,note3 ,images of the original pages are available through ,internet ,archive_/,american ,libraries4 ,see http3_/_/www4archive4org_/details_/peace withmexicob#jj;gallrich ,,peace ,,with ,,mexico4 by ,,albert ,,gallatin4 ,bartlett ,welford3 ,no4 #g ,astor ,house1 ,new ,york4 ,i4--,,the ,,law ,,of ,,nations4 ,it seems certain that ,mexico must ultimately submit to such terms of peace as the ,united ,states shall dictate4 ,an heterogeneous population of seven millions1 with very limited resources and no credit2 distracted by internal dissensions1 and by the ambition of its chiefs1 a prey by turns to anarchy and to military usurpers2 occupying among the nations of the civilized world1 either physically or mentally1 whether in political education1 social state1 or any other respect1 but an inferior position2 cannot contend successfully with an energetic1 intelligent1 enlightened and united nation of twenty millions1 possessed of unlimited resources and credit1 and enjoying all the benefits of a regular1 strong1 and free government4 ,all this was anticipated2 but the extraordinary successes of the ,americans have exceeded the most sanguine expectations4 ,all the advanced posts of the enemy1 ,new ,mexico1 ,california1 the line of the lower ,rio ,norte1 and all the sea ports1 which it was deemed necessary to occupy1 have been subdued4 ,and a small force1 apparently incompetent to the object1 has penetrated near three hundred miles into the interior1 and is now in quiet possession of the far-famed metropolis of the ,mexican dominions4 ,the superior skill and talents of our distinguished generals1 and the unparalleled bravery of our troops1 have surmounted all obstacles4 ,by whomsoever commanded on either side2 however strong the positions and fortifications of the ,mexicans1 and with a tremendous numerical superiority1 there has not been a single engagement1 in which they have not been completely defeated4 ,the most remarkable and unexpected feature of that warfare is1 that volunteers1 wholly undisciplined in every sense of the word1 have vied in devotedness and bravery with the regular forces1 and have proved themselves1 in every instance1 superior in the open field to the best regular forces of ,mexico4 ,these forces are now annihilated or dispersed2 and the ,mexicans are reduced to a petty warfare of guerillas which1 however annoying1 cannot be productive of any important results4 ,it is true1 that these splendid successes have been purchased at a price far exceeding their value4 ,it is true that1 neither the glory of these military deeds1 nor the ultimate utility of our conquests can compensate the lamentable loss of the many thousand valuable lives sacrificed in the field1 of the still greater number who have met with an obscure death1 or been disabled by disease and fatigue4 ,it is true that their relatives1 their parents1 their wives and children find no consolation1 for the misery inflicted upon them1 in the still greater losses experienced by the ,mexicans4 ,but if1 disregarding private calamities and all the evils of a general nature1 the necessary consequences of this war1 we revert solely to the relative position of the two countries1 the impotence of the ,mexicans and their total inability to continue the war1 with any appearance of success1 are still manifest4 ,the question then occurs3 ,what are the terms which the ,united ,states have a right to impose on ,mexico8 ,all agree that it must be an honorable peace2 but the true meaning of this word must in the first place be ascertained4 ,the notion1 that anything can be truly honorable which is contrary to justice1 will1 as an abstract proposition1 be repudiated by every citizen of the ,united ,states4 ,will any one dare to assert1 that a peace can be honorable1 which does not conform with justice8 ,there is no difficulty in discovering the principles by which the relations between civilized and ,christian nations should be regulated1 and the reciprocal duties which they owe to each other4 ,these principles1 these duties have long since been proclaimed2 and the true law of nations is nothing else than the conformity to the sublime precepts of the ,gospel morality1 precepts equally applicable to the relations between man and man1 and to the intercourse between nation and nation4 ,thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself4 ,love your enemies4 ,as you would that men should do to you1 do ye also to them likewise4 ,the sanctity of these commands is acknowledged1 without a single exception1 by every denomination of ,christians1 or of men professing to be such4 ,the sceptical philosopher admits and admires the precept4 ,to this holy rule we should inflexibly adhere when dictating the terms of peace4 ,the ,united ,states1 though they have the power1 have no right to impose terms inconsistent with justice4 ,it would be a shameful dereliction of principle1 on the part of those who were averse to the annexation of ,texas1 to countenance any attempt to claim an acquisition of territory1 or other advantage1 on account of the success of our arms4 ,but in judging the acts of our ,government1 it must be admitted that statesmen think a conformity to these usages which constitute the law of nations1 not as it should be1 but as it is practically1 sufficient to justify their conduct4 ,and by that inferior standard1 those acts and our duties in relation to ,mexico will be tested4 ,,ii4--,,indemnities ,,to ,,citizens ,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states4 ,the ,united ,states had1 and continue to have1 an indubitable right to demand a full indemnity1 for any wrongs inflicted on our citizens by the ,government of ,mexico1 in violation of treaties or of the acknowledged law of nations4 ,the negotiations for satisfying those just demands1 had been interrupted by the annexation of ,texas4 ,when an attempt was subsequently made to renew them1 it was therefore just and proper1 that both subjects should be discussed at the same time3 and it is now absolutely necessary1 that those just claims should be fully provided for1 in any treaty of peace that may be concluded1 and that the payment should be secured against any possible contingency4 ,i take it for granted that no claims have been1 or shall be sustained by our ,government1 but such as are founded on treaties or the acknowledged law of nations4 ,whenever a nation becomes involved in war1 the manifestoes1 and every other public act issued for the purpose of justifying its conduct1 always embrace every ground of complaint which can possibly be alleged4 ,but admitting1 that the refusal to satisfy the claims for indemnity of our citizens might have been a just cause of war1 it is most certain1 that those claims were not the cause of that in which we are now involved4 ,it may be proper1 in the first place1 to observe1 that the refusal of doing justice1 in cases of this kind1 or the long delays in providing for them1 have not generally produced actual war4 ,almost always long protracted negotiations have been alone resorted to4 ,this has been strikingly the case with the ,united ,states4 ,the claims of ,great ,britain for ,british debts1 secured by the treaty of #aghc1 were not settled and paid till the year #ahjc2 and it was only subsequent to that year1 that the claims of the ,united ,states1 for depredations committed in #agic1 were satisfied4 ,the very plain question of slaves1 carried away by the ,british forces in #ahae1 in open violation of the treaty of #ahad1 was not settled and the indemnity paid till the year #ahbf4 ,the claims against ,france for depredations1 committed in the years #ahjf to #ahac1 were not settled and paid for till the year #ahcd4 ,in all those cases1 peace was preserved by patience and forbearance4 ,with respect to the ,mexican indemnities1 the subject had been laid more than once before ,congress1 not without suggestions that strong measures should be resorted to4 ,but ,congress1 in whom alone is vested the power of declaring war1 uniformly declined doing it4 ,a convention was entered into on the #aath of ,april1 #ahci1 between the ,united ,states and ,mexico1 by virtue of which a joint commission was appointed for the examination and settlement of those claims4 ,the powers of the ,commissioners terminated1 according to the convention1 in ,february1 #ahdb4 ,the total amount of the ,american claims1 presented to the commission1 amounted to #f1bia1fje dollars4 ,of these1 #b1jbf1adj dollars were allowed by the commission2 a further sum of #ibh1fbh dollars was allowed by the commissioners of the ,united ,states1 rejected by the ,mexican commissioners1 and left undecided by the umpire1 and claims amounting to #c1ccf1hcg dollars had not been examined4 ,a new convention1 dated ,january #cj1 #ahdc1 granted to the ,mexicans a further delay for the payment of the claims which had been admitted1 by virtue of which the interest due to the claimants was made payable on the #cjth ,april1 #ahdc1 and the principal of the awards1 and the interest accruing thereon1 was stipulated to be paid in five years1 in twenty equal instalments every three months4 ,the claimants received the interest due on the #cjth ,april1 #ahdc1 and the three first instalments4 ,the agent of the ,united ,states having1 under peculiar circumstances1 given a receipt for the instalments due in ,april and ,july1 #ahdd1 before they had been actually paid by ,mexico1 the payment has been assumed by the ,united ,states and discharged to the claimants4 ,a third convention was concluded at ,mexico on the #bjth ,november1 #ahdc1 by the ,plenipotentiaries of the two ,governments1 by