/ / A REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN WAR ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES : AND AN ESSAY ON THE MEANS OE TREVENTING WAR. BY THE REV. PHILIP BERRY, A. B. Of Magdalene College, Cambridge, a Presbyter of the Diocese of Maryland. [Reprinted from the Southern Presbyterian Review.] 'I'OFCO/ COLUMBIA, S. C. PRINTED BY A. S. JOHNSTON. 1849. The Author is prevented from superintending, personally, the publication of this work (which, however, he leaves in the best hands,) by his absence in Europe, which will be prolonged for some years. And this allusion suggests the mention of the circumstance, that the Executive Committee of the Peace Society has appointed him a Del- egate to the Peace Congress which will meet in Paris, next August, a circumstance which indicates the kind interest felt by its members towards this literary effort, (such as it is,) in the cause of peace and good will towards men. * 3 ir- r- ADVEKTISEMENT. Although the author of these pages does not ovte to his brethren in the ministry, an explanation of his position, as a contributor to a Review which is not conducted by members of his own church, yet, if there be any who are interested in it, he has only to remind them that there is but one Episcopal periodical published in the South, of which the editor is a Southerner, or which can be properly regarded as a Southern publication. He alludes to that published in Charles- ton, the aim of which (to the best of his knowledge) is scarcely other than diocesan. It must be acknowledged that the brevity of this essay hardly con- sists with the importance of the theme, or with the abundance and interesting variety of the materials that gather around it. But the limited space which, on the present occasion, has been assigned, and which is rather imposed by the form of republication that has been adopted,* has rendered it expedient to abridge the article to less than half of its original length. It is, perhaps, as well to apprize the reader, that the work, in its previous form, appeared under the signature of " A Southern Dem- ocrat," in the competition for a prize oifered by the Peace Society, and that the writer is the individual referred to, in the following re- marks, in the Peace Advocate. After announcing Mr. Livermore as the successful competitor, and the circumstances under which the essay of Judge Jay was about to be published, the editor added : — " Another of the twelve competitors for the prize, requested the re- turn of his manusci'ipt, with a view to publication, and it was ac- cordingly sent back to him ; but we do not learn that he has yet taken steps to have it published. We should be glad, having seen them in manuscript, to see his and several others in print, as we ♦Besides being intended for gratuitous distribution, principally among the friends of the author, the mail was anticipated as the channel of transportation to those abroad, as well as in this country. VI ADVERTISEMENT. think they would be useful, and do credit to their respective au- thors." The chapter on the prevention of war, was added in consequence of a suggestion in the prize advertisement of the Peace Society, that the essayists should also treat of " what means may and should be adopted by nations, to prevent similar evils in future." In the present form of the article, it may seem that more than a due space has been allotted to this subject, in a work purporting to treat of a particular war. In the original form of it, however, a far less pro- portion was thus occupied. ^r CONTENTS. 7726 Origin of the War. 1. Preliminary remarks. 2. The war question, as stated by the Government of the United States, and as stated by that of Mexico — by both as having refer- ence to Texas. 3. American claims on Mexico. 4. Efforts of the Government of the United States to conciliate Mexico — Mission of Mr. Slidell — Objection to the course adopted by this Government, when the special mission failed in the first instance. 5. Question of the boundary line. — As between Texas and Coha- huila. — As between Texas and Mexico. — Remarks on Santa An- na's treaty with Texas. — Dismissal of the question unsettled. 6. The position of the United States, as to the boundary question, a peculiar one — but not immediately affected much by the refusal of Mexico to treat with them. — Consequent objection to the army of the former advancing to the Rio Grande — Formal commence- ment of the war by Mexico, but virtual commencement by both simultaneously. — It ought to have been averted by the United States. Observations on certain prhiaiples of policy ijifluencing tlie Go- vermnent and much of tJie public spirit in the United States.^ pre- viously to the war. 1 . The former moderate course of the Goverment, which ought not to have been abated. 2. The motive of disabusing the mind of the enemy as to the untram- melled powers of the Executive. 3. Exception taken by this Government to the establishment of a monarchy in Mexico. 4. The expediency of impressing other nations with the power of this country. — Allusion to the Oregon treaty. — General Cass and VUI CONTENTS. the Quintuple treaty. — ^Conclusion as to this impulse to a bellige- rent spirit. Tlie moral aspect of circumstances in the progress and conduct of the %car. 1. Objection to our army crossing ihQ Rio Grande. — Further con- ciliatory propositions to Mexico not consistent with the occupation of her soil, or recommended by the apparent force. — Allusion to the condition of General Taylor's forces at the time of the earliest collision. — Inference from the same, as to any past anticipation of the expediency of following up advantages offensively. 2. The manner of bringing the war to a termination. — The suggest- ed assumption of a boundary to the extent of our possessions held by force, without a treaty with Mexico. — The suspension of hostile movements on arrival at the city of Mexico. — The treaty by which the war was terminated. 3. On Letters of Marque. 4. The decision of the American Government respecting th6 armis- tice at Monterey. 5. The conduct of the American commanders-in-chief, during the war, creditable to their bearing. — The American force. 6. The Mexican generals. — The women of Mexico. — The Mexican forces. Miscellaneous Remarks. 1. The triumps of military skill not among the subjects contemplat- ed by this review. — Brief allusion to military qualities of Taylor and Scott. — A Mexican accomplishment. — The discussion of mi- litary questions, without professional knowledge, and almost uni- versal folly, its evil effect. • - 2. Brief notice of the evils of war. 3. Principles. — Questions as to the uses of war for the advancement of civilization. — Victor Cousin — On just wars. — Schiller cited. — The little prospect of national repentance for injustice or inhuman- ity, a sufficient argument against all war. — The incongruity of the adopted solution of the Mexican question, with the social charac- ter of American citizens, which the conduct of their government should exhibit. — Illustration of proper national conduct, assuming the case to be not an extreme one. — The question turns upon the supposition of an extreme one. CONTENTS. IX 4. The xoorld-hi&torkal importance of the recent war. On the Prevention of Wars. Enumeration of varimis means of preve'tUing the occ^irrcncc of war, ofu-hich only a few arc hax treated of. 1. Peace Societies. — Efficiency of that in America. — Imaginary in- tervention of peaceable citizens between two hostile armies. — A peace convention should have been proposed to Mexican citizens. — The prevention of civil war should be among the objects of such societies. 2. A Congress of nations. 3. Unfettered commerce. — Bastiat on the protective policy. — Lord Palmerstou on the same. — National credit. — International inter- course. 4. On some of the means by which civil war may be prevented. — Privileged orders. — Fi'ance and her troubles. — Note on the Fed- eralist, and Lamartine, — The Sabbath. — England. — The English aristocracy. — A lessened obstruction to the masses of society from a use of the earth, a great security against both foreign and civil war. — A scrupulous observance of Federal terms and State-rights in a Federal commonwealth, essential to its preservation. — The most politic kind of resistance to oppression. An appeal to the nations. The United States. — England, — Note, on the military sentiment of the English. — France. — Allusion to the United States and their foreign population, especially the Irish. — National duty of the United States, in prospect of their position relating to England. — The uses of the prevalent exceptions to good feeling between these two powers. — The Press. — Remark of Sir Robert Peel. — The Bri- tish possessions in the west. — Probable consequences of another war, to the United States and to the world. — A word to Mexico. — The honor that awaits the nation which hastens to set the exam- ple of renouncing war. — The author's hope that a republic will have this credit. Svpplemcntal notes. A. On the modern use of the term chivah y. — The principle of self- sacrifice. — Michelet. B. The position of the American people with reference to what is called repudiation. THE MEXICAN WAR REVIEWED ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES When the views of a theologian by profession are pre- sented on a question such us that to which these pages re- late, the doubt may well be suggested whether they ought, at any time, to treat questions of human strife, detached from their relation to the life-principle of peace, and apart from their place (one of opposition) in the map of its bear- ings on human destiny. Certainly, it is only by the light of that principle that we are enabled to exhibit the actual magnitude of such subjects, and to assign their due impor- tance, relatively to the comprehensive interests of t e world. Both the scriptural and the political argument against war in general, appear to have been so fully pre- sented by other writers, that little scope has been left un- occupied in either department. The present writer will however attempt the application of such new principles as may occur to him in the course of this review. In approaching the questions that grow out of the late war with Mexico, the following general heads are propos- ed to be treated of: — I. The origin of the war, II. The moral aspect of circumstances in the progress and conduct of it. t. The Origin of the war is the question that first pre- sents itself. 