\^'^^*y \/^^'\</' '^v^*/^ %'^ 
 
 / -^^^^ ''o^^*' ij>^^% ^^^** '^^^\ '^^^S J''' 
 
V » \ * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u^^\c:^%V G°^^J^:^.% ."^^\c:«^/v / 
 
 ^oV" 
 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 ME. DIXON, OF CONNECTICUT, 
 
 ON THE REFERENCE OF THE 
 
 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. STATES, 
 
 JANUARY 24, 1848. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. <fc G. S. GIDEON. 
 
 1848. 
 

THE PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEXICAN WAR AND ITS CON- 
 
 SEQUENCES. 
 
 ^ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and having under 
 consideration the President's Annual Message, (Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, in the 
 Chair)— 
 
 Mr. DIXON (of Connecticut) addressed the Committee as follows: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: 
 
 When the resolution tendering the thanks of Congress to General Taylor 
 was before this House, a short time since, a member from Indiana offered 
 an amendment, to the effect that the battles in which Gen. Taylor had been 
 engaged, were fought in defence of the rights and honor of the nation. 
 This amendment my friend from Massachusetts, (Mr. Ashmun,) immedi- 
 ately proposed to amend, by adding thereto these words — " in a war unne- 
 cessarily AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY COMMENCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
 
 United States." For this proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
 I voted. I believed it true then; I believe it true now. I rejoiced when the 
 gentleman, with his accustomed promptitude and readiness, proposed his amend- 
 ment, and have never given a vote more willingly in this House than on that 
 occasion. 
 
 It will be, sir, a part of my object, in addressing the Committee at this time, 
 to prove the truth of the proposition then adopted by the majority of this House. 
 I dare not flatter myself that, in the discussion of this question, I shall be able 
 to present any thing new to the attention of the committee. The subject has 
 been so fully and so abl}- treated, not only in this House, but by the Press 
 throughout the country, that it seems almost impossible to impart to its discus- 
 sion any novelty whatever. If I shall succeed in so doing, I shall deem myself 
 peculiarly fortunate. 
 
 In what I am about to say, I shall have occasion to question the accuracy of 
 the President of the United States, but I shall endeavor to do so with a becom- 
 ing respect for the dignity of his high office. I shall raise with him no question of 
 personal veracity. I shall not assume that he has intended to deceive this 
 House and the country. The supposition that he sat down to write his messages 
 with the deliberate determination to misstate facts, is too shocking to be enter- 
 tained, or, if entertained, to be expressed in this place. I shall not take that 
 ground, though I believe that errors, with regard to matters of fact, of the 
 gravest character, abound in all the messages of the President relating to the 
 war with Mexico. It is not for me to say they are intentional; though, if gen- 
 tlemen on this floor have heretofore seen fit to express such an opinion, 1 
 recollect an instance of equal freedom of speech in another legislative assem- 
 bly. I happened, a few days since, to fall in with some remarks, made on 
 an occasion somewhat similar to the present, b}'^ a statesman of lofty standing in 
 the British House of Lords, and I was struck with the freedom with which he 
 spoke of certain statements made by the King in his speech from the throne. 
 The distinguished statesman to whom I refer, (Lord Chatham,) believed those 
 statements to be untrue, and he did not hesitate, in language plain, explicit, di- 
 
rect, to charge the King and his advisers with falsehood. I beg leave to read 
 to the committee, from his speech on that occasion, an extract, v^^hich is not a 
 little curious, as showing the spirit of those times. It may possibly have escaped 
 the recollection of some gentlemen of the committee. It may be found in 
 Thackeray's life of Lord Chatham, and is as follows: 
 
 " Some persons I see have been shameless and daring enough to advise his Majesty to sup- 
 port and countenance this opinion (the disavowal of certain proceedings by the Court of Spain) 
 in his speech from the throne. Certainly, my lords, there never was a more odious, a more in- 
 famous falsehood imposed on a great nation: it degrades the King's honor; it is an insult to Par- 
 liament. His Majesty has been advised to confirm and give currency to an absolute falsehood. 
 I beg your lordship's attention, and I hope I shall be understood when I repeat, that the Courtof 
 Spain having disavowed the act of their governor is an absolute falsehood. * * * If the 
 falsehbod of this pretended disavowal had been confined to the Courtof Spain, I should have ad- 
 mitted it without concern. I should have been content that they themselves had left a door 
 open for excuse and accommodation. The King of England's honor is not touched till he adopts 
 the falsehood, delivers it to his Parliament, and makes it his own." 
 
 I have read this extract for the sole purpose of showing that the freedom of 
 debate in this House, during this and the last session of Congress, has not 
 equalled that permitted in the ParUament of Great Britain. But, in the progress 
 ■of my remarks, I shall not avail myself of the privilege claimed by others. It 
 ■will be enough for me if I can show that the President has been guilty of gross 
 mistakes in his statement of facts; whether intentionally or not, is not import- 
 ant to my purpose. 
 
 In the elaborate arguments contained in the various messages of the President 
 with regard to the Mexican War, the anxiety with which he has argued the ques- 
 tion — by whom was the war commenced — cannot have escaped your attention. 
 Why has this question been so anxiously labored by the President.'' Why is it 
 deemed by him of so much importance to show that Mexico commenced the 
 war? It by no means follows as a matter of course, that a war is always unjust 
 on the part of the nation commencing hostilities. On the contrary, the pre- 
 sumption should be, that the party commencing war has just cause for resorting 
 to such an extremity. Who commenced our late war with Great Britain.? In 
 defending that war and its justice, who has ever denied that it was commenced 
 by us? It is true that it was prosecuted, for the most part, on our own soil, and 
 became, from the nature of the case, almost entirely defensive in its character; 
 but that it was commenced by us for the redress of a long series of wrongs and 
 outrages inflicted by Great Britain, is matter of history. He who should for 
 this reason deny its justice, w^ould probably find few to concur with him in opin- 
 ion. While the war of the Revolution was doubtful as to its issue, many efforts 
 were made to show that the first blood was shed by the British troops. After 
 the contest was decided, and success had rendered us secure of the judgment of 
 the world, that ground of defence was little pressed, and the justice of our cause 
 in that quarrel is not made dependent on the decision of the question — who 
 commenced the war ? Kjust Avar is not the less just, because commenced by 
 the party which has injuries requiring so terrible a redress. The question, there- 
 fore, by whom was the war commenced, is not thus laboriously discussed by the 
 President, because its answer, if in accordance with his views, aside from all 
 other considerations, would decide of course the justice of the contest, but for 
 another reason. He weU knows the vast importance, to himself personally, of 
 showing that Mexico commenced hostilities, because if not commenced by Mexi- 
 .co, then the consequence is unavoidable, that they were commenced by him- 
 .self. It is certain that Congress did not commence the war; but, on the con- 
 trary, declared it already to exist on the I3th day of May, 1846. It was not, 
 
then, commenced by the war-making power of this country; and if not by Mex- 
 ico, then it follows, as the night the day, that it was commenced by the Presi- 
 dent of the United States. There is no escape from this conclusion, and hence 
 the struggles, constant but ineffectual, on the part of the President, to show that 
 Mexico invaded the territory of the United States, struck the first blow in this 
 unfortunate contest, and " shed American blood on American soil." When 
 we were told, on the 11th of May, 1846, that war existed. Congress, the 
 war-making power, had not declared war; and if it was not commenced by 
 Mexico, no one wiU deny that the assumption of the war-making power, by the 
 President, was an unconstitutional act. Hence his extreme anxiety to prove 
 Mexico the aggressor. In attempting to prove this, and thus shield himself 
 from the consequences of his own unconstitutional act, he has resorted to argu- 
 ments, which I do not hesitate to pronounce unworthy of the character of the 
 Chief Magistrate of this great Republic. He has made assertions which cannot 
 be sustained by proof. He has used language which, if literally true, is in 
 spirit and meaning untrue, and is calculated, if not intended — (1 hope it was 
 not intended) — to produce a false impression on the public mind. He has mis- 
 understood, or misrepresented, the votes of this House, and has given the im- 
 pression that certain measures have had the almost unanimous sanction of this 
 body, when the journal of its proceedings, if examined by him, would have 
 shown him that the contrary was the fact. These charges, in a manner befitting 
 the character of this House and the official dignity of the President, I shall at- 
 tempt to substantiate. 
 
 And, first, with regard to the votes of this House. Every gentleman who 
 hears me will recollect the bill of the 13th of May last, declaring the existence 
 of the war. With regard to that bill, and the action of the House of Represen- 
 tatives upon it, the President, in his last annual message, uses the following 
 language : 
 
 " On learning that hostilities had been commenced by Mexico, I promptly communicated that 
 fact, accompanied with a succinct statement of our other causes of complaint against Mexico, to 
 Congress; and that body, by the act of the thirteenth of May, 1846, declared that ' by the act of 
 the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists between that government and the United States ' — 
 this act, declaring ' the war to exist by the act of the Republic of Mexico,' and making provision 
 for its prosecution ' to a speedy and successful termination,' was passed with great unanimity 
 by Congress, there being but two negative votes in the Senate, and but fourteen in the House ofReprt' 
 sentatives." 
 
 What is here asserted by the President? That the bill declaring the war to 
 «xist by the act of the Republic of Mexico, had but fourteen negative votes in 
 the House of Representatives. In other words, the President conveys the idea, 
 and so he would be understood by any one ignorant of the real history of the 
 transaction, that the entire House of Representatives, with the exception of 
 fourteen members, had, without any reserve, and without protest, declared the 
 war "to exist by the act of Mexico." Here, in an official document, where 
 -deception or concealment should find no place, is an attempt to convince the 
 country, by an artful collocation of words, and a suppression of a part of the 
 truth, that the House of Representatives — fourteen members only excepted — 
 thought this war to have been commenced by Mexico, and so declared. Was 
 this quite worthy of the Chief Magistrate of this nation? Could he have been 
 ignorant of the facts in the case? Did he not know that sixty-seven members 
 voted against the assertion that war existed by the act of Mexico; that 
 the ayes and noes were ordered, and that their names are recorded as thus vot- 
 ing? Does he not recollect that they protested against the preamble containing 
 this statement; that they pronounced it false; and finally, when they could not 
 
strike it out, voted for the bill, in spite of its false preamble, solely because 
 they deemed it indispensable to furnish General Taylor with reinforcements 
 immediately? The President, I venture to say, knew all this. Yet the idea 
 conveyed by him is, that only fourteen members were opposed to the declaration 
 that v;ar existed by the act of Mexico, when, in point of fact, sixty-seven. 
 Whig members voted against this declaration, and are so recorded in the list 
 of ayes and noes in the publiyhed journal! I shall use no harsh terms on this 
 occasion; but I ask if this kind of misrepresentation is not totally unworthy 
 such a document as the message of the President of the United States — a doc- 
 ument which is read with profound interest in every part of the world, and 
 should be dignified, just, honorable, and, like a record, "import absolute verity?" 
 In an unscrupulous partisan newspaper — in a one-sided speech at the hustings, 
 such unworthy specimens of the art of electioneering, should alone be found. 
 
 The Whigs in the House of Representatives, who voted for the bill in ques- 
 tion, Avished to protect and defend General Taylor. They had heard that he 
 was surrounded by a host of infuriated Mexicans; they thought it barely possi- 
 ble that the supplies voted in that bill, might reach him in season to rescue him 
 and his gallant army, from their perilous situation, and they would not permit 
 the false preamble, against which they had in vain voted, to prevent their tak- 
 ing the patriotic ground which they wished to occupy — the ground of furnish- 
 ing necessary supplies to our army. Could they have been endued with a di- 
 vine attribute, and have foreseen what has since happened, they might have 
 acted otherwise. But who then dreamed of this protracted war? Who imagin- 
 ed that we were, with our armies, to invade Mexico, and overrun, perhaps 
 subjugate, a large portion of that republic? And after doing all this, and when 
 she should lie, prostrate and bleeding, at our mercy, who imagined that the vote 
 then given, would be seized upon by the President as a reason why we should 
 plunge the sword still deeper into the ^ 'vital jyarts^' of Mexico? 
 
 Before proceeding further, permit me to allude to a topic introduced by an 
 honorable member from Indiana in his speech last week. The assertion that 
 the war was brought on suddenly, and that the Whigs in this House, on the 
 11th of May, 1846, when the President's war message was received, were 
 taken by surprise, he declared to be an afterthought — a mere "pretext. '' They 
 had, he said, full and ample notice that war with Mexico was probable, or at 
 least possible; and, in proof of this, he refers us to the President's annual 
 message of 1845, from which he quoted the following: 
 
 " The moment the terms of annexation offered by the United States were accepted by Texas, 
 tlie latter became so far a part of our own country as to make it our duty to afford such protec- 
 tion and defence. I therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a strong 
 squadron to the coasts of Mexico, and to concentrate an efficient military force on the western 
 frontier of Texas. Our army was ordered to take a position between the Nueces and Del 
 Norte, [Corpus Christi,] and to^epel any invasion of the Texan territory which might be at- 
 tempted by the Mexican forces." 
 