which provision was made for ascertaining and paying the claims1 on which no final decision had been made4 ,in ,january1 #ahdd1 this convention was ratified by the ,senate of the ,united ,states1 with two amendments1 which were referred to the ,government of ,mexico1 but respecting which no answer has ever been made4 ,on the #abth of ,april1 #ahdd1 a treaty was concluded by the ,president with ,texas1 for the annexation of that republic to the ,united ,states4 ,this treaty1 though not ratified by the ,senate1 placed the two countries in a new position1 and arrested for a while all negotiations4 ,it was only on the #ast of ,march1 #ahde1 that ,congress passed a joint resolution for the annexation4 ,it appears most clearly1 that the ,united ,states are justly entitled to a full indemnity for the injuries done to their citizens2 that1 before the annexation of ,texas1 there was every prospect of securing that indemnity2 and that those injuries1 even if they had been a just cause for war1 were in no shape whatever the cause of that in which we are now involved4 ,are the ,united ,states justly entitled to indemnity for any other cause8 ,this question cannot be otherwise solved1 than by an inquiry into the facts1 and ascertaining by whom1 and how1 the war was provoked4 ,,iii4--,,annexation ,,of ,,texas4 ,at the time when the annexation of ,texas took place1 ,texas had been recognized as an independent power1 both by the ,united ,states and by several of the principal ,european powers2 but its independence had not been recognized by ,mexico1 and the two contending parties continued to be at war4 ,under those circumstances1 there is not the slightest doubt that the annexation of ,texas was tantamount to a declaration of war against ,mexico4 ,nothing can be more clear and undeniable than that1 whenever two nations are at war1 if a third ,power shall enter into a treaty of alliance1 offensive and defensive1 with either of the belligerents1 and if such treaty is not contingent1 and is to take effect immediately and pending the war1 such treaty is a declaration of war against the other party4 ,the causes of the war between the two belligerents do not alter the fact4 ,supposing that the third party1 the interfering ,power1 should have concluded the treaty of alliance with that belligerent who was clearly engaged in a most just war1 the treaty would not be the less a declaration of war against the other belligerent4 ,if ,great ,britain and ,france were at war1 and the ,united ,states were to enter into such a treaty with either1 can there be the slightest doubt that this would be actual war against the other party8 that it would be considered as such1 and that it must have been intended for that purpose8 ,if at this moment1 either ,france or ,england were to make such a treaty with ,mexico1 thereby binding themselves to defend and protect it with all their forces against any other ,power whatever1 would not the ,united ,states instantaneously view such a treaty as a declaration of war1 and act accordingly8 ,but the annexation of ,texas1 by the ,united ,states1 was even more than a treaty of offensive and defensive alliance4 ,it embraced all the conditions and all the duties growing out of the alliance2 and it imposed them forever4 ,from the moment when ,texas had been annexed1 the ,united ,states became bound to protect and defend her1 so far as her legitimate boundaries extended1 against any invasion1 or attack1 on the part of ,mexico3 and they have uniformly acted accordingly4 ,there is no impartial publicist that will not acknowledge the indubitable truth of these positions3 it appears to me impossible1 that they should be seriously denied by a single person4 ,it appears that ,mexico was at that time disposed to acknowledge the independence of ,texas1 but on the express condition1 that it should not be annexed to the ,united ,states2 and it has been suggested1 that this was done under the influence of some ,european ,powers4 ,whether this last assertion be true or not1 is not known to me4 ,but the condition was remarkable and offensive4 ,under an apprehension that ,texas might be tempted to accept the terms proposed1 the ,government of the ,united ,states may have deemed it expedient to defeat the plan1 by offering that annexation1 which had been formerly declined1 when the ,government of ,texas was anxious for it4 ,it may be admitted that1 whether independent or annexed to the ,united ,states1 ,texas must be a slave-holding state1 so long as slavery shall continue to exist in ,north ,america4 ,its whole population1 with hardly any exception1 consisted of citizens of the ,united ,states4 ,both for that reason1 and on account of its geographical position1 it was much more natural1 that ,texas should be a member of the ,united ,states1 than of the ,mexican ,confederation4 ,viewed purely as a question of expediency1 the annexation might be considered as beneficial to both parties4 ,but expediency is not justice4 ,mexico and ,texas had a perfect right to adjust their differences and make peace1 on any terms they might deem proper4 ,the anxiety to prevent this result indicated a previous disposition ultimately to occupy ,texas3 and when the annexation was accomplished2 when it was seen1 that the ,united ,states had appropriated to themselves all the advantages resulting from the ,american settlements in ,texas1 and from their subsequent insurrection2 the purity of the motives of our ,government became open to suspicion4 ,setting aside the justice of the proceeding1 it is true that it had been anticipated1 by those who took an active part in the annexation1 that the weakness of ,mexico would compel it to yield1 or at least induce her not to resort to actual war4 ,this was verified by the fact3 and had ,government remained in the hands with whom the plan originated1 war might probably have been avoided4 ,but when no longer in power1 they could neither regulate the impulse they had given1 nor control the reckless spirits they had evoked4 ,mexico1 sensible of her weakness1 declined war1 and only resorted to a suspension of diplomatic intercourse2 but a profound sense of the injury inflicted by the ,united ,states has ever since rankled in their minds4 ,it will be found1 through all their diplomatic correspondence1 through all their manifestoes1 that the ,mexicans1 even to this day1 perpetually recur to this never-forgotten offensive measure4 ,and1 on the other hand1 the subsequent administration of our ,government seems to have altogether forgotten this primary act of injustice1 and1 in their negotiations1 to have acted as if this was only an accomplished fact1 and had been a matter of course4 ,,iv4--,,negotiations ,,and ,,war4 ,in ,september1 #ahde1 the ,president of the ,united ,states directed their consul at ,mexico to ascertain from the ,mexican ,government1 whether it would receive an ,envoy from the ,united ,states1 intrusted with full power to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two ,governments4 ,the answer of ,mr4 ,de la ,pena y ,pena1 ,minister of the ,foreign ,relations of ,mexico1 was1 ,that although the ,mexican nation was deeply injured by the ,united ,states1 through the acts committed by them in the department of ,texas1 which belongs to his nation1 his ,government was disposed to receive the ,commissioner of the ,united ,states who might come to the capital1 with full powers from his ,government to settle the present dispute in a peaceful1 reasonable and honorable manner2 thus giving a new proof that1 even in the midst of its injuries and of its firm decision to exact adequate reparation for them1 the ,government of ,mexico does not reply with contumely to the measures of reason and peace to which it was invited by its adversary4 ,the ,mexican ,minister at the same time intimated1 that the previous recall of the whole ,naval force of the ,united ,states1 then lying in sight of the port of ,vera ,cruz1 was indispensable2 and this was accordingly done by our ,government4 ,but it is essential to observe that1 whilst ,mr4 ,black had1 according to his instructions1 inquired1 whether the ,mexican ,government would receive an ,envoy from the ,united ,states1 with full power to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two ,governments1 the ,mexican ,minister had answered1 that his ,government was disposed to receive the ,commissioner of the ,united ,states1 who might come with full powers to settle the present dispute in a peaceful1 reasonable and honorable manner4 ,mr4 ,slidell was1 in ,november following1 appointed ,envoy ,extraordinary and ,minister ,plenipotentiary of the ,united ,states of ,america near the ,government of the ,mexican ,republic2 and he arrived in ,mexico on the sixth of ,december4 ,mr4 ,herrera1 the ,president of ,mexico1 was undoubtedly disposed to settle the disputes between the two countries4 ,but taking advantage of the irritation of the mass of the people1 his political opponents were attempting to overset him for having made1 as they said1 unworthy concessions4 ,the arrival of ,mr4 ,slidell disturbed him extremely2 and ,mr4 ,pena y ,pena declared to ,mr4 ,black1 that his appearance in the capital at this time might prove destructive to the ,government1 and thus defeat the whole affair4 ,under these circumstances ,general ,herrera complained1 without any foundation1 that ,mr4 ,slidell had come sooner than had been understood2 he resorted to several frivolous objections against the tenor of his powers2 and he intimated that the difficulties respecting ,texas must be adjusted before any other subject of discussion should be taken into