1. It is not to our purpose to review all that has been ad- vanced in controversy on this point. This would amount substantially to a repetition, in another form, of the de- 2 2 The Mexican War Reviewed, bates upon it in Congress. Not that such a course would be otherwise than proper, did it promise much avail to the result at which we aim. More is likely to ensue from the omission, as far as possible, of such details as have but en- larged the field of argumentation, without greatly facili- tating the settlement of the question. We believe we shall succeed too well in showing, that our national course un- der such circumstances as are affirmed in our President's annual message to Congress in December, 1846, was mo- rally and politically exceptionable. It is granted (and is little doubted by the present writer,) that those of our cit- izens officially concerned, either in the circumstances lead- ing to the war, or in its operations, may be acquitted of peculiar personal blame in their contribution to the nation- al error. Nor can it be doubted that the state of public principle — one of indifference it seems to have been — as to the moral evil of war, could and did alone permit this war to take place, by whatever party it was com- menced, and to whatever degree the sense of the nation may have been opposed to its occurrence. In the present argument, circumstances ordinarily of an estimate which we, as moralists, cannot accord to them — such as, the rights comprised in "military possession" — are necessarily introduced correspondingly to such esti- mate ; as it enters into the present design to argue from the ordinary worldly acceptation of the circumstances at issue, to the conclusion tliat the war was unnecessary and morally inexpedient, whatever may be elicited on behalf of its justice. 2. On the part of the United States, the question was one of boundary simply, after Texa^ had been annexed to this country. On the part of Mexico, it was whether Texas should become annexed to the United States — to- ward which event she took an offensive position. Texas is that part of this continent, which, after being in dispute between the United States and Spain, was ceded to the latter in the year 1819 — extending, in the previously asserted claim of this country, westward from the Sabineto the Rio Grande. When certain of the Spanish colonies made themselves independent of Spain, the territories of Texas and Cohahuila united in forming one independent State. " The State constitution which they adopted, and On Christian Principles. 3 which was approved by the Mexican confederation, assert- ed that they were ' free and independent of the other Mex- ican United States, and of every other power and domin- ion whatever.'" Such was the position of this State in the federal relation of the Mexican States. When that federal relation was dissolved, Texas and Cohahuila were, morally and politically, more than ever independent of the Mexican States, and of every other power and domin- ion whatever. In a comparative moral aspect, she was more independent of Mexico than of Spain ; for she was disunited fiom Mexico, before the independence of the lat- ter was acknowledged by Spain. The ground on which Mexico assumed that Texas was not independent of her, namely, her recognition withheld, if of any force, would show that Texas was independent of every country ex- cept Spaiti, at the time the former claimed her perfect in- dependence.* Mexico then could with propriety claim Texa.s only as a cession from Spain; and that only as implied by the delivery to Mexico, and not to Texas, of those recognitions which were designed for Texas and other States, as well as Mexico. So that the single point to which the Mexican argument may be reduced, is, whether Spain so possessed Texas at that period, that she could present it to Mexico. Presuming that she did not, the annexation of Texas to this country required no con- sultation on the part of either Texas or the United States, with any foreign power. Moieover, Texa.s had been ac- knowledged by the world as an independent nation, even as Mexico had been during the same generation. Mexi- co having for many years abandoned Texas, as beyond her power to reconquer and as being in every respect inde- pendent of her, except that she had not, in words, abandon- ed the assertion of her claim, consented at length to yield that recognition, provided the subsequent national course of Texas — a part, at least of her future career — would be governed by antecedent restrictions from Mexico ; which was the substance of the condition that she should not annex herself to the United States. The question evident- ly was not one that regarded property, but the balance of power. Mexico having objections, that were encouraged * March 1836. Spain acknowledged the independence of tlie Mexican colonies at a subsequent date in that year. 4 The Mexican War Reviewed, by foreign governments, to the extension of the territory of the United States in that direction. Bnt as argnment on that foundation could be of no avail, her only prospect of an effective protest, as having herein the sympathy of great powers pledged to her, was in taking the position that Texas belonged to her until she should acknowledge its independence on her own optional conditions. Texas, being independent alike of any inherent or external force in the prohibition, accomplished the annexation. Mexico in consequence — we will not say, with some, "declared war," but — addressed warlike expressions to the govern- ment of the United States, and rather threatened than as- sumed a warlike attitude. This was in effect all her con- duct ; though it may be admitted that the form of it was such as, in the code of the world, has usually been held to be provocative of war. In this country the national honor was not felt to require war as a consequence : nor did war ensue thereupon. 3. I>ooking further back in the order of time, there had been during several years a series of complaints on the part of the United States against Mexico, for wrongs com- mitted on citizens of the former.* The claims founded on them, a-id the acknowledgment of those claims by Mexi- co, were resolved into a stipulated debt from the Mexican government. The non-compliance of the latter with its engagement, left the wrongs as they previously stood.t * They are thus summed up in a passage from a communication from Mr. Forsyth, the then American Secretary of State, dated May 27th 1837, addresseil to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs : — " Treasure, belong- ing to tlie citizens of the United Stales, has been seized by Mexican officers, inits transit from the capital to the coast. Vessels of the United States have been captured, detained, and condemned, upon the most frivolous pre- texts. Duties have been exacted from others, notoriously against law, or without law. Others have been employed, and in some instances ruined, in the Mexican service, without compensation to the owners. Citizens of the United States have been imprisoned for long periods of time, without being informed of the offences with wl ich they were charged Others have been murdered and robbed by iViexicnn officers, on the high seas, without any attempt to bring the guilty to i'lstice." t There is wanting that analogy which has been alleged, between the claims of our government on Mexico, and those of individuals upon our non- jDaying States. The defection of these has involved no international ques- tion ; partly because it is as one affecting their own citizens, it being but in- cidentally that foreigners participate in the effect ; and partly, because our States, separately, are to foreign powers as mere companies. It should be further observed, that the debt of Mexico was not for money funded, but for On Christian PHnciples. 5 War however was not the result, even of a second viola- tion of the terms by Mexico, or of her protracted indecision whether she would or would not accede to the proposed terms of a third convention relative to the subject. Nor does it appear that war was really contemplated by any party in connexion with those ciicumstances. 