 Thus, said the gentleman from Indiana, notice was given to Congress of the 
 expected conflict, and, if we did not take notice of it, we were guilty of culpa- 
 ble neglect in not reading the documents laid on our tables. But what does 
 the President, in this extract, say he has done? Not that he has taken posses- 
 sion oi disputed territory, for i/ien he had done no such thing; but that he has 
 taken steps to prevent the invasion of Texas by Mexico. He had concentrated, 
 he says, a military force on the western frontier of Texas. Where was this 
 force concentrated? At Corpus Christi, one hundred and fifty miles east of 
 the Rio Grande, where they remained for nearly six months; and this, he says, 
 was 'Hhe western frontier of Texas." Was this giving us notice that he 
 
should march into the Mexican settlements on the Rio Grande, while negotia- 
 tions were pending? But let me, for a moment, turn your attention to some 
 other portions of the same message. Let us see if war with Mexico was as 
 distinctl}^ shadowed forth as the gentleman claim-s. In congratulating Congress 
 on the annexation of Texas he said, in this very message: 
 
 " This accession to our territory has been a bloodless achievement. No arm of force has 
 been raised to produce tlie result. The sword has had no part in the victory. We have not sought 
 to extend our territorial possessions by conquest, or our republican institutions over a reluctant 
 people !" 
 
 Did this look like an intended invasion of Mexico.^ Was this an intimation 
 which bound us to take official notice that war was probable.? But, further; in 
 the same message he informed us that he had sent a minister to Mexico, 
 ''clothed with full powers to adjust, and definitively settle, all pending dilFer- 
 ences between tlie two countries, including those of boundary between Meocico 
 and the State of Texas.'''' 
 
 And yet the gentleman declares, that this very message sounded the note of 
 warning in our ears that war was at hand, which we could not fail to hear and 
 understand, without culpable neglect of duty. But, sir, little did we suppose 
 that, before the President heard whether this minister was received, whom he 
 had dispatched to Mexico charged with full powers to "settle the boundary be- 
 tween Mexico and the United States," he would march an army into the dis- 
 puted territory and beyond the extreme limit of the doubtful ground, and, by this 
 act of usurpation, precipitate the country into a state of war. I shall give my 
 attention again to this topic in its proper place, and for the present pass 
 over it. 
 
 In the war message of May, 1846, the President declared that he did not 
 send the army to the point, where they took position on their first occupation 
 of the v/estern part of Texas, [viz., Corpus Christi,] until he was re- 
 quested so to do "both by the Congress and Convention of Texas." This 
 is his language: "In my message, at the commencement of the present session 
 of Congress, I informed you that, upon the earnest appeal both of the Congress 
 and Convention of Texas I had ordered an efficient military force to take a 
 position between the Nueces and the Del Norte." [This order General Taylor 
 executed by taking position at Corpus Christi, where the army, as thus ordered, 
 took position and remained till March 11, 1846.] Now, sir, let us look at the 
 message, at the commencement of the (then) present session of Congress, and 
 see how the President informed us that he made this order "upon the urgent 
 appeal and request of both the Texan Congress and Convention." In that 
 message he used this language, viz: "Both the Congress and Convention of 
 Texas invited this Government to send an army into that territory to protect 
 and defend them against the menaced attack." Was this informing us that he 
 had sent the army upon "the earnest appeal of the Texan Congress and Con- 
 vention?" No, sir, it gave us no such information. He said that Texas had 
 invited the army, which was true; but he did not say in that message 
 that the army was sent ^'■upon the urgent appeal of the Texan Congress 
 and Convention," for, in point of fact, it was sent before either the Con- 
 gress or Convention had assembled, as I shall show. Sir, in his annual mes- 
 sage of 1845, the President was not prepared to say that he sent the army to 
 Corpus Christi "at the request of the Texan Congress and Convention," but 
 in his war message of May 11, 1846, six months afterwards, he made this 
 declaration, and added, thai; he had told us so six months before. Any one, by 
 a reference to his annual message of December, 1845, can see that he had told 
 us no such thing in that document. No such thing can be found there. • He 
 only told us, in that message, that he had been requested by the Texan Con, 
 
gress and Convention to send the army; but, whether this request was before 
 or after it was actually sent, he does not say. No, sir, it was reserved for the 
 never to be forgotten war message of May, 1846, to assert that our troops were 
 sent to the point they so long occupied, at Corpus Christi, "upon the urgent 
 appeal both of the Congress and Convention of Texas." And now, sir, I 
 ask the attention of the committee while I show, by the documents furnished 
 to this House by the President, that he did not send the army of which he 
 speaks to any portion of Texas, upon the "urgent appeal of the Texan Congress 
 and Convention," or upon their ^Hmntation,'^ but that he did so before either of 
 those bodies assembled! 
 
 On the 28th day of May, 1845, Mr. Marcy, Secretary of War, wrote to Gen- 
 eral Taylor, informing him that he would probably soon be called on to proceed 
 with the forces under his command to Texas; and on the 15th day of June fol- 
 lowing, (June 15, 1845,) Mr. Bancroft (then acting Secretary of War, as it 
 would seem,) sent to General Taylor an order to proceed to the western frontier 
 of Texas, with an "ultimate destination" to the banks of the Rio Grande. 
 
 The President says it was "on the urgent appeal of both the Texan Con- 
 gress and Convention" that this order was given. Let us see. If you wiU 
 lurn, sir, to the Executive documents of the 29th Congress, 1st session, 
 page 42, you will find that, on the 15th day of April, 1845, Anson Jones, 
 President of the Republic of Texas, issued a proclamation, in which he called 
 an extra session of the Texan Congress, to meet on the 16th day of June, 1845, 
 for the purpose of taking into consideration the Joint Resolutions of Annexation 
 passed by the Congress of the United States. 
 
 This call for an extra session was dated April 15th, 1845. The Congress of 
 Texas accordingly met on the 16th day of June, 1845. On the 15thday of the 
 same month, in the same year, the order to occupy the western frontier of 
 Texas, which resulted in General Taylor's taking position at Corpus Christi, 
 was given — the same order which was mentioned in the message of December, 
 
 1845, and which the President again alludes to in the war message of May, 
 
 1846, and declares to have been on the urgent appeal of the Texan Congress 
 and Convention. It was issued the day before the meeting of the Texan Con- 
 gress, on whose urgent appeal the President of the United States solemnly in- 
 ibrmed Congress it was issued! 
 
 So much for the action of the Texan Congress. Let us look noAv at that of 
 the Texan Convention. 
 
 When was the "urgent appeal," upon which this military force Avas ordered 
 to take position between the Nueces and the Del Norte, made by the Texan. 
 Convention? That Convention was authorized, by an act of the Texan Con- 
 gress, (at its special session to which I have just alluded,) approved June 23d, 
 1845, to meet on the 4th of July, 1845, and did meet on that day, and not be- 
 fore. The President, then, on the 15th day of June, 1845, directed an effi- 
 cient force to take position near the mouth of the Nueces on the urgent appeal 
 of the Texan Convention, which assembled twenty days after the order was 
 given, to wit, on the 4th of July, 1845! Why are the facts thus misrepresented 
 in the message? Why does the President wish us to believe that these orders 
 were issued by him in consequence of the request of Texas, when the fact was 
 otherwise? Was it necessary to disguise the truth, in order to defend his own 
 unauthorized acts? So much for the accuracy of the message on this point. 
 
 Before proceeding further to discuss the origin of the war and the responsi- 
 bility of the Executive for its commencement, it is important to consider that 
 the question, whether at the beginning of hostilitias we h^d, as a nation, just 
 cause of war against Mexico, however it may be decided, cannot at all justify 
 th<^ conduct of the President. If we then had cause of war, it is sufficient for 
 Us to know that the war-making power of this Government had not seen fit to- 
 
commence war for those causes. I do not desire, for the present, to deny that 
 we had just cause of war. I might admit it without afFecting my argument, 
 for the question I am discussing is — ^by whom was the war commenced, and not 
 whether we had sufficient causes of war to justify Congress in declaring it, had 
 they seen fit to do so; and I repeat that, if we had cause of war, the war- 
 inakino- power had not declared war when hostilities commenced and the first 
 battles were fought. All, therefore, which the President says, by way of ex- 
 tenuation of his conduct, with regard to the then existing causes of complaint 
 against Mexico, must be considered utterly unimportant, and as furnishing him 
 no defence, inasmuch as, even if these causes would have justified Congress in 
 declaring war, they furnish no justification to the President, who is not the war- 
 making power. He had no more right to decide that war was our proper 
 remedy for WTongs inflicted by Mexico, than the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and it is no defence of his course, that we had suffered any number of 
 injuries at the hand of Mexico. Nor do I understand the friends of the Presi- 
 dent now to rest his defence on this ground, although in one of his messages he 
 indirectly attempts to justify his course by reciting the long catalogue of wrongs, 
 which he claims Mexico has inflicted on this nation. I do not desire to deny or 
 palliate those Avrongs, nor is it necessary for my purpose to decide whether 
 they W'Ould have justified Congress in declaring war. 
 
 [Here Mr. Vinton, in an under tone, w-as understood to remark that they 
 did not constitute sufficient cause of war.] 
 
 So I think, sir, and I — (since otherwise my real opinion on that point maybe 
 misunderstood,) have no hesitation in saying that had Mr. Polk, in his annual 
 message of 1845, recommended the "ulterior measures" which he says had 
 been in contemplation, but were not urged in consequence of the consent of 
 the Mexican Government to receive a minister — I, as one humble representative 
 of the people, should by no means have voted for a declaration of war; I should 
 have voted against it. I did not think we had suflicient cause of war, nor if 
 ■we had, that all peaceful means had been exhausted for the adjubtment of exist- 
 ing difficulties, and therefore, I should not then have given a vote to authorize the 
 President to adopt the last resort of nations. But, if it is admitted that sufficient 
 cause of war existed, this admission does not help the President, because, as I 
 have said, he w^as not the war-making power. Before leaving this topic I de- 
 sire to show the opinion of General Jackson, expressed as late as August 5, 
 1836, with regard to our causes of complaint against Mexico. In a letter of 
 that date to Governor Cannon, of Tennessee, he uses this language : 
 
 " [Extract.] — Should Mexico insult our national flag, invade our territory, or inten-npt our 
 citizens in the lawful pursuits which are guarantied to them by treaty, then the Government will 
 promptly repel the insult, and seek reparation for the injury. But it does not appear that of- 
 fences of this kind have been committed by ■Mexico.'"' 
 
 Signed, " ANDREW JACKSON. " 
 
 On the 5th of August, 1836, then. General Jackson thought we had no cause 
 of war against Mexico. If, since that time, she has inflicted injuries upon us, 
 perhaps an impartial tribunal would decide that the plot for the annexation of 
 Texas, for twenty years secretly cherit^hed, and finally successfully executed in 
 1845, affords her some ground for the belief that the wrongs inflicted have not 
 been wholly on one side. But I must hasten to another part of my argument. 
 
 The principal ground of defence assumed by the President for taking forcible 
 possession of the territory on the Rio Grande, is, that the territory thus taken 
 was "American soil," a portion of the United States. I propose to examine 
 that proposition. 
 
 In the year 1844, the predecessor of the present Executive made a treaty 
 with Texas, by which that country was annexed to this Republic. That treaty 
 
n 
 
 was submitted to the Senate of the United States for ratification, and was by 
 that body rejected. The published debates on that occasion show the grounds 
 on which the rejection of the Tyler treaty was based. Mr. Benton, and other 
 Democratic Senators, voted and spoke against the treaty, and their oppositioa 
 was almost solely placed on the ground that, by the treaty, the boundary ques- 
 tion was settled precisely as the President has now taken upon himself to settle 
 it. I shall have occasion, in the course of my remarks, to quote what Mr. 
 Benton said on that occasion. He and other Democratic Senators voted against 
 the treaty, because it implied that the western boundary of Texas was the Rio 
 Grande, thus, as they said, encroaching upon Mexican territory. The treaty 
 was, therefore, rejected by the votes of Senators friendly to annexation, but 
 unwilling to annex territory belonging to Mexico to the United States. The 
 Senate refused to seize a portion of Mexican territory, by annexing Texas 
 with the Rio Grande as a western boundary. The measure was thus, 
 for a time, defeated. During the last Presidential canvass it was made a 
 question at the polls, but when its opponents predicted war as one of its prob- 
 able consequences, the people were assured that there was no danger of war, 
 that the claims of Mexico would be silenced by money, and that the questioa 
 of boundary would be settled by negotiation. After the result of tJie Presidential 
 election of 1844 Avas known, the subject was again brought before Congress, 
 and it was proposed by joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, to annex 
 Texas to this Union. The resolutions, after having passed the House, Avere 
 amended in the Senate, by adding an alternative proposition, authorizing the 
 President to negotiate with Texas and Mexico; and with the addition of this 
 second proposition, which it was said Avould be adopted by the President, the 
 Joint Resolutions of Annexation passed the Senate. Mr. Tyler, however, oa 
 the third of March, 1845, as one of the last acts of his administration, adopted 
 the first alternative of the two propositions. In the Message of December, 1845, 
 Mr. Polk says : 
 
 "In pursuance of the Joint Resolution of Congress for annexing Texas to the United States, 
 my predecessor, on the third day of March, 1845, elected to submit the first and second sections 
 of that resolution to the Republic of Texas as an overture on the part of the United States for 
 her admission into the Union. This election I approved," &c. 
 