consideration4 ,but the main question was1 whether ,mexico should receive ,mr4 ,slidell in the character of ,envoy ,extraordinary and ,minister ,plenipotentiary1 to reside in the republic4 ,it was insisted by the ,mexican ,government1 that it had only agreed to receive a commissioner1 to treat on the questions which had arisen from the events in ,texas2 and that until this was done1 the suspended diplomatic intercourse could not be restored1 and a residing minister plenipotentiary be admitted4 ,why our ,government should have insisted1 that the intended negotiation should be carried on by a residing ,envoy ,extraordinary and ,minister ,plenipotentiary1 is altogether unintelligible4 ,the questions at issue might have been discussed and settled as easily1 fully and satisfactorily1 by commissioners appointed for that special purpose1 as by residing ministers or envoys4 ,it is well known that whenever diplomatic relations have been superseded by war1 treaties of peace are always negotiated by commissioners appointed for that special purpose1 who are personally amply protected by the law of nations1 but who are never received as resident ministers1 till after the peace has restored the ordinary diplomatic intercourse4 ,thus the treaty of peace of #aghc1 between ,france and ,england1 was negotiated and concluded at ,paris by ,british commissioners1 whom it would have been deemed absurd to admit as resident envoys or ministers1 before peace had been made4 ,the only distinction which can possibly be made between the two cases is1 that there was not as yet actual war between ,mexico and the ,united ,states4 ,but the annexation of ,texas was no ordinary occurrence4 ,it was a most clear act of unprovoked aggression2 a deep and most offensive injury2 in fact1 a declaration of war1 if ,mexico had accepted it as such4 ,in lieu of this1 that country had only resorted to a suspension of the ordinary diplomatic relations4 ,it would seem as if our ,government had considered this as an act of unparalleled audacity1 which ,mexico must be compelled to retract1 before any negotiations for the arrangement of existing difficulties could take place2 as an insult to the ,government and to the nation1 which must compel it to assert its just rights and to avenge its injured honor4 ,general ,herrera was not mistaken in his anticipations4 ,his government was overset in the latter end of the month of ,december1 #ahde1 and fell into the hands of those who had denounced him for having listened to overtures of an arrangement of the difficulties between the two nations4 ,when ,mexico felt its inability to contend with the ,united ,states2 and1 instead of considering the annexation of ,texas to be1 as it really was1 tantamount to a declaration of war1 only suspended the ordinary diplomatic relations between the two countries1 its ,government1 if directed by wise counsels1 and not impeded by popular irritation1 should at once1 since it had already agreed to recognize the independence of ,texas1 have entered into a negotiation with the ,united ,states4 ,at that time there would have been no intrinsic difficulty in making a final arrangement founded on an unconditional recognition of the independence of ,texas1 within its legitimate boundaries4 ,popular feeling and the ambition of contending military leaders1 prevented that peaceable termination of those unfortunate dissensions4 ,yet1 when ,mexico refused to receive ,mr4 ,slidell as an ,envoy ,extraordinary and ,minister ,plenipotentiary1 the ,united ,states should have remembered1 that we had been the aggressors1 that we had committed an act acknowledged1 as well by the practical law of nations1 as by common sense and common justice1 to be tantamount to a declaration of war2 and they should have waited with patience1 till the feelings excited by our own conduct had subsided4 ,general ,taylor had been instructed by the ,war ,department1 as early as ,may #bh1 #ahde1 to cause the forces under his command to be put into a position where they might most promptly and efficiently act in defence of ,texas1 in the event that it should become necessary or proper to employ them for that purpose4 ,by subsequent instructions1 and after the people of ,texas had accepted the proposition of annexation1 he was directed to select and occupy a position adapted to repel invasion1 as near the boundary line1 the ,rio ,grande1 as prudence would dictate2 and that1 with this view1 a part of his forces at least should be west of the river ,nueces4 ,it was certainly the duty of the ,president to protect ,texas against invasion1 from the moment it had been annexed to the ,united ,states2 and as that republic was in actual possession of ,corpus ,christi1 which was the position selected by ,general ,taylor1 there was nothing1 in the position he had taken1 indicative of any danger of actual hostilities4 ,but our ,government seems to have considered the refusal1 on the part of ,mexico1 to receive ,mr4 ,slidell as a resident ,envoy of the ,united ,states1 as necessarily leading to war4 ,the ,secretary of ,state1 in his letter to ,mr4 ,slidell of ,january #bh1 #ahdf1 says3--,should the ,mexican ,government finally refuse to receive you1 the cup of forbearance will then have been exhausted4 ,nothing can remain but to take the redress of the injuries to our citizens1 and the insults to our ,government1 into our own hands4 ,and again1 ,should the ,mexican ,government finally refuse to receive you1 then demand passports from the proper authority1 and return to the ,united ,states4 ,it will then become the duty of the ,president to submit the whole case to ,congress1 and call upon the nation to assert its just rights1 and avenge its injured honor4 ,with the same object in view1 the ,secretary of ,war did1 by his letter dated ,january #ac1 #ahdf1 instruct ,general ,taylor to advance and occupy1 with the troops under his command1 positions on or near the east bank of the ,rio del ,norte4444 ,it is presumed ,point ,isabel will be considered by you an eligible position4 ,this point1 or some one near it1 and points opposite ,matamoras and ,mier1 and in the vicinity of ,laredo1 are suggested for your consideration4444 ,should you attempt to exercise the right1 which the ,united ,states have in common with ,mexico1 to the free navigation of this river1 it is probable that ,mexico would interpose resistance4 ,you will not attempt to enforce this right without further instructions4444 ,it is not designed1 in our present relations with ,mexico1 that you should treat her as an enemy2 but1 should she assume that character by a declaration of war1 or any open act of hostility towards us1 you will not act merely on the defensive if your relative means enable you to do otherwise4 ,the administration was therefore of opinion1 that this military occupation of the territory in question was not an act of hostility1 towards ,mexico1 or treating her as an enemy4 ,now1 ,i do aver1 without fear of contradiction1 that whenever a territory claimed by two powers is1 and has been for a length of time in the possession of one of them1 if the other should invade and take possession of it by a military force1 such an act is an open act of hostility according to the acknowledged and practical law of nations4 ,in this case the law of nations only recognizes a clear and positive fact4 ,the sequel is well known4 ,general ,taylor1 with his troops1 left ,corpus ,christi1 ,march #hth to #aath1 #ahdf1 and entered the desert which separates that place from the vicinity of the del ,norte4 ,on the #bast he was encamped three miles south of the ,arroyo1 or ,little ,colorado1 having by the route he took marched #ace miles1 and being nearly north of ,matamoras about thirty miles distant4 ,he had on the #aith met a party of irregular ,mexican cavalry1 who informed him that they had peremptory orders1 if he passed the river1 to fire upon his troops1 and that it would be considered a declaration of war4 ,the river was however crossed without a single shot having been fired4 ,in a proclamation issued on the #abth1 ,general ,mejia1 who commanded the forces of the ,department of ,tamaulipas1 asserts1 that the limits of ,texas are certain and recognized1 and never had extended beyond the river ,nueces1 that the cabinet of the ,united ,states coveted the regions on the left bank of the ,rio ,bravo1 and that the ,american army was now advancing to take possession of a large part of ,tamaulipas4 ,on the #bdth ,march ,general ,taylor reached a point on the route from ,matamoras to ,point ,isabel1 eighteen miles from the former1 and ten from the latter place1 where a deputation sent him a formal ,protest of the ,prefect of the ,northern ,district of the ,department of ,tamaulipas1 declaring1 in behalf of the citizens of the district1 that they never will consent to separate themselves from the ,mexican ,republic1 and to unite themselves with the ,united ,states4 ,on the #abth of ,april1 the ,mexican ,general1 ,ampudia1 required ,general ,taylor to break up his camp within twenty-four hours1 and to retire to the other bank of the ,nueces river1 and notified him that1 if he insisted in remaining upon the soil of the ,department of ,tamaulipas1 it would clearly result that arms alone must decide the question2 in which case1 he declared that the ,mexicans would accept the war to which they had been provoked4 ,on the #bdth of ,april1 ,general ,arista arrived in ,matamoras1 and on the same day1 informed ,general ,taylor1 that he considered hostilities commenced1 and would prosecute them4 ,on the same day1 a party of sixty-three ,american dragoons1 who had been