4. Subsequently to the matters of international contro- versy abovementioned, arose the Texan question previous- ly stated. Both departments of controversy were associat- ed in the object of a special mission offered by the govern- ment of the United States to that of Mexico, some time after intercourse between them had been suspended. The circumstances attending that suspension had been these. On the passage of a resolution by the Congress of this country in favor of the annexation of Texas, the Mexican Minister, resident in Washington, departed, after express- ing to the Secretary of State the unfriendly terms which he held to exist between his government and that of the United States, by the fault of the latter. At the time of his preparation for departure, the Secretary of State, in reply to his inimical communication,* assured him that the " most strenuous efforts should be devoted to the ami- cable adjustment of every cause of complaint between the two governments, and to the cultivation of the kindest and most friendly relations between the sister republics." '•Notwithstanding Mexico had abruptly terminated all diplomatic intercourse with the United States," the Presi- dent embraced what appeared to him to be " the earliest favorable opportunity ' to ascertain from the Mexican go- vernment whether it would receive an envoy from the U?iited States, entrusted with full powers to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two governments.'" " The consul of the United States, at the city of Mexico, personal injuries. If therefore the indemnity was unpaid, the injuries were unredressed. * Tlie Mexican Minister at "Washington addressed a note to the Secreta- ry of Str.te, bearing date of the sixth of March 1845, protesting against the resohition referred to as "an act of aggression the most unjust that can be found recorded in the annals of modern history ; namely that of despoiling a friendly nation, like Mexico, of a considerable portion of her territory;" and as an act " whereby the province of 1 exas, an integral portion of the Mexi- can territory, is agreed and admitted into the American Union." And he announced that, as a consequence, his mission to the United States had ter- minated, and demanded his passports, which were granted." — [Fres. Mess. 6 The Mexican War Reviewed, was therefore instructed by the Secretary of State, on the fifteenth of September, 1845, to make the inquiry of the Mexican government. The inquiry was made, and on the fifteenth of October, 1845, the Minister of Foreign Af- fairs of the Mexican government, in a note addressed to our Consul, gave a favorable response, requesting, at the same time, that our naval force might be withdrawn from Vera Cruz, while negotiations should be pending. Upon the receipt of this note, that force was promptly with- drawn from Vera Cruz, A Minister was immediately ap- pointed, and departed to Mexico," " To my surprise and re- gret, (continues the President,) "the Mexican government, though solemnly pledged to do so upon tlie arrival of our Minister in Mexico, refused to receive and accredit him. When he reached Vera Cruz, on the thirtieth of Novem- ber, 1845, he found that the aspect of affairs had under- gone an unhappy change. The government of General Herrera, who was at that time president of the republic, was tottering to its fall. General Paredes, a military lea- der, had manifested his determination to overthrow the government of Herrera by a military revolution ; and one of the principal means which he employed to effect his purpose, and render the govciument of Herrera odious to the army and people of Mexico, was by loudly condemn- ing its determination to receive a Minister from the United States, alleging that it was the intention of Herrera, by a treaty with the United States, to dismember the territory of Mexico, by ceding away the department of Texas, The government of Herrera is believed to have been well dis- posed to a pacific adjustment of existing difficulties ; but, probably alarmed for its own security, and in order to ward off the danger of the revolution led by Paredes, violated its solemn agreement, and refused to receive or accredit our Minister ; and this, although informed that he had been invested with full power to adjust all questions in dispute between the two governments. Among the frivo- lous pretexts for this refusal, the principal one was, that our Minister had not gone upon a special mission, confin- ed to the question of Texas alone, leaving all the outrages upon our flag and our citizens umedressed. The Mexi- can government well knew that both our national honor and the protection due to our citizens imperatively requir- On Christian Principles. 7 ed that the two questions of boundary and indemnity should be treated of together, as naturally and inseparably- blended ; and they ought to have seen that this course was best calculated to enable the United States to extend to them the most liberal justice. On the thirtieth of Decem- ber, 1845, General Herrera resigned the presidency, and yielded up the government to General Paredes. Although the prospect of a pacific adjustment with the new govern- ment was unpromising, from the known hostility of its head to the United States, yet, determined that nothing should be left undone on our part to restore friendly rela- tions between the two countries, our Minister was instruct- ed to present his credentials to the new government and ask to be accredited by it in the diplomatic character in which he had been commissioned. These instructions he executed by his note of the first of March, 1846, addressed to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs ; but his re- quest was insultingly refused by that Minister, in his an swer of the twelfth of the same month. No alternative re- mained for our Minister l)ut to demand his passports, and return to the United States."* There can be little question that it would have been greatly to the advantage of Mexico "that the two ques- tions of boundary and indemnity should be treated of to- gether." She would probably have been released from the claims of the United States upon her for indemnity, on her restoring the hand of friendship and withdrawing from her attitude on the Texan question. This may be almost inferred from the president's remark — " they ought to have seen that this course was best calculated to enable the United States to extend to them the most liberal justice." But setting aside the duty of endeavoring to conciliate Mexico, the government might without impropriety have confined its commimication to the old question of indem- nity, and omitted all notice of Texas for the present, since it was not to obtain the recognition of that country as in- dependent, that mention of it was made in connexion with the mission. The boundary question had not yet indis- pensably come up, and might have been adjourned, but for a two-fold consideration in the mind of our govern- « President's Message. 8 The Mexican War Reviewed, ment ; namely, that Mexico being sore on the subject of the Texan annexation, was not in a disposition to satisfy our previous grievances ; and that the combination of the two would suggest to Mexico a mode of obtaining repara- tion for the assumed wrong. The course thus far of our government, cannot, in our humble judgment, be surpass- ed for its moderation and good policy. With reference to Mr. Slidell's pressing his reception on the Mexican govern- ment, it may be remarked ; — first, that Herrera's govern- ment could have gained nothing by Mr. Slidell's adoption of its suggestion (had it been in his power to do so,) to circumscribe his official character and the object of his mis- sion, to that of a Commissioner on the Texan question ; inasmuch as this question, was the rock by means of which Herrera's government had been already doomed to a spee- dy downfall; and secondly, that our government would have gained nothing subsequently from Parades by offer- ing him the compromise that had been required by Her- rera as the condition of Mr. Slidell's reception. The poli- cy however of this government in presenting the subject at all to the government of Paredes, appears questionable, considering the "unpromising light," in which "the pros- pect of a pacific adjustment with the new government," appeared, "from the known hostility of its head to the United States."' It would apparently have been more con- ducive to the interests of peace, had no intercourse been proposed to the then government of Mexico. A brief delay was not unlikely to usher into that nation councils more au- spicious to a settlement of the matters at issue. And even if not, it had been better that our government had observ- ed a continued, if not conclusive, silence on its claims to iiidemnity from a nation comparatively bankrupt, and not opened communication with Mexico on this or any other subject, until a question of boundary should be unavoida- bly raised. In the mean time, it might have exercised territorial administration between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, confining it for a period to the extent to which it had been been enforced by Texas. There is reason for supposing that, before the lapse of such a space of time as would exhaust the patience of our government, the question of boundary would have presented itself in the due course of events, as arising from the natural state of Oti Christian Principles. 