 The first and second sections of the Joint Resolution, thus adopted by Mr. 
 Tyler and approved by Mr. Polk, are as follows : 
 
 " Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress 
 assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included icithin and rightfidhj 
 belonging to the Republic of Texas may be ei-ected into a new State, to be called the State of 
 Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by 
 deputies in convention assembled, with consent of the existing government, in order that the 
 same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union. 
 
 " Be it further enacted, That the/orcg-oing consent of Congress is given upon iht folloxoing condi- 
 tions and the following guarantees, to wit : 
 
 " First. Said State to be formed subject to the adjustment by this Government of JILL QJJES- 
 TIOJ\''S OF BOUJ^DJiRY that may arise with other governments, fyc.'^ 
 
 Under these conditions, Mr. Chairman, Texas came into this Union; with 
 the express "condition and guarantee" that the question of her boundary with 
 Mexico, (with no other nation had she any question of boundary,) should be 
 settled by the Government of the United States. The question, what was "ter- 
 ritory propcr/y included in and rigJiff idly belonging to the Republic of Texas," 
 was to be adjusted by this Government and Mexico. 
 
11 
 
 Thus far, then, the boundary question was purposely loft open to negotiation. 
 But we were told the other day by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Mc- 
 Lank.) that the constitution of the present State of Texas, adopted in July 28th, 
 1845, extended the boundary of that country to the liio Grande in express 
 terms, and that Congress, in its final consummation of annexation, admitted 
 Texas into the Union with that State constitution, and thus adopted and sanc- 
 tioned the Rio Grande as the boundary; and, further, that the President was 
 bound to protect Texas to that boundary — the responsibility of all consequences, 
 which might result, resting upon Congress, and not upon the President. Now, 
 sir, if this were true, there would be, I admit, some force in the argument. 
 But the gentleman, sir, is grossly mistaken in the facts. I admit that the last 
 Congress, in admitting Texas as a State, did proceed with indecent haste. The 
 measure Avas hurried through without regard to the usual forms of legislation, 
 and without debate, under the previous question. But though a leap was then 
 taken in the dark — though, in the peculiar and expressive language of some 
 Western gentlemen, (who afterwards complained that in the Oregon controversy 
 they were abandoned by their Southern brethren,) they ^^wentitblivd^' — yet the 
 vortex, into which they plunged, was not so dark and deep as the gentleman 
 supposes. He is entirely wrong in his facts. The constitution of the State of 
 Texas, adopted in 1845, did 7iot declare her boundary to extend to the Rio 
 Grande, and, in the gentleman's published speech, he has modified his state- 
 ment. On the contrary, that constitution, which I have now before me, de- 
 clares in its preamble that it was adopted in accordance with the provisions of 
 the Joint Resolution of Annexation. 
 
 And the third section, of Article XIII, of that constitution, is as follows: 
 
 " Sec. 3. All laws and parts of laws, now in force in the Republic of Texas, which are not 
 repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, the joint resolutions for annexing Texas to the 
 United States, or to tJie provisions of this constitution, shall continue and remain in force, as 
 the laws of this State, until they expire by their own limitation, or shall be altered or repealed 
 by the legislature thereof.'* 
 
 All laws, then, of the former Republic of Texas were to remain in force by 
 the constitution of the State of Texas, except such laws as were inconsistent with 
 the annexation resolutions. Laws so inconsistent were not to continue in force, 
 but were, from that time, repealed by this constitution of the State of Texas. 
 Now, sir, I ask, what laws of the old Republic of Texas were inconsistent with 
 the annexation resolutions } Show me, if you can, a single law of this charac- 
 ter, except one, and that one was the act, passed by the Texan Congress in 
 1836, extending the boundary of Texas to the Rio Grande; and thus, if allowed 
 to remain in force, annulling that clause in the annexation resolutions which 
 provided that the boundary question should be settled by the Government of the 
 United States. I shall give, in another part of my remarks, some facts with 
 regard to the character of the act of the Republic of Texas, passed in 1836, 
 which extended the boundary to the Rio Grande, and was thus repealed by the 
 constitution of the State of Texas, as being repugnant to the annexation resolu- 
 tions. I cannot dwell upon it in this place. The State of Texas, in forming a 
 constitution with the view of coming into this Union, was not guilty of the folly 
 of risking the success of their favorite measure, by refusing to consent that the 
 boundary line, between Texas and Mexico, should be settled by the United States 
 Government. No sir, they had previously, in point of fact, abandoned all 
 claim to the Rio Grande. They never had possession up to that river, and 
 their claim to it was virtually abandoned long before. In proof of this, permit 
 me to read an extract from a letter from our Charge d'Aflaires, at Texas, (Mr. 
 Andrew Jackson Donelson,) to Mr. Buchanan, (Secretary of State,) dated 
 Texas, July 11, 1845. He says: 
 
n 
 
 " The proclamation of a truce between the two nations, (Texas and Mexico,) founded on pro- 
 positions mutually acceptable to them, leaving the question of boundary not only an open one?- 
 but Mexico in possession of the east bank of the Rio Grande, seemed to me inconsistent with the ex- 
 pectation that, in defence of the claims of Texas, our troops should march immediately to that 
 river. What the Executive of Texas had determined not tojlghtfor, but to settle by negotiation j^ 
 to say the least of it, could as well be left to the United States on the same conditions." 
 
 The question of boundary, then, was by Texas "not only left open," but the' 
 President had information that " Mexico was in possession of the east bank of 
 the Rio Grande." It was then eminently proper, when Texas, as a State,, 
 adopted a constitution preparatory to her proposed admission into our Union, 
 that the laws of the Republic of Texas, inconsistent with the annexation reso- 
 lutions, should be considered no longer of binding validity. She came into our 
 Union, if not abandoning her claim to the boundary of the Rio Grande, at least 
 leaving it open for negotiation. She came with the express understanding, both 
 on her part and on ours, that the settlement of the boundary question was one 
 which the General Government must undertake; and that it was not for Texas^^ 
 much less for the President of the United States, to attempt its settlement. 
 
 I think I have proved, sir, that we took Texas, at least, with an uncertain west- 
 ern boundary. The boundary of Texas proper — the old department of Texas — is 
 admitted on all hands to have been the Nueces river. If it was to be extended 
 farther Avest, the question of boundary thus raised was, by the annexation resolu- 
 tions, to be settled with Mexico by the Government of the United States. The 
 whole question was thus left open to negotiation; all was "as broad and general as 
 the casing air." And there was far more reason for negotiation in the case of 
 Texas, than in the case of Oregon. Mexico was in possession of the disputed terri- 
 ' tory, (if it was then even disputed by us;) Mr. Donelson so declares in his letter 
 just referred to. She had been in possession ever since her independence. She 
 had military posts there, as I shall show, of which she was in undisturbed pos- 
 session. The soil had been declared by Mr. Benton, and other distinguished 
 Senators, to be rightfully hers, and /or t/iaf reason the Senate had rejected a 
 treaty annexing this territory east of the Rio Grande to our Union. It was no part 
 of the department of Texas, "but was a part of the departments of Coahuila and Ta- 
 maulipas, and New Mexico. Oregon, on the contrary, the President had declared 
 to be ours, by a "clear and unquestionable" title, to the latitude of ,54° 40'. I re- 
 peat, therefore, there was far more reason why we should negotiate with regard to- 
 our title to the country on the east bank of the Rio Grande, than in the case of 
 our title to Oregon. Yet the President did not see tit to take forcible possession 
 of the "whole of Oregon." No, sir; he chose to negotiate with Great Britain. 
 Had he pursued the same course with Oregon, as with the country of the Rio 
 Grande, iiad he marched an army to the hue he claimed, instead of leaving the 
 question to the proper department of the Government, would any of those who 
 now advocate his course have then attempted to defend it .' Could a similar 
 line of conduct in that case have been justified.'' No. He ventured to take 
 no such course with regard to Oregon; he left that boundary question just where 
 he should have left this. Knowing, as he did, that the annexation resolutions 
 were carried only with a provision that the boundary question should be left 
 open for negotiation ; knowing that Mr. Calhoun, when Secretary of State, 
 had instructed Mr. Green to assure Mexico, that this question he was ready to 
 settle "on terms the most liberaV to that republic; knowing that Mexico was 
 in absolute, undisturbed possession of the soil — that the inhabitants there were 
 Mexicans, and not Texans — and that Texas never had exercised any actual ju- 
 risdiction over the territory; by what authority did he, while Congress was in 
 session, assume the decision of the question, and take possession of the disputed 
 ground with an army of the United States ? 
 
13 
 
 But it has been said that negotiation had been tried, and had failed; that the 
 President had done every thing in his power to settle the question by nego- 
 tiation, and that it was not until all these efforts failed that he resorted to ex- 
 treme measures. I say, sir, it was not for him to judge when ^'•cxtreine meas- 
 ures'''' should be resorted to, or what they should be. That was a question for 
 Congress, and Congress alone. The President knew full well that, v.'hen nego- 
 tiations should fail, it was not a part of his duty to resort to hostilities. His 
 duty would then have been to submit the whole case to Congress for its action. 
 The people of the United States, hy their representatives in Congress, were the 
 proper authority to decide what means should be adopted on the failure of ne- 
 gotiation, and this the President well knew. The Constitution had not in- 
 vested him with the right to involve us in the calamities of war, whenever he 
 might think further negotiations Avould be unavailing. I have here, sir, a letter 
 from his Secretary of State to Mr. Slidell, in which he speaks to this very point. 
 Hear what he says on the 2Sth of January, 1846: 
 
 " After this, should the Mexican government finally refuse to receive you, then demand passports 
 from the proper authority, and return to the United States. It will then be the duty of the Pres- 
 ident to submit the whole case to Congress, and call upon the nation to assert its just rights, and 
 avenge its injured honor." 
 
 This was what the President should have done when negotiations had failed. 
 But, sir, he did not even wait to see what would -be the issue of negotia- 
 tions. When he usurped the warmaldng power, and ordered the army of Gen. 
 Taylor to march from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, he had not heard of 
 the rejection of our minister, Mr. Slidell. Yet, in his message, he tells us 
 that the march of our army did not take place "till he had received such infor- 
 mation as rendered it probable, if not certain, that the Mexican government 
 would refuse to receive our envoy." I asjk the committee to mark the lan- 
 guage of the President's message. There was a meaning in that peculiar lan- 
 guage. The words have been carefully selected. He says, '■'■the army re- 
 mained at Corpus Christi until after he received''^ this information. That, 
 sir, is true; the army did not march till the 11th of March, 1846; but when 
 was the order for the march given by the President ? On the 13th of January, 
 1846. He had then no knowledge that our minister, Mr. Slidell, had been re- 
 jected. He had received no such information when the order was given. 
 
 Instead of having the least reason, at that time, to suppose he had been re- 
 jected by Mexico, it is certain that nothing more than Mr. Slidell's letter of 
 the 17th and 18th of December had been received, in which he informed Mv. 
 Buchanan that though he might possibly be rejected, yet, that no final deci- 
 sion had been made, though the question of his reception had been submitted 
 to the council of government. On the 20th of January, 1846, Mr. Buchanan 
 acknowledges the receipt of this letter of the 17th and 18th of December, and 
 informs Mr. Slidell, that the order of the 13th, to Gen. Taylor, to march to the 
 Rio Grande had been given, not in consequence of the information given by Mr. 
 Slidell of his rejection; no, sir, not in consequence, but " IN ANTICIPA- 
 TION" of such rejection. 
 
 What information did Mr. Slidell's letter of the 17th December give > No- 
 thing more than that his rejection was possible, and hardly this, for it enclosed 
 a letter of December 16th, 1845, from the JNIexican minister of foreign relations, 
 Mr. Pena y Pena, to Mr. Slidell, giving the reason of the delay in deciding 
 with regard to his reception. This letter of Mr. Pena y Pena, which was en 
 closed in Mr. SidelPs letter of the 17th and 18th December, is as follows. It 
 shows that Mr. Slidell's rejection was not then even probable: 
 
14 
 
 Mr. Pena y Pena to Mr. Slidell. 
 
 Palace of the National Government, 
 
 Mexico, December 16, 1845. 
 The undersigned, minister of foreign relations, in answer to the letter which his excellency 
 Mr. John Slidell was pleased to address to him yesterday, has the honor to inform him that th® 
 delay in his reception, to which he alludes, and the consequent delay in answering his preceding 
 note, making known his arrival in this capital, and accompanying a copy of his credentials, have 
 arisen solely from certain difficulties, occasioned by the nature of tliose credentials, as compared 
 with the proposition made by the United States, through their consul, to treat peacefully upon 
 the affairs of Texas, with the person who should be appointed to that effect; for which reason it 
 has been found necessary to submit the said credentials to the coimcil of government, for its opinion with 
 regard to them. 
 