sent some distance up the left bank of the river1 became engaged with a very large force of the enemy1 and after a short affair1 in which about sixteen were killed or wounded1 were surrounded and compelled to surrender4 ,these facts were laid before ,congress by the ,president in his message of the #aath of ,may4 ,v4--,,the ,,claim ,,of ,,texas ,,to ,,the ,,rio ,,del ,,norte1 ,,as ,,its ,,boundary1 ,,examined4 ,from what precedes it appears1 that the ,government of the ,united ,states considered the refusal of ,mexico to receive a resident ,envoy1 or minister as a sufficient cause for war2 and the ,rio del ,norte as the legitimate boundary of ,texas4 ,the first opinion is now of no importance2 but the question of boundary1 which was the immediate cause of hostilities1 has to this day been the greatest impediment to the restoration of peace4 ,i feel satisfied1 that if this was settled1 there would be no insuperable difficulty in arranging other pretensions4 ,the ,united ,states claim no other portion of the ,mexican dominions1 unless it be by right of conquest4 ,the tract of country between the ,rio ,nueces and the del ,norte1 is the only one1 which has been claimed by both parties1 as respectively belonging either to ,texas or to ,mexico4 ,as regards every other part of the ,mexican possessions1 the ,united ,states never had claimed any portion of it4 ,the iniquity of acquiring any portion of it1 otherwise than by fair compact freely consented to by ,mexico1 is self-evident4 ,it is1 in every respect1 most important to examine the grounds on which the claim of the ,united ,states to the only territory claimed by both nations is founded4 ,it is the main question at issue4 ,the ,republic of ,texas did1 by an act of ,december #ahcf1 declare the ,rio del ,norte to be its boundary4 ,it will not be seriously contended1 that a nation has a right1 by a law of its own1 to determine what is or shall be the boundary between it and another country4 ,the act was nothing more than the expression of the wishes or pretensions of the ,government4 ,its only practical effect was that1 emanating from its ,congress or legislative body1 it made it imperative on the ,executive1 not to conclude any peace with ,mexico1 unless that boundary was agreed to4 ,as regards right1 the act of ,texas is a perfect nullity4 ,we want the arguments and documents by which the claim is sustained4 ,on a first view the pretension is truly startling4 ,there is no exception3 the ,rio ,norte from its source to its mouth is declared to be the rightful boundary of ,texas4 ,that river has its source within the department1 province1 or state of ,new ,mexico1 which it traverses through its whole length from north to south1 dividing it into two unequal parts4 ,the largest and most populous1 including ,santa ,fe1 the capital1 lies on the left bank of the river1 and is therefore embraced within the claim of ,texas4 ,now this province of ,new ,mexico was first visited and occupied by the ,spaniards under ,vasquez ,coronado1 in the years #aedj to #aedb4 ,it was at that time voluntarily evacuated1 subsequently re-visited1 and some settlements made about the year #aehc3 finally conquered in #aeie by the ,spaniards1 under the command of ,onate4 ,an insurrection of the ,indians drove away the ,spaniards in the year #afhj4 ,they re-entered it the ensuing year1 and after a long resistance re-conquered it4 ,this was an internal conflict with the ,aborigines2 but as related to foreign powers1 the sovereignty of the ,spaniards over the territory was never called in question2 and it was1 in express terms1 made the western boundary of ,louisiana in the ,royal ,charter of the ,french ,government4 ,the conquest of the province by ,onate1 took place five-and-twenty years prior to the landing of the ,pilgrims in ,new ,england1 and twelve years before any permanent settlement had been made in ,north ,america1 on the shores of the ,atlantic1 by either ,england1 ,france1 ,holland1 ,sweden1 or any other power1 but that in ,florida by ,spain herself4 ,i have in vain sought for any document1 emanating from the ,republic or ,state of ,texas1 for the purpose of sustaining its claim either to ,new ,mexico or to the country bordering on the lower portion of the del ,norte4 ,the only official papers within my reach1 in which the claim of ,texas is sustained1 are the ,president's messages of ,may #aa and ,dec4 #crd1 #ahdf2 and these refer only to the country bordering on the lower part of the del ,norte4 ,the portion of the message of ,may #aath1 #ahdf1 relating to that subject1 is as follows3 ,meantime ,texas1 by the final action of our ,congress1 had become an integral part of our ,union4 ,the ,congress of ,texas1 by its act of ,december #ai1 #ahcf1 had declared the ,rio del ,norte to be the boundary of that republic4 ,its jurisdiction had been extended and exercised beyond the ,nueces4 ,the country between that river and the del ,norte had been represented in the ,congress and in the ,convention of ,texas2 had thus taken part in the act of annexation itself2 and is now included within one of our congressional districts4 ,our own ,congress had1 moreover1 with great unanimity1 by the act approved ,december #ca1 #ahde1 recognized the country beyond the ,nueces as a part of our territory1 by including it within our own revenue system2 and a revenue officer1 to reside within that district1 has been appointed1 by and with the advice and consent of the ,senate4 ,it became1 therefore1 of urgent necessity to provide for the defence of that portion of our country4 ,accordingly1 on the #acth of ,january last1 instructions were issued to the general in command of these troops to occupy the left bank of the del ,norte4444 ,the movement of the troops to the del ,norte was made by the commanding general1 under positive instructions to abstain from all aggressive acts towards ,mexico or ,mexican citizens1 and to regard the relations between that ,republic and the ,united ,states as peaceful1 unless she should declare war1 or commit acts of hostility indicative of a state of war4 ,he was specially directed to protect private property1 and respect personal rights4 ,in his annual message of ,december #h1 #ahdf1 the ,president states that ,texas1 as ceded to the ,united ,states by ,france in #ahjc1 has been always claimed as extending west to the ,rio ,grande2 that this fact is established by declarations of our ,government during ,mr4 ,jefferson's and ,mr4 ,monroe's administrations2 and that the ,texas which was ceded to ,spain by the ,florida treaty of #ahai1 embraced all the country now claimed by the ,state of ,texas between the ,nueces and the ,rio ,grande4 ,he then repeats the ,acts of ,texas with reference to their boundaries2 stating that during a period of more than nine years1 which intervened between the adoption of her constitution and her annexation as one of the ,states of our ,union1 ,texas asserted and exercised many acts of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants west of the ,nueces2 such as organizing and defining limits of counties extending to the ,rio ,grande2 establishing courts of justice1 and extending her judicial system over the territory2 establishing also a custom-house1 post-offices1 a land-office1 c4 ,the ,president designates by the name of ,texas1 the cession of ,louisiana by ,france to the ,united ,states2 and he again calls the territory ceded to ,spain by the ,florida treaty of #ahai1 the ,texas4 ,he intimates that the claim of the ,united ,states to the territory between the ,sabine and the ,rio ,norte1 was derived from the boundaries of ,texas1 and that by claiming as far west as this river1 the ,united ,states did recognize that it was the boundary of the ,texas4 ,i really do not understand what is meant by this assertion4 ,the ,united ,states claimed the ,rio ,norte as being the legitimate boundary of ,louisiana1 and not of ,texas4 ,neither they nor ,france had ever been in possession of the country beyond the ,sabine4 ,spain had always held possession1 and had divided the territory into provinces as she pleased4 ,one of these was called ,texas1 and its boundaries had been designated and altered at her will4 ,with these the ,united ,states had no concern4 ,if their claim could be sustained1 it must be by proving that ,louisiana extended of right thus far4 ,this had no connection with the boundaries which ,spain might have assigned to her province of ,texas4 ,these might have extended beyond the ,rio del ,norte1 or have been east of the ,rio ,nueces4 ,there is not the slightest connection between the legitimate boundaries of ,louisiana1 and those of the ,spanish province of ,texas4 ,the presumed identity is a mere supposition4 ,it is not necessary to discuss the soundness of the pretensions to the ,rio ,norte1 asserted by ,mr4 ,jefferson and ,mr4 ,monroe1 since they were yielded in exchange of ,florida and some other objects by the treaty of #ahai2 a treaty extremely popular at the time1 and the execution of which was pressed with great zeal and perseverance4 ,whenever ultimately ceded to ,mexico1 that republic fixed its boundaries as it thought proper4 ,texas and ,cohahuila were declared to form a state2 and the ,rio ,nueces was1 made the boundary of ,texas4 ,when ,texas declared itself independent1 it was the insurrection of only part of a state2 for ,cohahuila remained united to ,mexico4 ,but the ,rio ,nueces was the boundary between the department of ,texas and the state of ,tamaulipas4 ,the whole contested territory lies within the limits of ,tamaulipas1 which never was1 under the ,mexican ,government1 connected in