9 things on the frontier. As for any supposed liability to disadvantage in not taking early possession of such fron- tier, we are perhaps justified in presuming that the pass- age of our vessels upon the Rio Grande, while it could not have been prevented by the Mexicans, would have sufficiently expressed our territorial claims, and contribu- ted much to a virtual settlement of them. 5. It is in the order of argument that we now address some observations to the question of the boundary line between Texas and Mexico, in that region where it was an occasion of strife. It is manifest that the limits of Texas, if ever distinct, could not be justly affected by the abolition of federal re- lations between her and other States ; and therefore the judgment is erroneous that Texas had a right only to as much territory as she had held military possession of; for this is a false test of right, and one which those who ap- ply it to the case of Texas do not acknowledge in other cases. Again, it has been already stated that Texas and Coha- huila composed one State. Then it was only with the permission of the Government they had in common, tiiat any portion of the State they composed could separate from the remainder — unless by a revolution in this State altogether distinct from such as might affect the whole State in its relation to the other Mexican States. Thus only could Texas and Cohahuila become separate and independent of each other. If, before their separation, there was strife between them as to union with the other States after the manner newly proposed, and if Cohahuila held Texas with her power as still a part of herself, then whether she united herself with the other States or not, she might with truth and propriety inform the world that her boundary extended eastward to the Sabine. If, on the other hand, Texas held Cohahuila in the manner conversely supposed, her boundary would extend much further westward than the Rio Grande. In that case, a Mexican occupation of Cohahuila by force would not, by itself, deprive Texas of her right to that territory. And if, simultaneously with such an occupation of Cohahuila, Texas became annexed to the United States, then the po- sition of Cohahuila relatively to Texas would have been 3 10 The Mexican War Reviewed, conditionally this: — if she was not endeavoring or will- ing to eflfect her separation from Texas, it would have been analogous to that of New Mexico, if, at the time that province was held by the forces of the United States, and before it was ceded to the latter, Mexico had been voluntarily annexed to some other country. Texas and Cohahuila however did not question the independence of one another, when an opposition of their respective ten- dencies indicated that the time for its accomplishment had arrived. Cohahuila* yielded itself to Mexico ; and if the people of that province have since pretended any claim to Texas, it has been only after the manner of, and in combination with, the other newly constituted provinces of Mexico. Where then was the boundary line between Texas and Cohahuila after the separation between them? Either they had not time to bestow on the subjectj or they deemed a constructive boundary sufficient; most probably the for- mer circumstance led to the latter conclusion as at least a temporary one. They may have assumed either a demar- cation established during the period of their union, or (if there were none such) one existing previously to that event. Of the former description there does not appear to have been any; so that our only resource is in one of the latter. And as this is equally the alternative left in the case of the other provinces on the Rio Grande opposite to Texas, antecedently to the confederation, the boundary question as to Cohahuila becomes blended with those as to the other provinces, New Leon and Tamaulipas — resolving them into one point, namely, the boundary between Tex- as and Mexico previously to their separation from Spain. The treaty between Spain and the United States in the year 1819 — by which all the claims of the United States (just or unjust) from the Sabine to the Rio Grande were ceded to Spain — so far from throwing light over any past boundary, rather indicates that there was none previously, and tends to bury it if there was any. Had there been any distinct one, it would have greatly aided the solution * Cohahuila was invaded by Mexico, and her senators imprisoned ; but this was because ihey did not so far yield to the Dictatorship as to surren- der all their arms, which eveiy State was required to do. But they declined joining the Texan resistance to further dependence on Mexico. On Christian Principles. 11 of the point before us, provided no new one was subse- quently established — and we know of none.* We do not say that there have been no definite statements made as to a boundary. There have been such at different times, proceeding from statesmen, geographers and travellers, but too conflicting to be profitably adduced on this occasion. Few if any geographical-historical questions have been so tantalizing as the present one, from its fertility of cir- cumstances suggestive of inference, which alternate the balance of apparent right between the two sides, and from the deficiency of conclusive force on either of them. It is remarkable that local history of this importance should be wanting to so recent a period, and that its materials should be so conflicting.! A boundary question between obscure and hardly accessible villages, that have almost ceased to exist, could present scarcely greater obstacles to an arbitrator. It was a question in which arbitration could noi well have pronounced a decision, if it were a condition that a river should be the line ; although, if other- wise, there might have been less difficulty in such a mode of adjustment. It might have assigned to Mexico the set- tlements immediately on the east bank of the Rio Grande, and to Texas the remainder of the country west of the Nueces — a boundary which would have been manifestly inconvenient, and leading ultimately to endless disagree- ment among the borderers. It was a question then which could be properly settled only by an amicable arrange- ment, and an accommodating disposition between the par- ties concerned. It was not unreasonable in Texas to claim, on her separation from Mexico, a boundary which nature and history alike beheld with much favour ; still less so in the United States to regard it in the light in which Texas had presented it, when Mexico refused to commu- nicate to this Government even so much as a contradic- tion of the Texan representation, after being invited to an interchange of sentiments. A question here arises, in what light should the settle- ments of Mexicans on the east side of the Rio Grande, * " The detail of her (Mexico's) colonial history is buried in Spanish ar- chives." Meyer. t This very mystery throws a classical halo around this and other points in the present subject, to one who has diligently investigated them. 12 The Mexican War Reviewed, \ opposite to New Leon and Tamaulipas, be regarded? Borders of countries are liable to indiscriminate settle- ment without necessarily aifecting the citizenship of the settlers, or the boundary between the countries to which they are respectively subject. Nor is the accident of their being all citizens or subjects of the same country in itself sufficient to change the nationality of the soil. Mexican officers weie indeed stationed there, in the exercise of juris- diction. It was natural for the settlers in question, though in former times subject most probably to the Spanish gov- ernors of Texas, to look to the opposite side of the river for jurisdiction, now that the banks they occupied were apparently, at least for a time, beyond the notice of Texas, owing to the difficult occupation of her government at a great distance from the scene, as rendered necessary by recent events. Of these circumstances the Mexican au- thorities would be likely to take advantage, inasmuch as they were at hostilities with Texas, supposing that under other circumstances they would not have done so. We venture to express the humble opinion that the rights of Texas were not neutralized, though somewhat prejudiced, by neglect of surveillance, or by continued silence in her foreign* department. In like manner, the claims of Mex- ico were in no greater degree compromised during the period that Texas extended her jurisdiction westward of the Nueces, or when the forces of the United States occu- pied the west bank of that river. It is of the highest importance to the argument, that Mexico claimed the country west of the Nueces on no other ground than she claimed that on the east side of the same river. She appears to have deemed it a com- promise of her claim to Texas to argue the question of its extent in any direction save that towards the Sabine. We are not aware of any regard paid to the question of the west side of the Nueces, until Paredes, in his procla- *She was not silent at home on the subject: — "During a period of more than nine years which intei-vened between the adoption of her Constitution and her annexation as one of the States of our Union, Texas asserted apd exercised many acts of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territoiy and inhabitants west of the Nueces. She organized and defined the limits of counties extending to the Rio Grande. She established courts of justice, and extended her judicial system over the territoiy," &-c. (Pres. Message.) She had not praciicuUy extended it to the Rio Grande. Oil Christian Principles. 