 The undersigned will communicate the result to his excellency without loss of time; assuring 
 him meanwhile that the government of Mexico is ready to })rocced agreeably to tchat it proposed in 
 its answer on the subject. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to offer to his eycellency Mr. Slidell the 
 assurances of his very distinguished consideration. 
 
 MANUEL DE LA PENA Y PENA. 
 His Excellency John Slidell, i^'c, SfC. 
 
 This hardly proved Mr. Slidell's rejection probable. On the contrary, the 
 difficulty seemed to be a mere matter of form, which could be easily obviated, 
 for he says, "the Mexican government is willing to jn'oceed agreeably to what it 
 proposed in its answer on the subject,''^ that is to say, receive Mr. Slidell as a 
 commissioner. 
 
 There is nothing, therefore, in the correspondence of the 17th and 18th 
 of December, 1846, which rendered Mr. Slidell's rejection at all certain, un- 
 less it were contained in the decision of the council of government on the 
 question of his reception, mentioned in the postscript of Mr. Slidell's letter, 
 dated December 18; that postscript was as follows: 
 
 "P. S. — December 18, 1845, the moment I was about to close this, I obtained thedictamen of 
 the council of government, published in the Siglo (newspaper). I send you tiie paper." 
 
 Mr. Slidell, it seems, then sent to Mr. Buchanan the decision of the coun- 
 cil of government, in a Mexican newspaper called the Siglo. I have a great 
 curiosity to see that paper. It is not given among the documents. How shall 
 we ascertain what it was f Did it advise Mr. Slidell's rejection .? Was it that 
 from which Mr. Polk learnt, for the first time, that Mr. Slidell was to be re- 
 jected > No, sir; it did not advise his rejection. Most fortunately, Mr. Chair- 
 man, I am able to give you the contents of that document — this celebrated "dic- 
 tamen" of the Mexican council of government. In Mr. Buchanan's letter of 
 the 20th January, 1846, to Mr. Slidell, he tells us what was this '^decisiori of 
 the council of government — this dictamen. He says, ^'the advice of the council 
 of government is in the same sjni-it; they do not advise the Mexican government 
 to refuse to receive you,'''' Sfc; and goes on to say that the difficulty was, that Mr. 
 Slidell was a full minister and not a special commissioner. And yet, sir, if 
 you will turn to the annual message at the opening of the 29th Congress, 2nd 
 session, you will find that the President there says, that this decision of the 
 council of government did advise Mr. Slidell's rejection. Which of them shall 
 we believe; Mr. Buchanan asserts the fact to be one Avay; Mr. Polk flatly con- 
 tradicts him, and declares it to be directly the contrary. Which was right > ^ I 
 am inclined to think Mr. Buchanan was right, for the reason that he was writ- 
 ing to Mr. Slidell, whom he had no motive to deceive, and who already knew 
 
15 
 
 ■what the decision in fact was. But the President and his Secretary must set- 
 tle this question of fact between themselves. 
 
 I have said, sir, that on the 13th day. of January, 1846, Avhen the President 
 ordered the army to march to the Rio Grande, Mr. Slidell's letter, informing 
 the State Department of his rejection, had not tjeen received. On the 27th of 
 December, 1845, Mr. Slidell wrote this letter to Mr. Buchanan, enclosing to him 
 the first refusal of the Mexican government to receive him. When was this letter 
 received ? It so happens that this letter, containing the decision of the Mexi- 
 can government with regard to Mr. Slidell, is the only one, the date of the re- 
 ceipt of which we are able to show from the documents before us. Fortunate- 
 ly, we do know when this was received. On the 2Sth day of January, 1846, 
 Mr. Buchanan writes to Mr. Slidell, "your despatches of the 27th and 29th of 
 December last were received at this Department on the 23d inst." That fact, 
 then, is fixed. Yet the President had ordered Gen. Taylor to march from Cor- 
 pus Christi to the Rio Grande on the 13th, ten days before he received an in- 
 timation that our Minister had been rejected. Yet he tells us the army did 
 not march; that it '•'•remained at Corpus Christi''^ till after he had received in- 
 formation from Mexico. By using this form of language, did he intend to de- 
 ceive us ? Could this particular phraseology have been intended to produce a 
 a false impression? 
 
 Certain it is, that whatever the President may say of the time when the 
 army actually marched, he ordered Gen. Taylor to advance, long before he 
 heard that our minister had be^n rejected. He did not hear of the rejec- 
 tion of Mr. Slidell till the 23d of January. The order was issued on the 
 13th of January previous; and the giving such an order, under the circum- 
 stances, was, in my judgment, such an act of usurpation as renders him liable 
 to the severest censure. It was an assumption of the war power, and was the 
 cause of the vast expense of treasure and of blood which this war has occasioned. 
 Mr. Rhett (of South Carolina) here interposed with a question as to dates. 
 Mr. Dixon replied. I assure the honorable gentleman from South Carolina 
 that I have been extremely careful and guarded in what I have stated; and I 
 repeat, that there is no evidence that the President had received the slightest 
 hint from Mr. Slidell of the fact of his rejection, till ten days after the order to 
 march to the Rio Grande was given. But if the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina, or any one who hears me, still doubts with regard to this, I beg to refer 
 him to Mr. Buchanan's letter to Mr. Slidell of the 20th January, 1846. In- 
 stead of putting the order to Gen. Taylor to march from Corpus Christi on the 
 ground of this rejection, Mr. Buchanan says: "In the mean time the Presi- 
 "dent, IN ANTICIPATION of the final refusal of the Mexican Government 
 "to receive you, has ordered the army of Texas to advance, and take position 
 "on the left bank of the Rio Grande." The President and his friends say this 
 order was in consequence of the rejection. Mr. Buchanan, his Secretary of 
 State, says it had already been given by the President, in anticipaiioji of that 
 event. 
 
 But, sir, even the rejection of Mr. Slidell by the Mexican Government, of 
 which Mr. Buchanan, and the President, received information on the 23d 
 day of January, 1846, (ten days after the date of that fatal order, which, as 
 predicted at the time by Mr. Calhoun, precipitated the nation into war) — I say, 
 this rejection of Mr. Shdell was not final. The President still had reason to 
 believe that our minister would be received, as I shall proceed to show. And I 
 venture here to ask the attention of the committee to dates, which are of the 
 utmost importance. We are told that negotiation had failed — that peaceful 
 means had been exhausted before the President resorted to extreme measures. 
 Yet, can you believe, sir, that on the 28th day of January, 1846, after Mr. 
 SlideU's letter of the 27th December had been received here, Mr. Buchanan 
 
16 
 
 writes: "You should wait patiently for a final decision on the question of your 
 reception, unless it should be unreasonably protracted, or you should clearly 
 discover that they are trifling with this Government." 
 
 ^^ Wait patiently for a final decisionP^ I am right, then, in saying, that the 
 decision before given was not considered final. Negotiation was not abandoned; 
 peaceable means had not been exhausted on the 28th of January; yet the army 
 was ordered into the disputed territory on the 13th of the same month! 
 
 But look further. Mr. Slidell continued in Mexico. (Not in the city, but in 
 Jalapa.) As late as the first of March, 1846, he wrote to Mr. Buchanan as 
 follows : 
 
 "My letters from Mexico speak confidently of my recognition," «&c. "If I should now be 
 received, I think that my prospects of successful negotiation will be better than if no obstacles 
 had been opposed to my recognition in the first instance." 
 
 Yet gentlemen have told us that on the 13th of January previous all negotia- 
 tion had failed! 
 
 But, ]\Ir. Chairman, the documents of this House furnish us with proof that 
 the President of the United States hzdi peculiar reasons for believing that Mex- 
 ico would be willing to negotiate, and would finally consent to receive our min- 
 ister. I think I can satisfy you that he knew that peaceable means had not 
 been exhausted, and that war with Mexico was not necessary. Mr. Slidell 
 gave him a piece of information which assured him, if he had before enter- 
 tained doubts on the subject, that the resumption of negotiations with Mexico 
 was not only probable, but nearly certain. This information was contained in 
 a letter from Mr. Slidell, dated February 6, 1846, from which I read the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 "Since my despatch of the 14tli ultimo nothing has occurred to indicate the course likely to 
 be pursued by the existing government as to my reception, but I think it will mainly be con- 
 trolled by the aspect of the Oregon question. Should our difficulties ivith Great Britain continue 
 to present a prospect of ivar with that Power, there will be but a faint hope of a change of policy 
 here." 
 
 In other words, Mr. Slidell tells him, that his own reception would depend on 
 the President's settlement of the Oregon question. If that question should be 
 settled peaceably, he would be received; but if we should become involved in 
 war with Great Britain, he would be rejected. Now, sir, the President per- 
 fectly well knew at that time, as well as afterwards, that he did not mean to 
 have a war with England. The illustrious and venerable gentleman from Mas- 
 sachusetts (Mr. Adams) made a prediction on this floor, during the debate on 
 the Oregon question, which the President knew full well would prove true. 
 He predicted that we should have no war with England on the Oregon ques- 
 tion; for, said he, "either the British Government or Mr. President Polk will 
 back out.'' The President very well knew that he himself would ^^back out,'' 
 if England did not, as the gentleman from Massachusetts had predicted. He 
 had no intention of fighting Great Britain. He very well knew that he would 
 abandon aU to which he had said our title was "clear and unquestionable." 
 He knew that he would sign a treaty with Great Britain, giving her all she de- 
 manded; as Mr. Pakenham said in his despatch, "without the change of a word 
 or a letter." Knowing this, I repeat, he had peculiar reasons for beheving that 
 Mexico would be inclined to peace, since it was the opinion of Mr. Slidell 
 that the renewal of negotiations depended on the result of the Oregon question. 
 He knew there was still ample room for negotiation. Gentlemen on the other 
 side of this House have fallen into a great mistake when they have claimed 
 that the President did not proceed to extreme measures till all negotiation was 
 
17 
 
 at an end. Negotiation was not at an end. On the contrary, the final rejec- 
 tion itself of Mr. Slidell, which took place on the r2th of Alarch, 1846, two 
 months after the order of January 13th to march to the Rio Grande, was put 
 by Mexico, in part, on the ground that our "invading forces were advancing 
 by her northern frontiers," ''at the same time that, by our minister plenipo- 
 tentiary, propositions were made for conciliation and accommodation." Mr. 
 J. M. be Castillo y Lanzas, the then Mexican minister of foreign relations, 
 says, in giving the final decision of his Government, this "would be a suffi- 
 ciently powerful reason for not listening to propositions for conciliation and ac- 
 commodation." 
 
 Thus it appears, IVIr. Chairman, by the documents with which the President 
 of the United States has furnished this House, that while negotiations were 
 pending, with a fair prospect of a peaceful termination of the difficulties be- 
 tween this country and Mexico, the President, before he had received informa- 
 tion of Mr. Slidell's rejection, without "submitting the whole case to Congress," 
 (as Mr. Buchanan declared it his duty to do,) although then in session, cut 
 short all negotiation with the sword, and, by his own unauthorized, unconstitu- 
 tional act, precipitated this country into war. 
 
 But it is said by the friends of the President that the order of the 13th of 
 January, 1846, under which our army marched to the Rio Grande, M^as given 
 by the President of the United States upon the advice of General Taylor. 
 Probably this defence is more relied on by the friends of the President than any 
 other. We Avere told the other day, by some gentleman, in the course of de- 
 bate, that the Whigs were afraid to go into the next presidential contest upon 
 their own principles, but were endeavoring to "skulk behind General Taylor." 
 This charge comes with an ill grace from men who themselves are afraid to rest 
 the conduct of the President on its own merits. Theywould ^^ skulk behind General 
 Taylor;'''' but even there they will not be out of danger. I shall examine this 
 point, sir, and I ask your attention, while I show what was the character of 
 the advice given by Gen. Taylor to the President. Let us see whether, in 
 ordering our army to march into the enemy's country, Mr. Polk pursued the 
 advice given him by that distinguished General. And here I must again refer 
 to public documents. 
 
 On the 1.5th day of June, 1845, orders were sent to Gen. Taylor to proceed to 
 Texas. Mr. Bancroft (acting Secretary of War) in those orders gives him this 
 (information, viz: 
 
 " The point of your ultimate destination is the western frontier of Texas, where you will se- 
 lect and occupy, on or near the Rio Grande del Norte, such a site as will consist with the health 
 of our troops, and will be best adapted to repel invasion, and to protect what, in the event of 
 annexation, will be our iceslern border.'''' 
 