any shape with ,texas4 ,the question now under consideration is only that between the ,united ,states and ,mexico2 and in that view of the subject1 it is quite immaterial whether the acts of the ,united ,states emanated from ,congress1 or from the ,executive4 ,no act of either1 recognizing the country beyond the ,nueces1 as a part of the territory of the ,united ,states1 can be alleged against ,mexico1 as a proof of their right to the country thus claimed4 ,any such act is only an assertion1 a declaration1 but not an argument sustaining the right4 ,it is1 however1 proper to observe here1 that the port of delivery west of the ,nueces1 erected by the act of ,congress ,to establish a collection district in the state of ,texas1 was at ,corpus ,christi1 a place which was in the actual possession of that state4 ,it must also be premised that1 in the joint resolution for the annexation of ,texas1 the question of the boundary between it and ,mexico was expressly reserved1 as one which should be settled by treaty between the ,united ,states and ,mexico4 ,the only arguments in the ,president's message1 which sustain the right of ,texas to territory beyond the ,nueces1 are contained in those passages1 in which it is asserted1 that the jurisdiction of ,texas had been extended and exercised beyond the ,nueces3 that the country between that river and the del ,norte had been represented in the ,congress and ,convention of ,texas1 had taken part in the annexation itself1 and was now included within one of our congressional districts4 ,but it is not stated in the ,president's message1 how far beyond the ,nueces1 the jurisdiction of ,texas had been extended1 nor what part of the country between that river and the del ,norte had been represented in the ,congress and convention of ,texas1 and was then included within one of our congressional districts4 ,now the actual jurisdiction beyond the ,nueces never extended farther than the adjacent settlement of ,san ,patricio1 consisting of about twenty families4 ,that small district1 though beyond the ,nueces1 was contiguous to1 and in the actual possession of ,texas4 ,on this account it might be rightfully included within the limits1 which we were bound to protect against ,mexican invasion4 ,but what was the country between this small settlement of ,san ,patricio1 or between ,corpus ,christi and the ,rio del ,norte1 over which it might be supposed from the message1 that the jurisdiction of ,texas had been extended2 so as to be included within one of our congressional districts8 ,here again1 ,texas had erected that small settlement into a county called ,san ,patricio1 and declared that this county extended to the ,rio del ,norte4 ,this1 like all other declaratory acts of the same kind1 was only an assertion not affecting the question of right4 ,the ,state of ,texas might1 with equal propriety1 have declared that their boundary extended to the ,sierra ,madre or to the ,pacific4 ,the true question of right to any territory beyond the ,mexican limits of the ,department of ,texas depends on the facts3 ,by whom was the territory in question actually inhabited and occupied8 and had the inhabitants united with ,texas in the insurrection against ,mexico8 ,the whole country beyond the settlement of ,san ,patricio and ,corpus ,christi1 till within a few miles of the del ,norte1 is a perfect desert1 one hundred and sixty miles wide by the route pursued by ,general ,taylor1 as stated by himself1 and near one hundred and twenty miles in a straight line4 ,the only settled part of it is along the left bank of the del ,norte1 and but a few miles in breadth4 ,this belt was settled1 inhabited1 and occupied exclusively by ,mexicans4 ,it included the town of ,loredo2 and ,mexico had a custom-house at ,brazos1 north of the mouth of the river4 ,till occupied by the ,american arms it had ever been1 and was at the time when invaded by ,general ,taylor1 a part of the ,department of ,tamaulipas1 and subject to the jurisdiction of the ,prefect of the ,northern ,district of that department4 ,in the course of the war between ,mexico and ,texas1 incursions had been occasionally made by each party into the territories of the other4 ,a ,mexican officer had1 once or twice1 obtained temporary occupation of ,san ,antonio1 within the limits of ,texas2 and the ,texans had on one occasion taken ,loredo itself1 and more than once had carried their arms1 not only to the left bank of the del ,norte1 but even beyond that river4 ,in both cases the aggressive parties had been repulsed and expelled4 ,the last ,texan expedition of that kind took place in ,december1 #ahdb1 and terminated in their defeat at ,mier4 ,that the country1 adjacent to the left bank of the river1 was exclusively in the possession of the ,mexicans1 was well known to our ,government4 ,when ,general ,taylor marched to the del ,norte1 he issued an order 7,no4 #cj71 translated into the ,spanish1 ordering all under his command1 to observe with the most scrupulous respect the rights of all the inhabitants1 who might be found in peaceful prosecution of their respective occupations1 as well on the left as on the right side of the ,rio ,grande4 ,no interference1 he adds1 will be allowed with the civil rights or religious privileges of the inhabitants4 ,in ,june1 #ahde1 ,general ,taylor had been directed to select and occupy1 on or near the ,rio ,grande del ,norte1 such a site as would be best adapted to repel invasion and to protect our ,western border4 ,but on the #hth of ,july following1 the ,secretary of ,war 7,mr4 ,marcy7 addressed the following letter to him4 ,this ,department is informed that ,mexico has some military establishments on the ,east side of the ,rio ,grande1 which are1 and for some time have been1 in the actual occupancy of her troops4 ,in carrying out the instructions heretofore received1 you will be careful to avoid any acts of aggression1 unless an actual state of war should exist4 ,the ,mexican forces at the posts in their possession1 and which have been so1 will not be disturbed as long as the relations of peace between the ,united ,states and ,mexico continue4 ,on the #cjth ,july1 #ahde1 the ,secretary again addresses ,gen4 ,taylor as follows3 ,you are expected to occupy1 protect and defend the territory of ,texas1 to the extent that it has been occupied by the people of ,texas4 ,the ,rio ,grande is claimed to be the boundary between the two countries1 and up to this boundary you are to extend your protection1 only excepting any posts on the ,eastern side thereof1 which are in the actual occupancy of ,mexican forces1 or ,mexican settlements1 over which the ,republic of ,texas did not exercise jurisdiction at the period of annexation1 or shortly before that event4 ,it is expected1 in selecting the establishment for your troops1 you will approach as near the boundary line1 the ,rio ,grande1 as prudence will dictate4 ,with this view1 the ,president desires that your position1 for a part of your forces at least1 should be west of the ,river ,nueces4 ,the ,mexican settlements1 thus excepted1 are not those over which ,texas did not claim jurisdiction1 but those on the ,east bank of the ,rio ,grande1 over which ,texas did not exercise jurisdiction at the period mentioned4 ,the ,president had no authority to give up the boundary claimed by ,texas2 but it is clear that at the time1 when war was not contemplated1 the ,administration was of opinion that1 till the question was definitively settled1 the occupancy by the ,mexicans of the territory adjacent the left bank of the del ,norte ought not to be disturbed4 ,neither the subsequent refusal by ,mexico to receive a residing ,envoy1 nor the successes of the ,american arms have affected the question of right4 ,the claim of ,texas1 whether to ,new ,mexico1 or to the lower portion of the ,rio ,norte1 was identically the same1 as invalid and groundless in one case as in the other4 ,why a distinction has been made by the ,executive has not been stated4 ,the fact is that he has established a temporary government for ,new ,mexico1 as a country conquered1 and without any regard to the claim of ,texas2 whilst1 on the other hand1 he has permitted that ,state to extend its jurisdiction over the country lying on the left bank of the del ,norte1 which1 like ,new ,mexico1 had been conquered by the arms of the ,united ,states4 ,not a shadow of proof has been adduced to sustain the pretensions of ,texas to that district2 and justice imperiously requires that it should by the treaty of peace be restored to ,mexico4 ,it so happens that the boundary1 which may be traced in conformity with this principle1 is a natural one1 and that1 as a measure of expediency1 none more eligible could have been devised4 ,a desert of one hundred and twenty miles separates the most ,southwesterly ,texan settlements of ,corpus ,christi and ,san ,patricio1 from those of the ,mexicans1 on the left bank of the del ,norte1 than which no boundary could be devised1 better calculated to prevent collisions hereafter between the two nations4 ,it will be sufficient1 for that purpose1 to draw a nominal line through the desert1 leaving all the waters that empty into the ,rio ,norte to ,mexico1 and all those that empty into the ,rio ,nueces to ,texas1 together with such other provisions1 respecting fortifications and military posts1 as may be necessary for the preservation of peace4 ,the line of the ,rio ,norte is one1 from which ,mexico would be perpetually threatened1 and from which their adjacent town on the eastern bank may be bombarded4 ,such an intolerable nuisance would perpetuate most hostile feelings4 ,with such