13 mation dated the 23d of April, immediately before the war, or, according to himself, after the war had commenced, remarks — "Hostilities have been commenced by the Uni- ted States of North America, beginning new conquests upon the frontier territories of the departments of Tamau- lipas and New Leon." The first occasion on which the west bank of the Nueces is mentioned by any Mexican authority, as a claim (so understood by some) independ- ently of the comprehensive claim to Texas, is in the requi- sition made by the Mexican general, Ampudia, (Matamo- ras, April 12th, 1846,) to General Taylor, that he would "retire to the other bank of the river while our govern- ments are regulating the pending qiuestion in relation to Texas." But there appears to be little frankness in this communication, inasmuch as General Ampudia must have been as well informed as General Taylor that (according to the reply of the latter of the same date,) "an envoy despatched to Mexico .... had not been received by the actual Mexican Government, if indeed he had not received his passports and left the republic." Further, the consent of Texas to the Nueces as a bound- ary to the once projected State, that was to have been the result of revolutionizing a small portion of Mexico, and to have been named "Rio Grande," does not involve, as it has been suggested, an incongruity with her claim to terri- tory beyond it; for it was likely enough that, in her desire for the formation of a new State between herself and Mex- ico, she would contribute to that object a region which she could well spare to a friendly, and still more conven- ient, neighbour. By the treaty of Santa Anna with Texas, while he was a prisoner of war, it has been contended that the bound- ary was adequately settled, it being therein agreed that it should be the Rio Grande. If, on the value of a treaty, of which differing estimates have been entertained by pub- lic men, that of an individual unlettered in the law of na- tions be worthy of any attention, we submit the following one, and without at all aiming at a middle or compromis- ing view. Considering ihe constitutional independence of Texas, which rendered an invasion of it by Mexico quite different in principle from an invasion (say) of Ireland by England, in case there was set up in the latter country a 14 The Mexican War Reviewed^ new form of government, to which the former would not submit — and considering that the war between Texas and Mexico consisted in a resistance by the former to an enterprise of Santa Anna for the purpose of subjecting her to his usurped dictatorship, she was entitled to the full benefit of his disclaimer of such pretension for the future, by whatever means she compelled it. It was a simple question oi force on the part of Santa Anna ; and it was by arms that Texas compelled the discontinuance of that force. By his treaty with her, proposed by himself, the independence of Texas was established, at least as far as the military dictatorship of Mexico was concerned in it ; and his personal authority seems to be as plenary with reference to this matter, as his pretended one to overthrow the constitution of Texas, or to compel its subjection to a country, its confederation with which had been made to cease (and that by his act). Texas had both him and his army in her power ; * and these availed themselves of the advantages conceded to them by this treaty. Santa Anna was actmg, not as a minister of the Mexican nation, but as its military conqueror, with reference to the setting up of a new government in every State. He and those who succeeded to his position were bound by this treaty — one by which the very party that had set up the new order of thmgs (Santa Anna and his forces) obtained their liberty. The treaty then is valid so far as it had respect to the freedom of Texas from future molestation — it being virtually a trial of right by force, in which she succeeded. But the question of boundary was not one that he could treat of, except in cathedra, or as accredited elsewhere ; it being independent of the continuance or cessation of the federal relations. So that Texas could not with propriety claim the settlement of the boundary as by conquest. The objection that Santa Anna was in duress is valid as regards this last particular. It is not of equal force in both par- ticulars, because in the former Texas demanded merely a desistance from violence — in the latter, a cession of that * It appears singular that Texas did not liberate Cohahuila, and go to the assistance of Zacatecas. The revoh of Zacatecas belongs more to the ro- mance of history, though less to world-history, than that of Texas. On Christian Principles. 15 which was not indisputably her territory. We are not brought by this section of the survey at all nearer to cer- tainty as to a boundary line.* In fine, the question of the western boundary of Texas, we may as well dismiss, as one that judgment cannot grasp. Nor is it indispensable to the moral argument on the war, as will duly appear. Indeed, as the parties who have approved of the war, have in general made up their minds that the Rio Grande was the true boundary previ- ously to it, (here appears to be little advantage gained by arguing the war question on any other assumption than that such was the boundary. Our argument is, in part, that, assuming such to have been the proper boundary, the Avar was nevertheless unjustifiable, and that, too, on other grounds than that of an exclusive Christian principle. It is as well to remark, that whenever the Rio Grande has been here mentioned, with reference to the bound- ary of Texas, it is only within a limited latitude, and not to the full extent of the river course. New Mex- ico extends eastward of this river. " Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico," which is east of it, is mentioned in the fifth ar- ticle of the Mexican federation, as a separate " territory," after Texas and Cohahuila are included in one " State." t Texas, however, laid claim to that part of New Mexico, in defining her revolutionary boundary, as it has been termed. It is incorrectly so termed ; for Texas was not revolutionized, but declined participation in that revolu- tion which was introduced into the other States, and thus became affected in little other than an extraneous man- ner. In defining her boundary, so as to include New Mexico, it was implied that it became an object to her af- ter hostilities had taken place between herself and Mexico. * Santa Anna seems to have regarded the Rio Grande as the boundary- line ; though, if he did, that is no proof that it was so. The following lan- guage occurs in a proclamation of General Wall, issued by his order, dated June 20th, 1844 (as quoted by Mr. Rusk in Congress) — "Every individual who shall be found at the distance of one league from the left bank of the Rio Bravo, will be regarded as a favorer and accomplice of the usurpers of that part of the national temtory, and as a treiitor to his country; and, after summary military trial, shall be punished as such." By that part of the national territmij is meant Texas. t Appendix to Congressional Globe, 29th Congress, 2d session, p. 385. 16 The Mexican War Revietoed, But it does not appear that she would have contested it with a nation at peace with her. How far up the east bank of the Rio Grande (allowing that river to be the western boundary) the territories of Texas extended, in other words, ihe northern boundary line of Texas, is not material to the question in which we are engaged, even were this line particularly distinct. 6. When the government of Mexico refused communi- cation with that of the United States, on the application of the latter, through an express envoy, the government of the United States could but act on the best information it could obtain, with reference to the boundary of this country, at the frontier of Mexico. It was therefore po- litically warranted in stationing troops anywhere within the boundary line represented by Texas as her's, previ- ously to the act of annexation ; though it would not be morally warranted in making no discrimination between the historical line (wherever ascertainable) and the revo- lutionary one. Nor, in fact, was this government indis- criminate, as regarded New Mexico, the possession of which was not attempted. All the arrangements, how- ever, should have been so made as to avoid, rather than evince a readiness for, the issue. The Americans were in quiet possession of the region west of the Nueces, with very little exception, whilst Gen. Taylor's force remained at Corpus Christi, near that river. "To repel any inva- sion of the Texan territory which might be attempted by the Mexican forces, it was deemed sufficient, in the spring of 1845, that our squadron had been ordered to the gulf, and our army to take a position between the Nueces and the Del Norte (or Rio Grande)." * It was in pursuance of this order that General Taylor took the position above mentioned. No Mexican forces had then crossed the Rio Grande ; all was quiet as long as General Taylor remained near the Nueces. What then were the augmented neces- sities of the case which, in the following spring, impelled the advance of our army to the banks of the Rio Grande ? There had been indeed a change of government — Herrera deposed — Paredes in power. "The partisans of Paredes (as our minister in the despatch referred to states,) breathed ♦ President's Message. On Christian Principles. 