 Again, in the same letter, he says: "Your preparations to embark to the 
 western frontier of Texas [which he had said, in the first extract just read, was 
 on or near the Rio Grande] are to be made without any delay;" but he was 
 directed, at the same time, not to land on that frontier (the Rio Grande) till he 
 ascertained the acceptance by Texas of the terms of annexation. As soon as 
 he heard of that event, he was at liberty, under this order, to take position on 
 or near the Rio Grande. 
 
 Again, July 30th, 1845, Mr. Marcy, Secretary of War, writes: 
 
 "The Rio Grande is claimed to be the boundary between the two countries, and up to this 
 boundary you are to extend your protection, only excepting any posts in the actual occupation 
 of Mexican forces, &c. It is expected that, in selecting the establishment for your troops, you 
 %vill approach as near the boundary line — the Rio Grande — as prudence will dictate." 
 
18 
 
 Now, sir, these were the orders under which General Taylor was acting 
 when he wrote the letter of October 4th, 1846, in which it is said he 
 advised the march of our army to the Rio Grande. He had been already- 
 told that he was to approach "as near the Rio Grande as prudence would 
 dictate" — that his ultimate destination was the Rio Grande, &.c. What, 
 then, does Gen. Taylor write on the 4th of October? He begins his let- 
 ter by reminding the Department that "the instructions of June 15, (1845,) 
 issued by Mr. Bancroft, directed him to select and occupy, on or near the Rio 
 Grande, such a site as will consist Avith the health of the troops, and will be 
 best adapted to repel invasion," &c.; and he adds, that "Point Isabel (twenty- 
 one miles from Matamoras) would have fulfilled, more completely than any 
 other position, the conditions imposed by the Secretary." He then gives his 
 reasons for not occupying that point. He says: "We had no artillery, no en- 
 gineer force or appliances, and but a moderate amount of infantry; and the oc- 
 cupation of Point Isabel, under these circumstances, and with at least the possi- 
 bility of resistance from the Mexicans, might have compromised the safety of 
 the command," &c. He then, after some further remarks, goes on to give 
 what is relied on as the advice of Gen. Taylor, as follows: 
 
 " For these reasons, our position thus far has, I think, been the best possible ; but now that 
 the entire force will soon be concentrated, it may well be a question wliether the viewsof Govern- 
 ment will he best canned out by our remaining at this point. It is with great deference that I make 
 any suggestion on topics that may become matters of delicate negotiation ; but if o0R Govern- 
 ment, in settling the question of boundary, makes the line of the Rio Grande an ultimatum, I 
 cannot doubt that the settlement will be greatly facilitated and hastened by our taking posses- 
 sion at once of one or two suitable points on or quite near that river," &c. 
 
 What does Gen. Taylor here say.? He fears that, by remaining at Corpus 
 Christi, he may not carry out "the views of the Government." He had been 
 told that the Administration meant to insist on the Rio Grande as our western 
 boundary. If that was still their determination — if the line of the Rio Grande 
 was to be the ultimatum — then, in that hypothetical case, he advised the march, 
 of the army. But, sir, was the Rio Grande to be the ultimatum.? That was a. 
 question to be settled by negotiation, in which the treaty-making power was to 
 be heard; and so it was declared in the annexation resolutions. Mr. Polk, 
 however, saw fit to decide the question without consulting the Senate. 
 
 This, sir, is the advice given by Gen. Taylor, on which the friends of the 
 President rest his defence. They say that, when he gave the fatal or- 
 der of January 13, 1846, he acted upon the advice of General Taylor. Now, 
 sir, let me expose to you the abominable fraud, the gross deception of 
 this defence. Would you believe it possible, sir, if you did not know 
 the fact, that this advice of General Taylor, on which it is said the Pre- 
 sident acted, was, on the 7th day of November, 1845, more than two months 
 before the order of January 13th, 1846, fully, entirely, and explicitly retracted 
 by Gen. Taylor — and retracted expressly on the ground of Mr. Slidell's mis- 
 sion, by which negotiations were resumed? Yet so is the fact. Do the cham- 
 pions of the President publish to the world this fact? No, sir, they conceal it; 
 their constituents will never learn it through them. The gentlemen who have 
 spoken on this subject on the other side have studiously concealed this import- 
 ant fact. They say the President acted on the advice of Gen. Taylor. That 
 advice, hypothetical and conditional as it was, was retracted on the 7th of No- 
 vember, 1845 — and was, on the 13th of January, 1846, as if it had never been. 
 It was not, at that time. Gen. Taylor's advice. On sober second thoughts, he 
 modified his opinion; and those who say that Mr. Polk's course was justified by 
 Gen. Taylor's judgment, do rank injustice to that distinguished officer. Here 
 
19 
 
 is his letter, dated Corpus Christi, November 7th, 1845. I ask your attention to 
 the following extract, in which he retracts the opinion expressed in the letter 
 of October 4: 
 
 "The communication from the Secretary of War (says Gen. Taylor) dated October 16 waa 
 received and acknowledged on the 1st and 2d instant. I purposely deferred a detailed reply to 
 the various points embraced in that communication, until I could receive an answer to mine of 
 October 4th, which covered, at least in part, the same ground. The intelligence from Mexico, 
 however, [of Mr. Slidell's mission,] tends to modifrj in some degree the views expressed in that 
 communication, (of October 4.) The position noio occupied brj the troops (Corpus Christi) 
 may perhaps be the best while negotiations are pending, or, at any rate, until a disposition shal' 
 be manifested by Mexico to protract them unreasonably. Under the supposition tliat such may 
 be the views of the Department, I shall make no movement from this point, except for the pur- 
 pose of examining the country, until further instructions are received." 
 
 This letter, written on the 7th of November, 1845, was received here long 
 before the 13th of January, 1846. It retracted the opinion exjKessed in the 
 letter of October 4th. When the letter (of October 4th) was written, General 
 Taylor did not know that negotiations were to be renewed. We had then no 
 minister in Mexico. But now, November 7th, he had heard that Mexico had 
 consented to receive a commissioner. Indeed, in this very letter of the 7th 
 of November, he encloses Com. Conner's letter giving our Government infor- 
 mation of the fact that he had, in consequence of the renewal of negotiations, 
 withdrawn our naval force from before Vera Cruz. The fact that negotiations 
 were thus renewed ^^modified the views'''' he had before expressed. He did not 
 deem it proper, under the circumstances, to advance his army to the Rio Grande, 
 but thought "the position then occupied by his troops was the best while negoti- 
 ations w'ere pending, or, at any rate, until a disposition should be manifested by 
 Mexico to protract them unreasonably." The President, on the contrary, 
 on the 13th of January, 1846, ordered him to advance, while negotiations were 
 pending, and before Mexico had shown a disposition to protract them unreason- 
 ably; for Mr. Slidell reached Mexico on the 8th of December, 1845, and in a 
 little more than one month, and before he heard of Mr. SlidelPs rejection, viz., 
 on the 13th of January, 1846, the fatal order was given. Yes, sir, this order 
 was given while negotiations were pending, and before Mexico had shown a 
 disposition to protract them unreasonably, in spite of the advice and opinion of 
 Gen. Taylor, as expressed in his letter of November 7th. Yet the friends of the 
 President, concealing this last named letter, dare to tell the country that he 
 acted by the advice of General Taylor. Sir, they cannot "skulk behind" that 
 advice. It w^as only conditional, in the first instance; it was fully withdrawn, 
 and other and better advice given in its place — advice which should have been 
 followed by the President. He committed an error, the responsibility of which 
 he alone must bear. If it brought on this war — if it has cost our country the 
 lives of thousands of her citizens — if it has carried mourning and despair to the 
 •bereaved hearts of thousands of widows and orphans, on him alone rests the 
 responsibility. He cannot divide the awful burden, but must bear it alone. 
 
 But take another view of this point. Admit, if you please, that Gen. Tay- 
 lor advised the march of the army to the Rio Grande. How^ does this help the 
 President.!* Congress — the w^ar power — not the President, Avas the proper judge 
 of the expediency oi ^nch. an act of hostility. Gen. Taylor, of course, said no- 
 thing on this 2)oint. "Whatever he advised had reference to tlie policy of the 
 measure, not to the branch of the Government by whom it should be decided. 
 If it Avas the design of the Administration 'to make the Rio Grande an ultima- 
 tum, and if it was believed that taking forcible possession of the territory in 
 dispute would strengthen our claim, and thus aid negotiation, did such a design, 
 
and such a beliel, confer any new constitutional powers on the President, and 
 authorize him, without the consent of Congress, to invade territory in the: 
 actual possession of Mexico, and thus involve the country in war? No, sir; if 
 the President had been convinced by Gen. Taylor, or any other person, that it 
 was expedient to take forcible possession of the territory he intended to claim,, 
 he should have applied to Congress for authority. He chose, however, to> 
 usurp the war-making power. 
 
 I have proceeded thus far on the ground that the east bank of the Rio Grande^ 
 to whichthe army was ordered by the President to advance, was disputed ter- 
 ritory, claimed by the United States and Mexico, our right being, by the an- 
 nexation resolutions, left open to be settled by the treaty-making power of this 
 Government in negotiation with Mexico. I have not, as yet, intended to ex- 
 press any opinion as to the validity of our title to the east bank of the Rio 
 Grande, at the time the war broke out. It has thus far been my effort to show 
 that, if we had a title which was in dispute, the President had no right to settle; 
 the dispute by force of arms. But, sir, if ovu* title to that country was not valid — 
 if it was utterly unfounded, a mere groundless claim, and known so to be — if 
 the country on the east bank of the Rio Grande was as much a part of Mexico as 
 the city of Mexico itself, what shall we say of the course of the President? If 
 such were the fact, he had no more right to march our armies into that coun- 
 try, without the authority of Congress, than he had to advance with an armed 
 force into South America. In all our cases of disputed territory with other na- 
 tions, it has always been conceded that it was no part of the President's duty ta 
 take possession, by force, of the territory in dispute. In the case of posts held 
 by Great Britain after the Revolutionary war, our title to which she did not pre- 
 tend to dispute, but which she held, acknowledging them to be ours, by way of 
 redress for injuries she claimed to have suffered from us, the title was not in 
 question. Those posts — acknowledged to be in our territory, and the title not 
 being disputed — President Washington ordered General Wayne to take pos- 
 session of with an armed force; and, in so doing, Gen. Wayne stated to the 
 British commander, that the ground in question was the " well known and 
 ACKNOWLEDGED territory of the United States." But in all cases where territory 
 has been disputed, it has been acknowledged, on all hands, that it was not the 
 constitutional right of the President to take forcible possession, and settle the 
 controversy with the sword, but that he should invoke the aid and counsel of a 
 co-ordinate branch of the Government — the Senate. So it was with the ques- 
 tion of the Northeastern boundary. So it was in the Oregon controversy, in. 
 which, though our right was declared by the President to be "clear and un- 
 questionable," he, i?i advance, asked the opinion of the Senate. So it has al- 
 ways been; and when forcible possession has been taken of disputed territory,, 
 it has been done by authority of Congress, as in the case of the line of the Per- 
 dido. But if it appears that we had no title to the country on the Rio Grande,, 
 what will be the position of the President? I propose, sir, to examine this point. 
 And here, sir, I am aware I am approaching dangerous ground. I know, full 
 well, that if a member of this House honestly believes that, at the time of the 
 annexation of Texas, the country on the east bank of the Rio Grande was not 
 "American soil," that it was no part of Texas, and therefore became no part of 
 the United States, and dares to express this belief, he will be instantly denoun- 
 ced as a traitor. I have no fear of such denunciations — none at all. I represent 
 constituents who think what they please, and dare to speak what the}^ think; 
 and I should be unworthy to represent them, if I should hesitate here to declare 
 my honest convictions. We have been told, sir, not only in partisan newspa- 
 pers, but in a Presidential message, that those who doubt our title, by the an- 
 nexation of Texas, to the east bank of the Rio Grande, and express that doubt, 
 are guilty of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Why is that charge not 
 
21 
 
 repeated in the last annual message of the President? Is it because he sees its 
 gross impropriet)'^, and has grown more respectful to Congress? I think not, 
 sir. I think it is because he has been stung to the quick by the reproaches 
 which, in reply to his accusation of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy," 
 have been heaped upon his own head, in this House, and elsewhere through- 
 out the country. He, sir, cannot escape the consciousness that he has himself 
 given more aid and comfort to the enemy, than any man now living. Here, 
 sir, IS the weapon, short and sharp as a dagger, with which the Secretary of 
 the Navy, by order of the President, stabbed his own country, and gave aid and 
 comfort to the enemy: 
 
 [Private and confulenlial.] 
 
 " iJ. S. Navy Department, May 13, 1846. 
 
 Commodore: If Scinta Anna endeavors to enter the Mexican ports, you will allow him to 
 pass freely. " GEORGE BANCROFT." 
 