a narrow river as the ,rio del ,norte1 and with a joint right of navigation1 repeated collisions would be unavoidable4 ,among these1 when there was nothing but a fordable river to cross1 slaves would perpetually escape from ,texas3 and where would be the remedy8 ,are the ,united ,states prepared to impose by a treaty on ,mexico1 where slavery is unknown1 the obligation to surrender fugitive slaves8 ,mexico is greatly the weaker power1 and requires a boundary1 which will give her as much security as is practicable4 ,it is not required1 either for the preservation of peace1 or for any other legitimate purpose1 that the ,united ,states should occupy a threatening position4 ,it cannot be rationally supposed1 that ,mexico will ever make an aggressive war against them2 and even in such case1 the desert would protect them against an invasion4 ,if a war should ever again take place between the two countries1 the overwhelming superiority of the ,navy of the ,united ,states will enable them to carry on their operations wherever they please4 ,they would1 within a month1 re-occupy the left bank of the ,rio ,norte1 and within a short time1 effect a landing and carry the war to any quarter they pleased4 ,must the war be still prosecuted for an object of no intrinsic value1 to which the ,united ,states have no legitimate right1 which justice requires them to yield1 and which even expediency does not require8 ,,vi4--,,recapitulation4 ,it is an indisputable fact1 that the annexation of ,texas1 then at war with ,mexico1 was tantamount to a declaration of war1 and that the comparative weakness of ,mexico alone prevented its ,government from considering it as such4 ,under these circumstances1 it was evidently the duty of the ,united ,states to use every means to soothe and conciliate the ,mexicans1 and to wait with patience for an unconditional recognition of the independence of ,texas1 till the feelings excited by our aggression had subsided4 ,it has been shown that after ,mexico had resorted1 as a substitute for war1 to the harmless suspension of the ordinary diplomatic intercourse1 the attempt to make it retract that measure1 before any negotiations for the restoration of harmony between the two countries should be entered into1 was neither countenanced by the acknowledged law of nations1 nor necessary for any useful purpose1 nor consistent with a proper and just sense of the relative position in which the aggressive measure of the ,united ,states had placed the two countries4 ,but that the refusal of ,mexico to submit to that additional contumely1 should have been considered as an insult to the ,united ,states1 betrays the pride of power1 rather than a just sense of what is due to the true dignity and honor of this nation4 ,it has been demonstrated1 that the republic of ,texas had not a shadow of right to the territory adjacent to the left bank of the lower portion of the ,rio ,norte2 that though she claimed1 she never had actually exercised jurisdiction over any portion of it2 that the ,mexicans were the sole inhabitants2 and in actual possession of that district2 that therefore its forcible occupation by the army of the ,united ,states was1 according to the acknowledged law of nations1 as well as in fact1 an act of open hostility and war3 that the resistance of the ,mexicans to that invasion was legitimate2 and that therefore the war was unprovoked by them1 and commenced by the ,united ,states4 ,if any doubt should remain of the correctness of these statements1 let them be tested by the divine and undeniable precept1 ,do unto others as you would be done by4 ,if at this moment ,france was to contract a treaty of defensive and offensive alliance with ,mexico1 a treaty taking effect immediately1 and pending the war between the ,united ,states and ,mexico1 and binding herself to defend it with all her forces against any and every other ,power1 would not the ,united ,states at once consider such a treaty as a declaration of war against them8 ,if1 in lieu of declaring war against ,great ,britain1 in the year #ahab1 the ,united ,states had only suspended the ordinary diplomatic relations between the two countries2 and ,great ,britain had declared that she would not enter into any negotiation for the settlement of all the subjects of difference between the two countries1 unless the ,united ,states should1 as a preliminary condition1 restore those relations2 would not this have been considered as a most insolent demand1 and to which the ,united ,states never would submit8 ,if the ,united ,states were1 and had been for more than a century1 in possession of a tract of country1 exclusively inhabited and governed by them1 disturbed only by the occasional forays of an enemy2 would they not consider the forcible military invasion and occupation of such a district by a third ,power1 as open and unprovoked war1 commenced against them8 ,and could their resistance to the invasion render them liable to the imputation of having themselves commenced the war8 ,yet it would seem as if the splendid and almost romantic successes of the ,american arms had1 for a while1 made the people of the ,united ,states deaf to any other consideration than an enthusiastic and exclusive love of military glory2 as if1 forgetting the origin of the war1 and with an entire disregard for the dictates of justice1 they thought that those successes gave the nation a right to dismember ,mexico1 and to appropriate to themselves that which did not belong to them4 ,but ,i do not despair1 for ,i have faith in our institutions and in the people2 and ,i will now ask them whether this was their mission8 and whether they were placed by ,providence on this continent for the purpose of cultivating false glory1 and of sinking to the level of those vulgar conquerors who have at all times desolated the earth4 ,,vii4--,,the ,,mission ,,of ,,the ,,united ,,states4 ,the people of the ,united ,states have been placed by ,providence in a position never before enjoyed by any other nation4 ,they are possessed of a most extensive territory1 with a very fertile soil1 a variety of climates and productions1 and a capacity of sustaining a population greater1 in proportion to its extent1 than any other territory of the same size on the face of the globe4 ,by a concourse of various circumstances1 they found themselves1 at the epoch of their independence1 in the full enjoyment of religious1 civil1 and political liberty1 entirely free from any hereditary monopoly of wealth or power4 ,the people at large were in full and quiet possession of all those natural rights1 for which the people of other countries have for a long time contended1 and still do contend4 ,they were1 and you still are the supreme sovereigns1 acknowledged as such by all4 ,for the proper exercise of these uncontrolled powers and privileges1 you are responsible to posterity1 to the world at large1 and to the ,almighty ,being who has poured on you such unparalleled blessings4 ,your mission is1 to improve the state of the world1 to be the ,model ,republic1 to show that men are capable of governing themselves1 and that this simple and natural form of government is that also which confers most happiness on all1 is productive of the greatest development of the intellectual faculties1 above all1 that which is attended with the highest standard of private and political virtue and morality4 ,your forefathers1 the founders of the ,republic1 imbued with a deep feeling of their rights and duties1 did not deviate from those principles4 ,the sound sense1 the wisdom1 the probity1 the respect for public faith1 with which the internal concerns of the nation were managed1 made our institutions an object of general admiration4 ,here1 for the first time1 was the experiment attempted with any prospect of success1 and on a large scale1 of a ,representative ,democratic ,republic4 ,if it failed1 the last hope of the friends of mankind was lost or indefinitely postponed2 and the eyes of the world were turned towards you4 ,whenever real1 or pretended apprehensions of the imminent danger of trusting the people at large with power1 were expressed1 the answer ever was1 ,look at ,america6 ,in their external relations the ,united ,states1 before this unfortunate war1 had1 whilst sustaining their just rights1 ever acted in strict conformity with the dictates of justice1 and displayed the utmost moderation4 ,they never had voluntarily injured any other nation4 ,every acquisition of territory from ,foreign ,powers was honestly made1 the result of ,treaties1 not imposed1 but freely assented to by the other party4 ,the preservation of peace was ever a primary object4 ,the recourse to arms was always in self defence4 ,on its expediency there may have been a difference of opinion2 that1 in the only two instances of conflict with civilized nations which occurred during a period of sixty three years1 7#aghc to #ahdf71 the just rights of the ,united ,states had been invaded by a long continued series of aggressions1 is undeniable4 ,in the first instance1 war was not declared2 and there were only partial hostilities between ,france and ,england4 ,the ,congress of the ,united ,states1 the only legitimate organ of the nation for that purpose1 did1 in #ahab1 declare war against ,great ,britain4 ,independent of depredations on our commerce1 she had1 for twenty years1 carried on an actual war against the ,united ,states4 ,i say1 actual war1 since there is now but one opinion on that subject2 a renewal of the impressment of men sailing under the protection of our flag would be tantamount to a declaration of war4 ,the partial opposition to the