17 the fiercest hostility against the United States." The re- conquest of Texas and war with the United States were openly threatened. These were the circumstances exist- ing, when it was deemed proper to order the army under the command of General Taylor to advance to the west- ern frontier of Texas, and occupy a position on or near the Rio Grande.* If these were all the circumstances that created the propriety of marching the troops from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, in what remarkable particular did this propriety outweigh that which required the army to remain at the former station? — "the threat- ened invasion from Mexico?" There had been such men- aces from Mexico for several years before our army entered Texas. If Mexico was until then unequal to the fulfil- ment of her menaces, or abstained from attempt to carry them into effect, what probability was there of her so do- ing, when our= army was there ? What effect had yet been consequent on the circular of Conde, the Mexican Minister of War, as far back as in July, 1845, announcing to various authorities that war was declared against the United Stales, and enunciating the vocabulary of military preparation? It has resulted as was apparently taken for granted that it would, there being at the time little curios- ity vance of the most perfiect political independence of one anoth(;r, that the njission of the two branches of this race will be best fulfilled. But that very independence is molested and tampered with, ff the parties who are forming projects of intrusion upon the internal peace of the one, have a disproportionate share of moral influence conceded to them in the other. The naturalized parties alluded to, are of course una- ware how prejudicial are the movements under objection, to their own national interests as Americans, which is all that they have any right to call themselves. Tke Means of Preventing War. 77 A word or two may be added on the advantage, nega- tive as it is, of the invidious considerations wiiich have attended the intercourse of England and the United States — circumstances not immaterial in qualifying the good nnderstandmg between these two nations. Whether we may or may not assume that they have outgrown the likelihood of war with one another, or that the repug- nance of national sentiment, in both countries, to such an event, is a more than ordinary security against its oc- currence ; the usefulness of their mutual petty feelings to the interests of the world, consists in ihe prevention of certain entebifes which might otherwise be anticipated from their affinity. A comparison of this observaiioit, with some that have gone before, if superficially regard- ed, may seem to create a paradox. Its reference is rather to the prematurity of such enteintes — that is, their exis- tence, before the tone of international morality shall have become such as to preclude the idea of their combination to molest the independence of other natims. However they might pride themselves on their aversion to war, and however influenced b/ a sincere desire to undertake a joint mission to advance the civilization of the world m the most pacific modes, it is too probable that self-gratifi- cation would be the predominant impulse. At all events it is a mission with which they can hardly be yet entrus- ted. Until their governments shall abandon, on princi- ple, the prevailing doctrines on the subject of war, they will be scarcely fit, either of them, for the enjoyment of power, the double of that which already each of them possesses. There is no doubt as to their extending civil- ization, under such circumstances, with a vastly augment- ed influence. But whether they would undertake it in any other mode than that which has been hitherto usual among nations, may well be questioned. There can be no danger of misapprehension of the allusion to circum- stances invidious in their nature ; inasmuch as the remark contains nothing recommendatory or congratulatory as touching those circumstances, but simply an explanation of their providential use. There is, indeed, an obvious limit to the utility, or even harmlessness, of an invidious countenance, in either nation, towards the other. There 78 The Means of Preventing War. has been much complaint, in this country, of EngUsh travellers traducing it — a practice which cannot gain upon the better feelings of any people. True it is that various States, in the Union, do sometimes speak as pre- judicially of one another as foreigners ever speak of the entire country ; for differences in /a^i/wrfe affect the mod- ifications of taste in a much greater degree than those of longitude — other circumstances being equal. But vari- ance in tastes, and even jealousies, between different sec- tions of the same country, are not intolerable evils, so long as there is room for them on the same platform. — But a national practice of disparaging another country, is very unfavorable to pacific prospects, however indirect and remote may be the effects from it. Those who con- duct the press of a country, since they are always regard- ed, in other countries, as representing its spirit, should never fail to bear this in mind, characterized, as the press too often is, with a reckless impolicy.* There would be more security for a cloudless prospect, had England no possessions on this side of the Atlantic. These, all together, are not now worth, to her, the cost of a war (if ever there should be one) to protect them, even were the greatest success to attend her arms. The north- ern colonies have outgrown their state of pupilage, and can only, in a state of independence, make those returns to the mother country, on account of which their exist- ence is of any consideration to her. As regards the Brit- ish West Indies, the career of the Anglo-Saxon, on his own account, is there manifestly closed. A new crisis in the history of his mission to the African might be hast- ened, and appears to be the only substitute for the stag- nation tliat now fills every department of life in those * There was an occasion, about the year 1842, on which the British and French nations were much incensed against each otlier. Sir llobert Peel, then prime Minister, remarked in ParUament, on the grand moral spectacle, then presented to the world, m which, while the press in both countries was doing its best to precipitate war, the two illustrious chieftains, then contem- poraries in political ascendancy, as formerly they had been in military com- mand, (Wellington and Soult,) were using their utmost efforts, each to con- ciliate the opposite country, and to pacify his own. The observations (which it would have been preferable to quote literally, were they accessible to more than imperfect recollection,) were circulated in several French and American journals. The Means of Preventing War. 79 colonies.* Their independence, or quasi independ« nee, under the administration of a Colonization or African so- ciety, on one or both sides of the Atlantic, nnght be guarantied by all nations. Their special protection might be provided for by treaty, including provisions expressly intended for observance in time of war. In the devotion of those scenes to a philanthropic experiment, there would be no scope for international jealousy ; at the same time, it is their legitimate destiny. It will be a day of the highest interest to humanity, and the commencement of an important era, in the reign of providence, when the last remains of possibly attractive grounds for collision are removed, between powers whose associate mission is so strongly apparent. Nor has yet been mentioned that which may be sur- mised as to the effect of temptations or provocations offered to the weak side of the American character. — Shonld there be ever again a collision between this na- tion and one which, in power, may compare with it, let the world, and still more, let ourselves, be prepared for the dire consequences ! It is to be apprehended that such a martial spirit would take hold of our people, as would be long before it could subside. An immense portion of our population, conscious of the facilities for their adaptation, on very short summons, to the most arduous enterprises, would (we dread the thought !) sacrifice probably every consideration to that of military glory. The profession of arms can too easily become every man's profession here to allow a hope of the early termination of a war in which the utmost strength and spirit of the nation were drawn out. With anything rather than " flattering unc- tion," should we feel imbued, at the contemplation of such a state of things ! Besides that a military republic ever ends in despotism — how vitally, if not fatally, would all the arts of peace, the cultivation of every virtue, the sour- ces of domestic and social enjoyment, and every other blessing, be then affected, even in the soil where they have taken root deeply, and which is the home of every element of happiness ! * The present proprietry class, who are ready to abandon at least the island of Jamaica, would be as glad to receive, as they would be (and are even now) entitled to, compensation on yielding up ih^ix lands. 