 " Commodore David Conner, Commanding Heme Squadron.-' 
 
 I cannot dwell on this; but I have seen, in the papers brought by the last arri- 
 val from England, a letter written by this same Mr. Bancroft, now our minister 
 at the Court of St. James, in which, by order of the President, he demands the 
 dismissal from the British service, of the naval officer who conveyed Paredes 
 into Vera Cruz, Lord Palmerston, in reply, assures Mr. Bancroft that the officer 
 should be suspended from his command. Now, sir, when Mr. Bancroft Avrote 
 that letter to Lord Palmerston, do you suppose his pass to Santa Anna occurred 
 to him? It was a coincidence not a httle remarkable, that the very man who, 
 by order of the President, admitted Santa Anna, should be the instrument of 
 the same President in demanding the punishment of a British officer for ad- 
 mitting Paredes. Did the President mean to claim a monopoly of admitting 
 Mexican officers into Mexico? Did he mean to monopolize the business of 
 giving "aid and comfort?" Or did he really think that the bringing in of Pa- 
 rades was so great an injury to this nation, that the British officer, by whom it 
 was done, should be discharged by his government from command? •If so, why 
 is not the admission of Santa Anna equally good reason why an American Pre- 
 sident should be found worthy of the same condemnation? I might call on the 
 American people to discharge the President from office (should he be a candi- 
 date for re-election) I'or admitting Santa Anna, as he demanded the discharge 
 of the British officer who admitted Paredes. 
 
 I find, among those who give aid and comfort to Mexico, by denying our title 
 to the east bank of the Rio Grande, so many distinguished members of the 
 Democratic party, that I have little fear of sulleriug in such good company. If 
 they are traitors, let their own political friends condemn them. I shall quote 
 their opinions, given when they had no interest in concealing the truth. I 
 call them as my witnesses, to prove that the soil on Avhich blood was first shed 
 in this war, was not "American soil." The first I shall introduce is a gentleman 
 whom I shall mention with the utmost respect. I mean the former chairman 
 of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, (Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania;) 
 a gentleman whose opinions come with great weight — whose opinions upon 
 any question are entitled to great consideration. The views expressed on this 
 
 oor by that gentleman, occupying that official situation in the House, are 
 matters of history; they may be called a part of the res gestce, and, as he may 
 be presumed to have presented our extreme claims, are evidence against us. They 
 were given in the strong and peculiar language which that gentleman is accus- 
 tomed to employ — language striking, powerful, full of meaning, and highly 
 attractive to all who hear him on this floor. The part of his speech I allude to, 
 will be recollected in a moment by every gentleman who heard it, and by 
 many who did not, but have seen it in print. It was as follows: 
 
22 . 
 
 " The territorial limits are marked in the configuration of this continent by an Almighty hand. 
 The Platte, the Arkansas, the Red, and the Mississippi rivers, without counting great, though 
 minor streams, in that vast terraqueous region of cotton, sugar, lead, and other miglity staples 
 which have, in a few years, kept pace with steam itself in marvellous development — those rivers 
 are naturally our waiters, with their estuaries in the bay of iMexico. 
 
 " The stupendous deserts between the Nueces and the Bravo rivers are the natural bounda- 
 ries between the Anglo-Saxon and the Mauritanian races. There [in that desert] ends the val- 
 ley of the West. There Mexico begins. Thence beyond the Bravo begin the Moorish people 
 and their Indian associates, to whom Mexico properly belongs, who should not cross [what? 
 he Bravo? No, but] that vast desert [between the Bravo and the Nueces] if they could, as, on 
 our side, we too ought to stop there, because interminable conflicts must ensue, either on our 
 goirg south or their coming north of that gigantic boundary. While peace is cherished that 
 boundary will be sacred. Not till the spirit of conquest rages will the people on either side mo- 
 lest or mix with each other ; and, whenever they do, one or the other race must be conquered, 
 if not extinguished." **#»#**#» 
 
 " To Mexico we offer explanation for our incorporation of Texas — explanation which she 
 will be satisfied with. I shall refrain from argument — from argumg the extent of that explana- 
 tion. Although the public correspondence between the two North American Republics has 
 become angry, I am happy to be authorized to assure this House that those best acquainted 
 with the true state of things apprehend little or no danger of war. The main sinew of war 
 (money) will heal the breach and the controversy amicably. It affords me great satisfaction to 
 state that hostilities are not probable with Mexico." 
 
 He thus told us that there existed between the Nueces and the Bravo (other- 
 wise and more frequently called the Rio Grande del Norte, or the Rio Bravo del 
 Norte) stupendous deserts, which formed a natural boundary bci^ween the An- 
 glo Saxon and the Mauritanian races, and that whichever of them should cross 
 [not the Rio Grande, but] that desert, would either conquer or be conquered by 
 the other; Ihat jorace was secure so long as that desert was not crossed, and that 
 it never would be, till the spirit of conquest was raging in one country or the 
 other. Sir, the gentleman was right — the spirit of conquest raged in the cabi- 
 net councils of this Government, when the order was given to Gen. Taylor to 
 cross that desert. The gentleman seems to have been inspired; he must have 
 had the spirit of prophecy. While thus treating of events yet future, he was 
 in reaUty writing history, and facts have justified every word he uttered. I 
 wish what he afterwards said had been equally true. He said that money 
 would settle the question; there was no danger of bloodshed; mone}- — money 
 would do every thing. But he was in this mistaken. He did not know, he 
 could not anticipate, the utter madness and folly which would rule the hour. 
 He could not foresee that, Avhile negotiations were pending "to heal the breach, 
 and end the controversy amicably," the President, with " the spirit of conquest 
 raging''^ in his bosom, would, with an armed force, cross the desert Vv'hich he 
 declared a " sacred boundary" between Texas and Mexico, and thus begin "an 
 interminable conflict." The gentleman undoubtedly would have settled the 
 controversy amicably. So could any man in his senses, who was endowed 
 with an ordinary degree of human wisdom. But our President — the model 
 President, as he is called — first involves us in war, and afterwards asks for 
 anoney which might have prevented the war, to purchase peace. 
 
 But the honorable member from Pennsylvania is not the only traitor. There 
 is another not less distinguished than he. Probably gentlemen anticipate me 
 when I say that I have reference to an eminent Senator from Missouri, (Mr. 
 Benton.) No one will contradict me when I affirm, that there exists not in 
 our country a man better, or so well, acquainted with the entire question of the 
 
23 
 
 boundary between Texas and Mexico. He wrote upon it, as he is rather fond 
 of telling the Senate, twenty years ago, under the signature of La Salle. 
 What does he say ? He opposed the Tyler treaty of annexation in 1844, be- 
 cause it included the territory on the east bank of the Rio Grande. His lan- 
 guage is so strong, that were I to use any thing like it, I should be branded as a 
 traitor of the deepest dye. Hear him. He says: 
 
 " The treaty (of annexation) in all that relates to the boundary of the Rio Grande, is an act 
 of unparallch'd outrage on MeKico. It is the seizure of tioo thousand miles of her territory,^'' &,c. 
 " I wash my hands of all attempts to dismember the Mexican republic by seizing her dominions 
 in New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas." 
 
 " The real Texas which we acquired by the treaty of 1803, and flung away by the treaty of 
 1819, never approached the Rio Grande, except near its mouth." 
 
 Mr. B. closed his speech b}^ offering the following resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte into the Ameri- 
 can Union, by virtue of a treaty with Texas, comprehending, as the said incorporation would 
 do, a portion of the Mexican departments of New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamau- 
 lipas, would be an act of direct aggression upon Mexico, for all the consequences of ivhich the United 
 States tcould stand respoiisible.''^ 
 
 With equal truth it may be said, that for all the consequences of the seizure 
 of the same territory by the President, he alone stands responsible. 
 
 Afterwards, the treaty having been rejected by the Senate on the ground, 
 mainly, that the title of Texas did not rightfully extend to the Rio Grande, Mr. 
 Benton brought in his bill to annex "the real Texas" to this Union. That bill 
 thus described the boundaries of Texas: 
 
 Extractfrom Mr. Benton''s bill to provide for the annexation of Texas to the United States. 
 
 " 1. The boundary of the annexed territory to be in the desert prairie west of the Nueces, and 
 along the highlands and mountain heights which divide the waters of the Mississippi from the 
 waters of Rio Bravo del Norte, and to latitude 42° north." 
 
 In his speech on this bill, he said: "The Rio Grande del Norte is a INIexican 
 river bi/ position and possession, and to the Mexicans may it ever belong. '' And 
 speaking of the western boundary of Texas, he says "it is a line in the desert 
 prairie to the west of the river Nueces. This is the boundary between the 
 United States and Mexico, pointed out by the finger of nature, agreed upon by 
 eminent statesmen as proper for Mexico as for ourselves, and written down in 
 the book of fate, and the law of nature, as the true and permanent boundary 
 between the two first powers of the new world. Soon or late that boundary 
 will be established." 
 
 Was Mv. Benton right? He declares that the territory on the left bank of 
 the Rio Grande is not ^^ American soiV — it is Mexican soil. He says it is not 
 ours — it is hers. He affirms that the boundary lies not in the river, but in the 
 desert — "the stupendous desert" — between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. 
 That desert President Polk ordered our army to cross in time of peace. And 
 are we to be told that what was Democratic truth when Mr. Benton spoke, is 
 now Whig falsehood? Because the President usurped our power to take pos- 
 session of that territory, must we therefore say it is '■'■American soilP'' 
 
 But there are other traitors, and my witnesses end not here. I have more, 
 and not less distinguished. The Hon. Silas Wright — the late lamented Sena- 
 tor from New York — in giving the reasons to his own constituents why he voted 
 against the treaty of annexation, stated as a principal one that the Texas to be 
 annexed overran the Mexican soil. Here are his words: " I felt it my duty to 
 vote against the ratification of the treaty fc'- the annexation. I believed that 
 
24 
 
 the treaty, /roTW the boundaries that ?nvst be implied from it, embraced a country 
 to which Texas had no claim, over ivhich she had never asserted jurisdiction, and 
 which she had no right to cede.''- Now, will gentlemen tell us that Silas Wright 
 was ignorant of the question? That he did not understand the subject? Or 
 will they take the other horn of the dilemma, and say he was a traitor, and 
 belied his knowledge of the truth? Are we not safe in following such an au- 
 thority? 
 
 But I have yet farther witnesses, I have one M"hom gentlemen on the other 
 side will hardly venture to accuse either of ignorance or treachery. It is the 
 honorable Secretary of War himself. He has given us another proof that the 
 •east bank of the Rio Grande was not American soil Avhen hostilities commenced. 
 On the 8th day of July, 1845, he wrote to Gen. Taylor as follows: 
 
 " Sir: This department is informed that Mexico has some military establishments on the east 
 side of the Rio Grande, which are and for some time have been in the actual occupancy of her 
 troops. In carrying out the instructions heretofore received, you will be careful to avoid any 
 acts of aggression, unless an actual state of war should exist. The Mexican forces at the posts 
 in their possession, and which have been so, will not be disturbed, as long as relations of peace 
 between the United States and Mexico continue. W. L. MARCY." 
 
 Military posts in possession of the Mexicans ''not to be disturbed !" Why not? 
 Military posts, in possession of a foreign nation, upon "American soil!" How 
 came they there? Had they invaded this American soil? No — they had " for 
 Bome time" been in the occupancy of these posts, sa3^s Secretary Marcy. In 
 fact they had always been in such occupancy, and their presence was thus ac- 
 knowledged to be rightful. It did not affect the " peaceful relations between 
 Mexico and the United States." Could this have been so if the soil had been 
 that of the United States? Permanent military occupation of '■'American soil," 
 by the troops of a foreign nation, consistent with "relations of peace!" No, 
 sir, the Secretary is guilty of no such absurdity. He knew it was not Ameri- 
 can soil, otherwise his order would have been unjustifiable. He knew the 
 Mexican forces, occupying these posts, were not invaders. They were occu- 
 pying their own territory; and General Taylor, in reply to these instructions, 
 writes to the Department that "he had assured the Mexicans, living on this 
 side of the Rio Grande, that they would be protected in all their rights ana 
 usages ! Yes, sir, they had occupied that soil so long, that they had acquired 
 ^'rights'' by possession, and had contracted " usages." '■'Rights and usages!'' 
 Mexicans on our soil having " sights and usages" which are to be protected, 
 and occupying military posts which are not be disturbed ! And yet the Presi- 
 dent tells us this soil, on which the first blood was spilt, was "American soil!" 
 
 I have more testimony. What did Gen. Taylor write to this same Secretary 
 of War? He tells him that as he approached Point Isabel with his army, 
 the Mexicans fired their buildings, and that he considered this " an act of hos- 
 tility " I agree with him: it was unquestionably an act of hostility; such an 
 act of hostility as that of the Russians when they fired Moscow on the approach 
 of Bonaparte.- Yet, we are told by the President, that all this soil was ours. — 
 Mexicans occupied it, Mexican military posts were on it, and had long been 
 there, and the Mexican inhabitants, on the approach of our army, fired their 
 dwellings and fled in terror. Yet we are now required to believe it was Ameri- 
 can soil, and that when the Mexican troops came there it was an act of inva- 
 sion, and justified the war! 
 
 But I must hasten on. In addition to these proofs, I call your attention to 
 opinions expressed by agents of this Government, prior to the commencement 
 of hostilities. 
 
