for any of his\nacts, liable to animadversion, are questions which do not concern\nMexico.\n\nThere are certainly some doubtful assumptions of power, and some points\non which explanations are necessary. The most important is the reason,\nwhich may have induced the President, when he considered the war as\nnecessary and almost unavoidable, not to communicate to Congress, which\nwas all that time in session, the important steps he had taken, till\nafter hostilities, and indeed actual war had taken place. The\nsubstitution, for war contributions, of an arbitrary and varying tariff,\nappears to me to be of a doubtful nature; and it is hoped, that the\nsubject will attract the early attention of Congress. I am also clearly\nof opinion, that the provisions of the law respecting volunteers, which\nauthorizes them to elect their officers, is a direct violation of the\nconstitution of the United States, which recognizes no other land force\nthan the army and the militia, and which vests in the President and\nSenate the exclusive power of appointing all the officers of the United\nStates, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the\nconstitution itself. (With respect to precedents, refer to the act of\nJuly 6th, 1812, chap. 461, (cxxxviii.) enacted with due deliberation,\nand which repeals, in that respect, the act on same subject of February\n6th, 1812.)\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nPage 10: Changed adequte to adequate\nPage 28: Changed oppropriate to appropriate","title":"Peace with Mexico","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":12810}