80 The Means of Prevetiting War. And now a word to Mexico. Let her sons " talk no more so exceeding proudly."* as to military pretensions ; but let them, influenced by generous woman, and by sunny climes, aspire to become the Trouhadows of peace. Tliis is the only chance now remaining to them for natio lal distinction. To the women of Mexico, there remams but this step to crown the character that awaits them in history, namely, to cherish this association, and to foster it in their countrymen. An exertion of such in- fluence would be the best commentary on woman's mis- sion, that the world has seen — always excepting that pre- sented by the " company of women,"! who followed to his cross the Prince of Peace. If in your sphere, women of Mexico, you are " to time, as stars to night,''J your course is determined on, and the decree is gone forth, that your mission shall not fail ! In conclusion ; — We have set before mankind no Uto- pian prospects as the promised reward for abjuring war — none other than they can substantiate, if they will but commence the project of attaining them. Our ardent hope is that a republic will be the first to adopt measures avowedly for that end, and thus evince to the world how a self-governing people can anticipate others in the race of civilization. But rather than that it should be delayed, let the glory of so doing be yielded to the most absolute sovereign. Sooner, indeed, than behold this movement retarded, lest civilization should lose the credit of it, glad- ly should we receive the lesson from the most unenlighten- ed tribe that a missionary ray ever penetrated.il There * I Sam. i. 3. t Luke, xxiii. '27. t Pollok. II The Rev. James Long, Missionary of the Church of England in Calcut- ta, bears this testimony ; — " I ha\e seen the benefits conferred by the Peace Society, both at home and abroad; and I regard it as eminently calculated to promote the glory of God, and the good of men. 1 rejoice to have an oppor- tunity of co-operating, as a clergyman of the English Church, in the designs of so noble and excellent a Society. I have labored among the Hindoos for eight yearS; a large number of whom have renounced idolatry, and are fully- acquainted with English literature; but Ikeir greatest objection to the receptixm of CkrisLianity is the loarlike spirit manifested by those who profess it. They read the history of England, and then tell us, " You say that Jesus Christ taught his disciples to love their enemies; but we find that you English Christians have been engaged for hundreds of years in killing the French, and other nations ! Your history abounds with scenes of blood, which are approved of by your best and even your religious writers, while your clergy offer thanks to God, as if he were a God of blood, like our Kale, when you TJie Means of Preventing War. 81 is hope for the world, both civiHzed and barbarian. Not- withstanding the backwardness of each, an estimate of universal peace is abroad, adequate to encourage a very- great confidence in the effect of a single national exa?nple of the nature we plead for — the abjuration of war. Grate- fully, as we believe, would the tidings of such an event fall on the ear^f a vast portion of mankind, in all lands. Whether we set or follow the example, the ad- vantage to our representatives, everywhere, commercial, political and religious, when able to tell it abroad that no wars are waged by llicir countrymen, would surpass the most glowing descriptions of national success in any past enterprises; and the moral effect would be but feebly symbolized by the transmutation of steel into gold. Glo- rious things await such a nation in the prospective history of the human race. If internal peace is maintained by her consistently with her external banner, both the wise and the rich of the earth will, in greater and greater num- bers, " bring their glory and honour into her."* Her con- verse with other nations will dispense the flowers of good- will " beside all waters"t — a circling tie more soft, yet not less strong, than that "golden chain" in which "generous commerce binds the nations."! The picturesque distribu- tions of society by Providence, have certainly no less claim than the disposition of the natural world, to be ac- counted as the pattern of a more excellent economy. For eminence in eternal fame will be the endless reflection of moral light from the associated past and present. And as the works of individuals accompany them from the pre- sent stage of being, yea, have recorded themselves forever, it cannot be otherwise with nations. Their past is inex- tinguishable. A memorial is engraven forever of the part which they have had in the elevation or depression of the human race. " Rahab and Babylon, Phihstia, and Tyre ; fain a battle." They say, moreover, that since England put her foot in In- ia, a century ago, there has been nothing but war ; and I am sorry to say I cannot contradict them. This objection to the reception of Christianity is the most difficult to answer of any I have to deal with. I have for twelve years been advocating the principles of this Society ; and as long as I have breath and strength, I will continue to advocate them." * Rev. xxii, 24. t Isaiah, xxxii, 20. t "— Generous commerce binds The round of nations in her golden chain." — Thompson. 12 82 Supj)lemental Notes. with Ethiopia" — are they noiXo ho. ''made mention of?" Let us not doubt, then, of this sequel to our country's his- tory, whether to its glory or to its shame. Nor let us cease to contemplate that a nation which will cultivate in itself a type of the City of Peace, it will be a future de- light to call our own in the days of a renovated world ; for it will be commemorated that "this and that man was born in her !"* SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES. A. — On the term Chivalry. The modern use that is made of this term, particularly in some parts of this country, is more injurious to the interests of morality than is commonly suspected. Its original asso- ciations are military, and it should be properly confined to that sphere. In its transferred application to social qualities, it implies primarily the performauce of any thing in the approved manner of a knight of the middle ages. Consequently, he that aims at a repute for chivaly, has but to affect the knight in that which he undertakes, whether it be a quarrel, or a question of deportment towards the fair sex, or a money-matter — with reference to which last-named description, there is an impres- sion abroad that the clergy have not less to complain of from the laity of the chivalrous soil than from any other. The evil arising from the vulgar uso of the term, grows out of its in- definite character, combined with its prepossessing associations. To that conduct which is expected from any gentleman, it often assigns a factitious credit ; while that wlrich is unseemly it palliates, whenever an association of it with knighthood can be conjured up. In nine out of ten cases in which it is made use of, the object is ad caj^tcmclmn — to throw a gloss over that which may or may not be proper. If sacrifccs are in question, those required by the spirt of Christianity look down on those of the best chivalry. If heroism is intended to be expressed, that term needs no substitute, and at all events its place is not as well supplied by the term chivalry. In fact, every depart- ment of rectitude requires to be protected from the risk of being levelled, (through the application of this term to it) to that conduct which requires gloss to recommend it. Propriety, * Ps. Ixxxvii, 5. Sajiplejnenial Notes. 83 inorality, compassion, courage, arc terms adequate to express the ideas to which they are respectively assigned ; and how are any of these qualities improved by characterizing them as chivalrous? In so far as they arc of Christian complexion, they lose by such designation ; as the Christian light iu which they appear implies a sacrifice io jiruicipk ; whereas, chivalry, when it implies sacrifice, refers it rather to glory, appearances, passion, will-worship, self-will — one or more of these. Any little deed of compassion may be invested with the colour of chivalry, if attended with "a set phrase." For designalive force, any thing that chivalry is ever intended to signify, can be more definitely, and therefore more appropriatel}', expressed. To say that a person is chivalrous, conveys now-adays but a vague idea of his character, if any at all. Where a stranger, however, in some parts of this country, is informed, for his edification, that the inhabitants tJtcrc are a chivalrous people (while he may have been previously under an impression that the people of the United States generalbj had, as much as any other, the best features ever suggested by the expression) the real idea that most commonly suggests its use on such occasion?, is, that the people in those parts are generous, or (perhaps no more than) gentlemanhi ; though sometimes it indicates (without the inten- tion of implying) that they have not a little to say in demon- stration of a tendency to cultivate analogies to the deportment of the knights we read of in history and in fable. Be the afiectation ever so innocent in itself — be the imitation of knights ever so wise or foolish — the gloss is the same ; and true honour is thus often placed on a level with the pretensions of conceit. As the term under stricture has been occasionally used in this review, the author owes it to himself to observe that, when he has employed it, it has been in a military application. The highest principle of chivalry, if the term be used in a moral sense, would be the same that characterizes true nobility — which, in the estimation of Michelet,* is self-sacrifice ^ for good ends. But we should learn of Him f whose self-sacrifice was the greatest that can be conceived. Apart, however, from a regard to the christianized aspect of the principle, it is one of which Christians, so called, are indebted to the infidel philoso- pher for reminding them, in an age in which a habit of non- committal is the highest virtue. By their religious profession they are already committed, beyond the power to repudiate it, to self-sacrifice for the good of man, and for the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom — which includes the studied iuter- * Pciiplp, ch. 3 + Mat xi, 29. 