 Mr. Andrew Jackson Donaldson writes to Gen. Taylor, under date of 28th 
 June, 1845, as follows : 
 
25 
 
 " Corpus Chrisii is said to be as healthy as Pensacola, a convenient place for supplies, and is 
 ,he most locstern point now occxipied by Texas. * * * 
 
 " The occupation of the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, you are aware, is 
 a disputed question. Texas holds Corpus Christi, Mexico holds the Brasos de Santiago, near 
 the mouth of the Rio Grande." 
 
 January 2d, 1845, Mr. Donelson in his despatch says : 
 
 " Texas has as yet established no posts on the Rio Grande." 
 
 I will close this part of my remarks with one other important piece of tes- 
 timony. 
 
 On the "2 1st day of December, 1836, General Jackson sent a message to Con- 
 gress, in which he informed that body as follows: 
 
 " During the last session information was given to Congress by the Executive that measures 
 had been taken to ascertain the political, miliUiry, and civil condition of Texas. I now submit 
 for your consideration extracts from the report of the agent, who had been appointed to collect 
 it, relative to the condition of that country." 
 
 Then foUow the extracts alluded to from the report of Henry M. Morfit, the 
 agent appointed to collect information, from which I read as follows: 
 
 " The political limits of Texas proper, previous to the last resolution, were theJ^iieces river on 
 the west, along the Red river on the north, the Sabine on the east, and the Gulf of Mexico on the 
 south." 
 
 "The boundaries claimed by Texas since the repudiation of the treaty with Santa Anna wiU 
 extend from the mouth of the Rio Grande on the east side, up to Us headwaters ; thence on a line 
 due north, until it intersects that of the United States, and with that line to the Red river, or the 
 southern boundary of the United States ; thence to the Sabine, and along that river to its mouth, 
 and from that point westwardly into the Gulf of Mexico to the Rio Grande " 
 
 " It was the intention of this Government, immediately after the battle of San Jacinto, to have 
 claimed from the Rio Grande, along the river to the 30th degree of latitude, and thence due west 
 to the Paciiic. It was found that this would not strike a convenient point on the California, that 
 it would be difficult to control a wandering population so distant, and that the territory now de- 
 termined upon would be sufficient for a young republic." 
 
 He says further : 
 
 " The convention of November, 1835, took place by writs of election issued by the provisional 
 government, and it is said that all parts of Texas were represented in it, /ram the extreme western 
 seltlenunt, at San Patricio on the J^ueces, to the Sabine and Red rivers." 
 
 Here it is expressly stated, by the agent of our Government appointed by 
 General Jackson, that Texas proper extended only to the Nueces, but the 
 Legislature of Texas, by resolution, had claimed to the Rio Grande. It was 
 their iiitention, he says, to claim to the Pacific ocean, but on further consider- 
 ation they found it would be ^'■inconvenienV^ to go to the Pacific, otherwise 
 they would have resolved themselves into the possession of California ! But 
 suppose they had persisted in that claim. Suppose they had claimed across to 
 the Pacific, would the President have been justified in sending an army around 
 by sea, and taking San Francisco by way of protecting Texas > Yet he might 
 with as much propriety have done this, as order our troops to the Rio Grande. 
 The resolution of Texas, that her boundary extended to the Rio Grande, gave 
 her no more right there, than it would have given her to the Pacific, had she 
 found it ^'convenieyiV' to resolve that the ocean was her boundary. If any one 
 doubts this, let him attend to an extract from the speech of the Hon. Levi 
 
26 
 
 Woodbury, (now a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States,) on the 
 Treaty of Annexation. He said, in that speech: 
 
 " Texas, by a mere law, could acquire no title b>it what she conquered from Mexico, and actu- 
 ally governed. Hence, though that law includes more than the ancient Texas, she could hold 
 and convey only that, or, at the utmost, only what she exercised clear jurisdiction over.'''' 
 
 I trust we shall hear no more, sir, of the resolution of Texas extending her 
 boundary to the Rio Grande, " a mere law," by which alone she could ac- 
 quire no title. "San Patricio on the Nueces was her extreme western settle- 
 ment," according to Mr. Morfit's report; and by the 3d section of the Xlllth 
 article of the constitution of the State of Texas, as I have shown, even this 
 law, being repugnant to the Joint Resolutions for annexing Texas to the Uni- 
 ted States, was no longer in force; all v/hich the President of the United States 
 was bound to know. 
 
 But, sir, admit for a moment that it was in force, and that the western boun- 
 dary of Texas wcs as claimed by that Republic. This boundary on the west 
 was declared to be the Rio Grande, from its mouth up to its head waters, thus 
 including New Mexico, with Santa Fe, its capital, &c. That was the extent of 
 Texas, if her claim to the Rio Grande was valid, and New Mexio, being east 
 of the Rio Grande, thus became a part of Texas. But what says the President 
 in his message of December, 1846 } "By rapid movements the province of 
 New Mexico, with Santa Fe, its capital, has been captured ^'iihout bloodshed," 
 says the President in that document, and he goes on to add: 
 
 " In less than seven months after Mexico commenced hostilities, at a time selected by herself, 
 we have taken possession of many of her principal posts, driven back and pursued her invading 
 army, and acquired military pissession o{ the Mexican provinces of New Mexico, New Leon, 
 Cotthuila, Tamatdipas,'''' Sfc. 
 
 "Military possession of the Mexican provinces of JSTew Mexico, New Leon, 
 Coahuila, and Tamaulipas P"* The President thus acknowledges all these pro- 
 vinces to be Mexican, says he has ^^capiured New Mexico, with Santa Fe, its 
 capital," territory lying on the east side of the Rio Grande; and yet, sir, in- 
 credible as it may seem, in this very message, he argues that the act of the 
 Republic of Texas, claiming the Rio Grande as her western boundary, from its 
 mouth to its source, gave her title to the extent of her claim. Hear what he 
 says in his message of 1846 on this point: 
 
 " The Republic of Texas always claimed this river (the Rio Grande) as her western boundary, 
 and in her treaty made with Santa Anna, in May, 1836, he recognised it as such. » « * 
 ^he Congress of Texas, on the nineteenth of December, 1836, passed ' an act to define the 
 boundaries of the Republic of Texas,' in which they declared the Rio Grande, from its mouth 
 to its source, to be their boundary, and by the said act they extended their civil and political 
 jurisdiction over the country up to that boundary." 
 
 And yet, sir, because we cannot agree to this manifest absurdity, and stultify 
 ourselves by admitting that the territory of "Mexican provinces," which he 
 says he "captured" from Mexico in 1846, was American soil, and belonged to 
 the United States when thus captured, we are to be denounced as traitors ! 
 
 The President asserts, in his annual message of 1846, that "Mexico herself 
 has never placed the war, which she has waged, on the ground that our army 
 occupied the intermediate territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande." 
 This assertion, thus solemnly made, I shall show to be untrue. It has been 
 often repeated in the newspapers of the day, and on the 25th day of December 
 last, at a public meeting held in Texas, which was addressed by Senator Hous- 
 
27 
 
 ton, one of the resolutions offered by him, and adopted by the meeting, de- 
 •clared, "that the Nueces was not mentioned in Mexico as the western boun- 
 dary of Texas, until the point was raised and urged by the opposition here." 
 
 When false statements like these are made by such high oflicial characters 
 as President Polk and Senator Houston, it is not strange that they are repeated 
 and insisted on by their followers on this floor, and in the public press. But 
 it happens, very frequently, that when the President in a message to Congress 
 makes a statement unfounded in fact, he furnishes us the means of proving the 
 statement untrue — in the documents, at the same time, laid before us. In this 
 instance, in particular, it is remarkable, that the documents accompanying his 
 
 war message of 1846, convict him of ; what shall I call it? I know not 
 
 how to characterize this assertion of the President in language consistent with 
 truth, yet respectful to him, and proper to be used here. It is almost impossi- 
 ble to suppose that the President, when he made this assertion, believed it to 
 be true, unless you come to the conclusion that he had never read the docu- 
 ments submitted to us by himself. I have here, sir, the letter of Pedro d'Am- 
 pudia, commander of the Mexican forces, dated '•'■Head quarters at MatamoraSy ' 
 jlpril 12, 1846," the receipt of which General Taylor acknowledges on the 
 same day — in which the commencement of hostilities is put expressly on the 
 ground, that our army was occupying the country between the Rio Grande and 
 the Nueces. It is as follows : 
 
 ^'Fourth Military Divisimi. 
 
 "General in Chief: To explain to you the many grounds for the just grievances felt by the 
 Mexican nation, caused by the United States Government, would be a loss of time, and an in- 
 sult to your good sense. I therefore pass at once to such explanations as I consider of absolute 
 necessity. 
 
 "Your Government, in an incredible manner — you will even permit me to say an extravagant 
 one, if the usage or general rules established and received among all civilized nations are regard- 
 ed — has not only insulted, but has exasperated the Mexican nation, bearing its conquering ban- 
 ner to the left bank of the Rio Bravo del Norte, (Rio Grande) and in this case, by explicit and 
 definite orders of my Government, which neither can, will, nor should receive new outrages, I re- 
 quire you in all form, and at latest in the peremptory term of twenty-four hours, to break up 
 your camp, and retire to the other bank of the Mueces river, while our Governments are regulating 
 the pending questions with regard to Texas. If yon insist upon remaining upon the soil of the de- 
 partment of Tamaulipas, it will clearly result that arms, and arms alone, must decide the question. 
 
 Signed, "PEDRO DE AMPUDIA. 
 
 "To Gen. Tailor." ^ 
 
 This the President submitted to us in May, 1846. Yet, in his message of 
 December following, he informed us ''that Mexico had never placed the war 
 on the ground that our army occupied the intermediate territory between the 
 Nueces and the Rio Grande." His adherents, taking the cue from him, reite- 
 rate the untruth, and pretend that the boundary of the Nueces was an after- 
 thought, suggested to Mexico by the opposition here. It is sufficient for me 
 to expose the miserable fraud and falsehood of such a pretence without further 
 comment. 
 
 It appears, then, that if Texas claimed to the Rio Grande, Mexico claimed 
 to the Nueces. Texas was in possession of Corpus Christi, west of the 
 Nueces, and Mexico was in possession of the whole eastern bank of the Rio 
 Grande, from its mouth to its vsource. While, therefore, by the annexa- 
 tion resolutions, the question of boundary was left open for negotiation, the 
 
28 
 
 actual boundary, as marked by possession, seems to have been, not the Nueces 
 or the Rio Grande, but the "stupendous deserts" between the two rivers. 
 Mr. Polk, however, claims, that because Texas held Corpus Christi, which, 
 though west of the Nueces, is one hundred and fifty miles east of the Rio 
 Grande, therefore she extended to the last named river — very much as if the 
 State of New York should say, "our eastern Umits extend beyond the Hud- 
 son, therefore our boundary on the east is the Connecticut river!" 
 
 But it is said that Santa Anna, by a treaty with Texas, acknowledged her 
 independence, and admitted the vahdity of her claim to the boundary of the 
 Rio Grande. This point is deemed of so much importance, that it is made in 
 the annual message of the President at the meeting of the second session of the 
 29th Congress as follows: 
 
 "In the month of May, 1836, (says President Polk in that message,) Santa Anna acknow- 
 ledged, by a treaty with the Texan authorities, in the most solemn form, 'the full, entire, and 
 perfect independence of the Republic of Texas.' It is true he was then a prisoner; but it is 
 equally true that he had failed to reconquer Texas, and had met with signal defeat; that his au- 
 thority had not been revoked, and that by virtue of this treaty he obtained his personal release . 
 By it hostilities were suspended, and the army which had invaded Texas under his command 
 returned, in pursuance of this arrangement, unmolested to Mexico." 
 
 Now, sir, I propose to examine the validity of this treaty, thus solemnly 
 claimed, in a message to Congress, to be of binding force on the Republic of 
 Mexico. Santa Anna was a captive, a prisoner of war, and to procure his re- 
 lease made this pretended treaty. Let us suppose that when President Polk 
 had failed in his efforts to supersede Gen. Taylor by the appointment of a 
 Lieutenant General, he had, finding he could get rid of him in no other way, 
 proceeded to Mexico, and at the battle of Buena Vista had taken the command 
 of the army in person, as did Santa Anna. And suppose further, (not an un- 
 reasonable supposition,) that he had lost that battle, had been taken prisoner 
 'by the Mexicans, and while in captivity in the halls of the Montezumas, had 
 made a treaty, ceding to Mexico not only Texas, but Louisiana, to the Missis- 
 sippi river — would gentlemen have assented to the validity of such an instru- 
 ment? Yet, sir, it would have all the authority which belongs to Santa Anna's 
 treaty. 
 
 But the President tells us, that though Santa Anna was a prisoner of war, 
 ■yet "his authority had not been revoked." The treaty, he says, was made in 
 the month of May, 1836. On the 9th of July follovv'ing, M. E. De Gorostiza, 
 the Mexican minister residing in Washington, addressed Mr. Forsyth, Secre- 
 tary of State, as follows : ^ 
 
 "Washington, July 9, 1836. 
 