war of #ahab1 did not rest on a denial of the aggressions of ,england and of the justice of our cause1 but on the fact that1 with the exception of impressments1 similar infractions of our just rights had been committed by ,france1 and on the most erroneous belief1 that the administration was partial to that country1 and insincere in their apparent efforts to restore peace4 ,at present1 all these principles would seem to have been abandoned4 ,the most just1 a purely defensive war1 and no other is justifiable1 is necessarily attended with a train of great and unavoidable evils4 ,what shall we say of one1 iniquitous in its origin1 and provoked by ourselves1 of a war of aggression1 which is now publicly avowed to be one of intended conquest4 ,if persisted in1 its necessary consequences will be1 a permanent increase of our military establishment and of executive patronage3 its general tendency1 to make man hate man1 to awaken his worst passions1 to accustom him to the taste of blood4 ,it has already demoralized no inconsiderable portion of the nation4 ,the general peace1 which has been preserved between the great ,european powers during the last thirty years1 may not be ascribed to the purest motives4 ,be these what they may1 this long and unusual repose has been most beneficial to the cause of humanity4 ,nothing can be more injurious to it1 more lamentable1 more scandalous1 than the war between two adjacent republics of ,north ,america4 ,your mission was1 to be a model for all other governments and for all other less favored nations1 to adhere to the most elevated principles of political morality1 to apply all your faculties to the gradual improvement of your own institutions and social state1 and1 by your example1 to exert a moral influence most beneficial to mankind at large4 ,instead of this1 an appeal has been made to your worst passions2 to cupidity1 to the thirst of unjust aggrandizement by brutal force2 to the love of military fame and of false glory2 and it has even been tried to pervert the noblest feelings of your nature4 ,the attempt is made to make you abandon the lofty position which your fathers occupied1 to substitute for it the political morality and heathen patriotism of the heroes and statesmen of antiquity4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i have said1 that it was attempted to pervert even your virtues4 ,devotedness to country1 or patriotism1 is a most essential virtue1 since the national existence of any society depends upon it4 ,unfortunately1 our most virtuous dispositions are perverted1 not only by our vices and selfishness1 but also by their own excess4 ,even the most holy of our attributes1 the religious feeling1 may be perverted from that cause1 as was but too lamentably exhibited in the persecutions1 even unto death1 of those who were deemed heretics4 ,it is not1 therefore1 astonishing1 that patriotism1 carried to excess1 should also be perverted4 ,in the entire devotedness to their country1 the people1 everywhere and at all times1 have been too apt to forget the duties imposed upon them by justice towards other nations4 ,it is against this natural propensity that you should be specially on your guard4 ,the blame does not attach to those who1 led by their patriotic feelings1 though erroneous1 flock around the national standard4 ,on the contrary1 no men are more worthy of admiration1 better entitled to the thanks of their country1 than those who1 after war has once taken place1 actuated only by the purest motives1 daily and with the utmost self-devotedness1 brave death and stake their own lives in the conflict against the actual enemy4 ,i must confess1 that ,i do not extend the same charity to those civilians1 who coolly and deliberately plunge the country into any unjust or unnecessary war4 ,we should have but one conscience2 and most happy would it be for mankind1 were statesmen and politicians only as honest1 in their management of the internal or external national concerns1 as they are in private life4 ,the irreproachable private character of the ,president1 and of all the members of his administration1 is known and respected4 ,there is not one of them who would not spurn with indignation the most remote hint that1 on similar pretences to those alleged for dismembering ,mexico1 he might be capable of an attempt to appropriate to himself his neighbor's farm4 ,in the total absence of any argument that can justify the war in which we are now involved1 resort has been had to a most extraordinary assertion4 ,it is said1 that the people of the ,united ,states have an hereditary1 superiority of race over the ,mexicans1 which gives them the right to subjugate and keep in bondage the inferior nation4 ,this1 it is also alleged1 will be the means of enlightening the degraded ,mexicans1 of improving their social state1 and of ultimately increasing the happiness of the masses4 ,is it compatible with the principle of ,democracy1 which rejects every hereditary claim of individuals1 to admit an hereditary superiority of races8 ,you very properly deny1 that the son can1 independent of his own merit1 derive any right or privilege whatever1 from the merit or any other social superiority of his father4 ,can you for a moment suppose1 that a very doubtful descent from men1 who lived one thousand years ago1 has transmitted to you a superiority over your fellow-men8 ,but the ,anglo-,saxons were inferior to the ,goths1 from whom the ,spaniards claim to be descended2 and they were in no respect superior to the ,franks and to the ,burgundians4 ,it is not to their ,anglo-,saxon descent1 but to a variety of causes1 among which the subsequent mixture of ,frenchified ,normans1 ,angevins and ,gascons must not be forgotten1 that the ,english are indebted for their superior institutions4 ,in the progressive improvement of mankind1 much more has been due to religious and political institutions1 than to races4 ,whenever the ,european nations1 which1 from their language1 are presumed to belong to the ,latin or the ,sclavonian race1 shall have conquered institutions similar to those of ,england1 there will be no trace left of the pretended superiority of one of those races above the other4 ,at this time1 the claim is but a pretext for covering and justifying unjust usurpation and unbounded ambition4 ,but admitting1 with respect to ,mexico1 the superiority of race1 this confers no superiority of rights4 ,among ourselves1 the most ignorant1 the most inferior1 either in physical or mental faculties1 is recognized as having equal rights1 and he has an equal vote with any one1 however superior to him in all those respects4 ,this is founded on the immutable principle that no one man is born with the right of governing another man4 ,he may1 indeed1 acquire a moral influence over others1 and no other is legitimate4 ,the same principle will apply to nations4 ,however superior the ,anglo-,american race may be to that of ,mexico1 this gives the ,americans no right to infringe upon the rights of the inferior race4 ,the people of the ,united ,states may rightfully1 and will1 if they use the proper means1 exercise a most beneficial moral influence over the ,mexicans1 and other less enlightened nations of ,america4 ,beyond this they have no right to go4 ,the allegation that the subjugation of ,mexico would be the means of enlightening the ,mexicans1 of improving their social state1 and of increasing their happiness1 is but the shallow attempt to disguise unbounded cupidity and ambition4 ,truth never was or can be propagated by fire1 and sword1 or by any other than purely moral means4 ,by these1 and by these alone1 the ,christian religion was propagated1 and enabled1 in less than three hundred years1 to conquer idolatry4 ,during the whole of that period1 ,christianity was tainted by no other blood than that of its martyrs4 ,the duties of the people of the ,united ,states towards other nations are obvious4 ,never losing sight of the divine precept1 ,do to others as you would be done by1 they have only to consult their own conscience4 ,for our benevolent ,creator has implanted in the hearts of men the moral sense of right and wrong1 and that sympathy for other men1 the evidences of which are of daily occurrence4 ,it seems unnecessary to add anything respecting that false glory which1 from habit and the general tenor of our early education1 we are taught to admire4 ,the task has already been repeatedly performed1 in a far more able and impressive manner1 than anything ,i could say on the subject4 ,it is sufficient to say that1 at this time1 neither the dignity or honor of the nation demand a further sacrifice of invaluable lives1 or even of money4 ,the very reverse is the case4 ,the true honor and dignity of the nation are inseparable from justice4 ,pride and vanity alone demand the sacrifice4 ,though so dearly purchased1 the astonishing successes of the ,american arms have at least put it in the power of the ,united ,states to grant any terms of peace1 without incurring the imputation of being actuated by any but the most elevated motives4 ,it would seem that the most proud and vain must be satiated with glory1 and that the most reckless and bellicose should be sufficiently glutted with human gore4 ,a more truly glorious termination of the war1 a more splendid spectacle1 an example more highly useful to mankind at large1 cannot well be conceived1 than that of the victorious forces of the ,united ,states voluntarily abandoning all their conquests1 without requiring anything else than that which was strictly due to our citizens4 ,,viii4--,,terms ,,of ,,peace4 ,i have said that the unfounded