 "Sir: Having been assured that some new commissioners of the so-called Government of 
 "Texas are about to arrive in this federal city, and as they may, perhaps, in order to give greater 
 ■weight to their negotiation, bring forward some agreement ichich Santa Anna may have concluded 
 since he was made prisoner of war on the field of San Jacinto, I consider it my duty to communicate 
 to you, Mr. Secretary of State, as it may not as yet have been seen by you, for your informa- 
 tion, an official copy of the law promulgated on the 20th of May last (1836) by the Mexican 
 Congress, the third article of which precisely provides for this case, by declaring all such agree- 
 ments void ah initio. 
 
 Signed, "M. E. DE GOROSTIZA. 
 
 "To Hon. John Forsyth, Secretary of State." 
 
 Then follows the law referred to, the first and third sections of which are as 
 follows : 
 
29 
 
 **Art. 1. The Government will excite the patriotism of the Mexicans, and will employ all the 
 resources in its power, to continue with vigoi the war in Texas until the national honor be estab- 
 lished, the interests of the republic entirely secured, and the liberty of the President General be 
 secured." 
 
 " Art. 3. The Government will fulfil the objects of the first article, luithout regard to any stipxi,- 
 latiomvhich the President {Santa Jlnna) may make, or have made tvkile apnsoner; such stipulations, 
 being null, void, and of no effect." 
 
 Yet the President of the United States tells us that Sana Anna's authority 
 had not been revoked. Here, too, he uses guarded language Avith a peculiar 
 meaning — "keeping the word of promise to the ear." "His authority" (he 
 says) ^^hadnot been revoked!" The treaty was signed on the 14th of May; 
 the law just referred to was promulgated on the 20th of May, six days after the 
 treaty, bid before it was known in Mexico. It spoke of the treaty stipulation 
 made, or to be made, and declared it, whether made or to be made, null, void, 
 and of no effect. Does the President, by saying that Santa Anna's authority 
 hod not been revoked, mean to "palter with us in a double sense.""' Or was 
 he ignorant of this protest of Gorostiza and the law of Mexico, thus brought to 
 the notice of our Government? If he was ignorant. General Jackson was not, 
 and I shall now proceed to show what he, when President of the United States, 
 thought and said of this treaty with Santa Anna. 
 
 Santa Anna, it is said, styles himself the Napoleon of the West; and it must 
 be acknowledged that his march from San Luis Potosi to Buena Vista, if it 
 had resulted as he anticipated, would have partaken somewhat of Napoleon's 
 style of tactics. It was certainly a remarkable expedition, and only wanted 
 success to make it brilliant on his part. He showed, too, very great military 
 ability, and great energy, and fertility of resources, in being able, after his entire 
 defeat at Buena Vista, to assemble so soon afterwards a powerful army at 
 Cerro Gordo. After the battle of Cerro Gordo, his combinations at the city of 
 Mexico were such, that they could only have been defeated by the unrivalled 
 skill and science of the greatest military commander of the age, (Gen. Scott,) 
 and the bravery of troops whose unyielding courage has never been surpassed 
 in any age, among whom the sons of Connecticut bore a distinguished part. 
 Well, sir, this Napoleon of the West, while a prisoner in Texas, wrote a 
 letter to President Jackson, as Napoleon did to George III. in 1805. It was 
 dated on an auspicious day, the 4th of July, 1836. In that letter he re- 
 quested Gen. Jackson to lend his aid in carrying into effect his treaty with 
 Texas; and while he protested and swore, in his usual fashion, that he would 
 suffer a thousand deaths, and I know not how many tortures, rather than yield 
 one inch to Texas, yet, as it was vain to struggle longer, he had concluded to 
 yield to necessity, and had made the treaty. Let me read a brief extract from 
 Ihis letter: ,. 
 
 " The President of the Rtpvhlic of 'Scmm to the President of the United States: 
 
 ' Columbia, (in Texas,) July 4, 1836. 
 
 " Much Esteemed Sir : 
 
 " When I offered to treat with this Government, I was convinced that it was useless for 
 Mexico to continue the war. I have acquired accurate information respecting this country, 
 which I did not possess four months ago. I have too much zeal for the interests of my coun- 
 try to wish for any thing which is not compatible with them. Being always ready to sacrifice 
 myself for its glory and advantage, 7 jierer ivould have hesitated to subject myself to torments or 
 death rather than consent to any compromise, if Mexico could thereby have obtained the slightest 
 benefit. I am firmly convinced that it is proper to terminate this question by political negoba- 
 
tion. That conviction alone determined me sincerely to agree to what has been stipulated; and, 
 in the same spirit, I make you this frank declaration. Be pleased, sir, to favor me by a like 
 confidence on your part," &c. 
 
 (Signed) "ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANNA." 
 
 Gen. Jackson, sir, did favor him with "a like confidence on his part." I 
 have here the answer of Andrew Jackson to tfeis redoubtable letter. He knew 
 that the treaty was a nullity, and he frankly told him so. He says to him, in 
 substance: "Sir, in reference to the treaty you have signed with Texas, we 
 have been notified by Mexico that it is null and void. We are forbidden to 
 notice it because you are a prisoner. So, Mr. Santa Anna, I'll have nothing 
 more to do with you." Here, sir, is Gen. Jackson's letter. It has not yet 
 been alluded to in debate, and may be new to some members of the Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 " Hermitage, September 4, 1836. 
 
 " Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th of July last, which 
 has been forwarded to me by Gen. Samuel Houston, under cover of one from him, transmitted 
 by an express from Gen. Gaines, who is in command of the United States forces on the Texan 
 frontier. The great object of these communications appears to be to put an end to the disasters 
 which necessarily attend the civil war now raging in Texas, and asking the interposition of the 
 United States in furthering so humane and desirable a purpose. That any well intended effort 
 of yours in aid of this object should have been defeated, is calculated to excite the regret of all 
 who justly appreciate the blessings of peace, and who take an interest in the causes which con- 
 tribute to the prosperity of Mexico, in her domestic as well as her foreign relations. 
 
 " The Government of the United States is ever anxious to cultivate peace and friendship with 
 all nations, but it proceeds on the principle that all nations have the right to alter, amend, or 
 change their own government as the sovereign power (the people) may direct. In this respect 
 it never interferes whh the policy of other powers, nor can it permit any on the part of others 
 with its internal policy. Consistently with this principle, whatever we can do to restore peace 
 between contending nations, or remove the causes of misunderstanding, is cheerfully at the ser- 
 vice of those who are willing to rely upon our good ofBces as a friend or mediator. 
 
 " In reference, however, to the agreement ichich you, as the representative of Mexico, have made with 
 Texas, and which invites the interposition of the United States, you will at once see that loe are forbid- 
 den by the character of the communications made to us through the Mexican minister from considerins, 
 U- That eovERNMENX has notified cs that, as long as you are a prisoner, no act of 
 
 TOURS will be regarded AS BINDING BY THE MEXICAN AUTHORITIES. UnDER THESE CIRCUM- 
 •TANCES IT WILL BE MANIFEST TO YOU THAT GOOD FAITH TO MEXICO, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL 
 PRINCIPLE TO WHICH I HAVE ADVERTED AS FORMING THE BASIS OF OUR INTERCOURSE WITH ALL 
 FOREIGN POWERS, MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO TAKE ANY STEP LIKE THAT YOU HAVE ANTICI- 
 PATED. If, however, Mexico should signify her willingness to avail herself of our good offices 
 in bringing about the desirable result you have described, nothing could give me more pleasure 
 than to devote my best services to it. To be instrumental in terminating the evils of civil war, 
 and in substituting in their stead the blessings of peace, is a divine privilege. Every Govern- 
 ment, and the people of all countries, should feel it their highest happiness to enjoy an oppor- 
 tunity of thus manifesting their love of each other, and their interest in the general principles 
 which apply to them all as members of the common family of man. 
 
 "Your letter, and that of Gen. Houston, commander-in-chief of the Texan army, will be 
 made the basis of an early interview with the Mexican minister at Washington. They will 
 hasten my return to Washington, to which place I will set out in a few days, expecting to reach 
 it by the 1st of October. In the mean time I hope Mexico and Texas, feeling that war is the 
 .greatest of calamities, will pause belore another campaign is undertaken, and can add to the? 
 
31 
 
 number of those scenes of bloodshed which have already marked the progress of their coa- 
 tcst, and have given so much pain to their Christian friends throughout the world. 
 
 " This is sent under cover to Gen. Houston, wlio will give it a safe con /eyance to you. 
 
 " I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 "ANDREW JACKSON. 
 "To Gen. Anttonio Lopez de Santa Anna." 
 
 There, sir, is the opinion of Old Hickory, honestly and frankly expressed. 
 But what says President Polk.-' He, sir, does not hesitate, in a solemn mes- 
 sage to Congress, to argue that this treaty was of binding validity upon the 
 Mexican nation, although Gen. Jackson declared himself forbidden, by the 
 character of the communication made to him by Gorostiza, even to '^cotiside?'^^ 
 it. "■Goodfait/i to Mexico'''' would not permit it. What would Gen. Jackson 
 have said, had he been told that, ten years afterwards, a President of the United 
 States would attempt to prove our title to the Rio Grande by that treaty? Yet 
 President Polk is not ashamed to use it, as an argument to show that American 
 blood has been shed upon American soil. I was surprised at that, but I confess 
 I was still more surprised, when I found that so distinguished a lawyer as the 
 Senator from Maryland (Mr. Eeverdy Johnson) had deemed it worthy of con- 
 sideration. I venture to say that the protest of Gorostiza, with the act of the 
 Mexican Congress to which it referred, and this letter of Gen. Jackson, had 
 escaped his recollection. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the best and most enlightened statesmen of the Democratic 
 party, (leaving out of the question, for the present, the opinions of leading Whigs 
 in and out of Congress,) have declared, as I liave shown, that the soil on which 
 the lirst blood was shed in this war, was not, at the commencement of hostili- 
 ties, within the boundaries of the United States; that it never was a part of 
 Texa J but was, in May, 1840, and for years had been, a part of the territory 
 of Mexico; and, when invaded by the President, was in the actual, undisturbed, 
 and peaceful possession of that Republic. I have shown, too, the fact that the 
 Mexicans had long occupied it with military posts, Avhich occupation was, by 
 Mr. Secretary Marcy, declared, on the Sth day of July, 1846, to be consistent 
 with relations of peace between Mexico and the United States. I have shown 
 that when Texas was annexed Congress did not decide the boundary question, 
 but "consented that the territory /j/-o/je?7y included Avithin, and rightfully he- 
 longing to the RepubHc of Texas," should be admitted as one of the States of 
 this Union, with an express "condition" that said State should be annexed 
 '•^subject to the adjustment by this Govcrnme7it of all questions of boundary with 
 other Governments;" and that the President of the United States, while nego- 
 tiations for this adjustment were pending, and while Congress was in session, 
 not only Avithout the advice of Gen. Taylor, but against his advice, ordered the 
 army to take forcible possession of the territory in question. The consequence 
 has been the war in which we are now engaged. Whatever difference of opin- 
 ion there may be in the minds of men with regard to the prosecution of the 
 war, I think that, among the Whig party at least, there is entire unanimity of 
 opinion, that the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by 
 the President of the United States, and that this opinion is also entertained by 
 many intelligent members of the Democratic party. It may be thought by some, 
 that since the war has been recognised by Congress, it should be prosecuted 
 W'ith vigor; but that the President is responsible for its existence, is too clear to 
 admit of a doubt. He, sir, usurped the war-making power. He involved us in 
 a controversy, which has entailed on the industry of this country a debt, the 
 amount of which no man can now estimate; has exhausted vast resources need- 
 ed for many useful purposes of internal improvement; and has, above all, cost 
 the nation an expenditure of human blood, and a degree of human suffering, 
 
32 
 
 ■which language cannot measure. Believing this, I am of opinion that the re- 
 sponsibility should be placed where it rightfully belongs; that he who has been 
 the cause of such immeasurable evils should be held to answer for the conse- 
 quences of his own unauthorized acts. His supporters will fail in their en- 
 deavor to identify him with the coimtry. It was not the nation, it was the Presi- 
 dent, v;\\o commenced \Kis unnecessary war. "7%e President, (not the country,) 
 right or w?'ong,^' must be their motto, who deny our right to examine the origin 
 of the contest. The country had no voice in its commencement. The repre- 
 sentatives of the people were not consulted, but the President of the United 
 States plunged headlong into a controversy, which all the Nation's means, and 
 all the Nation's courage, have not yet been able to terminate. I claim, there- 
 fore, that in charging upon the President the consequences of his own acts, I 
 am on the side of my country; and in opposing him in the execution of his 
 ambitious designs, I defend her best interests. 
 
' P N O 
 
 
 
 ^♦^ ^^ '>'^^ ->%l^^» N*-