claim of ,texas to the territory between the ,nueces and the ,rio ,norte1 was the greatest impediment to peace4 ,of this there can be no doubt4 ,for if1 relinquishing the spirit of military conquest1 nothing shall be required but the indemnities due to our citizens1 the ,united ,states have only to accept the terms which have been offered by the ,mexican ,government4 ,it consents to yield a territory five degrees of latitude1 or near #cej miles in breadth1 and extending from ,new ,mexico to the ,pacific4 ,although the greater part of this is quite worthless1 yet the portion of ,california lying between the ,sierra ,neveda and the ,pacific1 and including the port of ,san ,francisco1 is certainly worth much more than the amount of indemnities justly due to our citizens4 ,it is only in order to satisfy those claims1 that an accession of territory may become necessary4 ,it is not believed that the ,executive will favor the wild suggestions of a subjugation1 or annexation of the whole of ,mexico1 or of any of its interior provinces4 ,and1 if ,i understand the terms offered by ,mr4 ,trist1 there was no intention to include within the cessions required1 the ,province of ,new ,mexico4 ,but the demand of both ,old and ,new ,california1 or of a sea-coast of more than thirteen hundred miles in length 7lat4 #bc deg4 to #db deg471 is extravagant and unnecessary4 ,the ,peninsula is altogether worthless1 and there is nothing worth contending for ,south of ,san ,diego1 or about lat4 #cb deg4 ,in saying that1 if conquest is not the object of the war1 and if the pretended claim of ,texas to the ,rio del ,norte shall be abandoned1 there cannot be any insuperable obstacle to the restoration of peace1 it is by no means intended to assert that the terms heretofore proposed by either party are at this time proper4 ,and ,i apprehend that the different views of the subject entertained by those who sincerely desire a speedy and just peace1 may create some difficulty4 ,there are some important considerations which may become the subject of subsequent arrangements4 ,for the present1 nothing more is strictly required than to adopt the principle of status ante bellum1 or1 in other words1 to evacuate the ,mexican territory1 and to provide for the payment of the indemnities due to our citizens4 ,the scruples of those who object to any cession whatever of territory1 except on terms unacceptable to the ,southern ,states1 might be removed by a provision1 that would only pledge a territory sufficient for the purpose1 and leave it in the possession of the ,united ,states until the indemnities had been fully paid4 ,was ,i to listen exclusively to my own feelings and opinions1 ,i would say1 that1 if the propositions which ,i have attempted to establish are correct2 if ,i am not mistaken in my sincere conviction1 that the war was unprovoked by the ,mexicans1 and has been one of iniquitous aggression on our part2 it necessarily follows that1 according to the dictates of justice1 the ,united ,states are bound to indemnify them1 for having invaded their territory1 bombarded their towns1 and inflicted all the miseries of war on a people1 who were fighting in defence of their own homes4 ,if all this be true1 the ,united ,states would give but an inadequate compensation for the injuries they have inflicted1 by assuming the payment of the indemnities justly due to their own citizens4 ,even if a fair purchase of territory should be convenient to both parties1 it would be far preferable to postpone it for the present1 among other reasons1 in order that it should not have the appearance of being imposed on ,mexico4 ,there are also some important considerations1 to which it may not be improper to call at this time the public attention4 ,our population may at this time be assumed1 as amounting to twenty millions4 ,although the ratio of natural increase has already been lessened1 from thirty three to about thirty per cent in ten years1 the deficiency has been1 and will probably continue1 for a while1 to be compensated by the prodigious increase of immigration from foreign countries4 ,an increase of thirty per cent1 would add to our population six millions1 within ten1 and near fourteen millions in twenty years4 ,at the rate of only twenty five per cent1 it will add five millions in ten1 and more than eleven millions in twenty years4 ,that the fertile uncultivated land1 within the limits of the ,states admitted1 or immediately admissible in the ,union1 could sustain three times that number is indubitable4 ,but the indomitable energy1 the locomotive propensities1 and all the habits of the settlers of new countries are such1 that1 not even the united efforts of both ,governments can or will prevent their occupying within twenty if not within ten years1 every district1 as far as the ,pacific1 and whether within the limits of the ,united ,states or of ,mexico1 which shall not have previously been actually and bona fide occupied and settled by others4 ,it may be said that this is justifiable by ,natural ,law2 that1 for the same reason1 which sets aside the right of discovery1 if not followed by actual occupation within a reasonable time1 the rights of ,spain and ,mexico have been forfeited by their neglect1 or inability1 during a period of three hundred years1 to colonize a country1 which1 during the whole of that period1 they held undisputed by any other foreign nation4 ,and it may perhaps be observed that1 had the ,government of the ,united ,states waited for the operation of natural and irresistible causes1 these alone would have given them1 without a war1 more than they want at this moment4 ,however plausible all this may appear1 it is nevertheless certain1 that it will be an acquisition of territory for the benefit of the people of the ,united ,states1 and in violation of solemn treaties4 ,not only collisions must be avoided1 and the renewal of another illicit annexation be prevented2 but the two countries must coolly consider their relative position2 and whatever portion of territory1 not actually settled by the ,mexicans1 and of no real utility to them1 they may be disposed to cede1 must be acquired by a treaty freely assented to1 and for a reasonable compensation4 ,but this is not the time for the discussion of a proper final arrangement4 ,we must wait till peace shall have been restored1 and angry feelings shall have subsided4 ,at present the only object is ,peace1 immediate peace1 a just peace1 and no acquisition of territory1 but that which may be absolutely necessary for effecting the great object in view4 ,the most simple terms1 those which will only provide for the adjustment of the ,texas boundary and for the payment of the indemnities due to our citizens1 and1 in every other respect1 restore things as they stood before the beginning of hostilities1 appear to me the most eligible4 ,for that purpose ,i may be permitted to wish1 that the discussion of the terms should not be embarrassed by the introduction of any other matter4 ,there are other considerations1 highly important1 and not foreign to the great question of an extension of territory1 but which may1 without any inconvenience or commitment1 be postponed1 and should not be permitted to impede the immediate termination of this lamentable war4 ,i have gone farther than ,i intended4 ,it is said that a rallying point is wanted by the friends of peace4 ,let them unite1 boldly express their opinions1 and use their utmost endeavors in promoting an immediate termination of the war4 ,for the people1 no other banner is necessary4 ,but their representatives in ,congress assembled are alone competent to ascertain1 alone vested with the legitimate power of deciding what course should be pursued at this momentous crisis1 what are the best means for carrying into effect their own views1 whatever these may be4 ,we may wait with hope and confidence the result of their deliberations4 99 99 99 99 99 ,i have tried1 in this essay1 to confine myself to the questions at issue between the ,united ,states and ,mexico4 ,whether the ,executive has1 in any respect1 exceeded his legitimate powers2 whether he is1 for any of his acts1 liable to animadversion1 are questions which do not concern ,mexico4 ,there are certainly some doubtful assumptions of power1 and some points on which explanations are necessary4 ,the most important is the reason1 which may have induced the ,president1 when he considered the war as necessary and almost unavoidable1 not to communicate to ,congress1 which was all that time in session1 the important steps he had taken1 till after hostilities1 and indeed actual war had taken place4 ,the substitution1 for war contributions1 of an arbitrary and varying tariff1 appears to me to be of a doubtful nature2 and it is hoped1 that the subject will attract the early attention of ,congress4 ,i am also clearly of opinion1 that the provisions of the law respecting volunteers1 which authorizes them to elect their officers1 is a direct violation of the constitution of the ,united ,states1 which recognizes no other land force than the army and the militia1 and which vests in the ,president and ,senate the exclusive power of appointing all the officers of the ,united ,states1 whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the constitution itself4 7,with respect to precedents1 refer to the act of ,july #fth1 #ahab1 chap4 #dfa1 7cxxxviii47 enacted with due deliberation1 and which repeals1 in that respect1 the act on same subject of ,february #fth1 #ahab47 99 99 99 99 99 ,transcriber's note3 ,page #aj3 ,changed adequte to adequate ,page #bh3 ,changed oppropriate to appropriate