84 Supplemental Notes. ests of all the i^rinclples of peace at some personal hazard. The proclamation of "peace on earth,"* both as Si 2}>'inciple and as z. 2'>i'omisc^ and the avowal, too, of an intention "not to send peace but a sword"t — in the sense of sufferings incurred, both in moral conflicts with the elements adverse to that principle, and for the realization of that promise — are testimonies not in- consistent, though on opposite sides of the truth which they together maintain. The difficulties predicted are but negative conditions of the providence that advances the principles for which the self-sacrificer labours. "Good-will towards men" is the light that kindles the voluntary self sacrifice, which, the more it burns, though with the acutest feeling, is more secure from being consumed. Such is Christian heroism — such is true Christianity militant — such the most elevated manifestation of what might be called moral chivalry. B. — On Repudiation. The repudiation of Mississippi — its occurrence being base(5 on circumstances represented to the author by an ex-Governor of that State, who was a prominent repudiator — was an exhibi- tion of political fanaticism by a party that gained the ascen- dancy in the State. Another party, when in power, obtained a vote of the legislature in favor of their proposal to raise a certain sum of money, under certain circumstances. An article of the State constitution, it appears, prohibited the measure.| The minority gave public warning that the State would there- fore not be bound by the act, and that, though the vote might succeed, yet if they should come into power, they could never pay it as a State debt. This party gained the ascendency at a subsequent election, on the basis of this very principle, and came into power pledged to sustain it. They admit that the money raised ought to be paid to the parties who lent it — but by those who raised it, not by the State of Mississippi, against whose authority (they assert) the transaction took place ; while * Luke, ii, 14. + Matthew, x, 34. ; Without knowing precisely the objection in point, we cite from an " Abstract of the Constitution of Mississippi," in the American Almanac (1848, p. 287,) the following: — "No State loan can be raised, unless the bill be passed by a majority of each house, be pubUshed three months be- fore the next election, and be confirmed by a majority of each house at the next legislature." Supplemental Notes. S5 the opposite party, who raised the money, have always been anxious for the payment. It was not, then, an intrinsic dis- honour that actuated the repudiating party, but the exaggera- tion of i)arty feeling into an uncompromising fanaticism; and fanaticism is never devoid of immorality, inasmuch as it sacri- fices any thing ■ind every thing to the principle (be it a good or a bad one) which it has espoused. It can be hardly believed that the people of Mississippi expected their treasury to be gainer by their course. They should rather be considered as having sacrificed pecuniary, as well as every other consideration, good, bad, and indifferent, to their party- position. But there are anomalies in the matter which are not unworthy of fanati- cism. They never summoned to trial the parties who had thus trifled with the constitution, and, in consequence, with the credit of the State. Nor did they care who suffered, so long as they gained their political point. Nor is that all ; for they have never concerned themselves whether the matter was rightly understood by the world or not. This does but show how, in looking to themselves alone for justice, mankind obtain for themselves but very little of it. So negligent have they been of representing the matter fairly to the world, that, not only in other countries, but almost throughout the United States, the prevailing view is this ; — that the State of Mississippi, having borrowed money, and not choosing to pay it, has 1 re- pudiated !* Among those out of that State, who have made inquiry into the transaction, are some who do not regard the State as bound to pay the money, grounding their judgment on the analogy existing between the responsibility of an individual and that of the State — the former not being answerable for more than has been done by his authority. But they, like the good people of Mississippi, forget that the actual government of a State is the State itself, to all political intents and purposes. The vital head of a State is all that can be externally communi- cated with. Any absolute power that might be set up in a nation for a brief period,' if internally and externally recognized, binds the State by its contracts, though it may not have conde- scended to notice the constitution which was established antece- dently to its despotic rule, even so far as to declare it to have been set aside; for this power is j)oUtAcalhj the State itself, and a violation of the constitution is a matter of domestic responsi- bility. It is rather surprising that no creditor (that we have heard of ) has brought the question into Court. A favourable * Mississippi has other debts, which she has not repudiated. 86 Supplemental Notes. decision might not improbably have been obtained in the Courts of Mississippi, if brought before new judges were ap- pointed ; for, holding office, as they do in that JState, for six years, those appointed under the former administration may not have vacated at the period of repudiation. JBut if otherwise, the Supreme Court of the United States, of which it is the province to expound the duty of sovereign States, if appealed to, protects the right, on whichever side it is. As regards the jyrospect it should be observed, in the first place, that all those Mississippians who approved of the measure for raising the loan, are eager for the settlement of the debt ; nest, that there are others, who, though repudiators on behalf of the State, nevertheless desire to see restitution to the injured parties ; and further, that (as the author has been informed) those who are opposed to repudiation, possess the greater portion of the property to be taxed. If so vast a portion of it is in their hands, and if it be within their competency to pay off the debt without troubling the State with it (of which fact the present writer has been assured by intelligent travellers) there is ground for hope that measures are in early prospect for the disencum- brance of that State directly, and of the whole Union indirectly, from the discredit which has been its portion in consequence of the untoward proceeding. But, if the proper parties should not take the requisite measures, would not every person in the union who is able to part with a quarter dollar, make that con- tribution towards the preservation of national character, and for the reimbursement of those foreigners who have been thus spoiled of their all, in return for their confidence in a majority of gentlemen in one of our State legislatures? Such a course could be no cause of offence to the State of Mississippi, inas- much as she has professedly nothing to do with the business. It is to be hoped that no foreigner will be allowed to steal a march on us, by bequeathing property enough to settle the repudiated amount ; (for it is not long since a considerable sum was bequeathed to this country " for the diffusion of knowledge among men.") If, in that case, the pride of the nation would be wounded, there is, alas! more just cause for it to be so, while thi debt is unpaid. Should this mode of settlement be in the womb of destiny — and almost all parties out of the State agree that there is some destined mode — how bitter is the cup of mor- tification in store for those in Mississippi, who borrowed the money, have always desired that it should be paid, ai-e able to pay it themselves, but have not yet done it I If indeed their only motive for not raising the required fund among themselves, is, (as it has been suggested) an anxiety that their State should LB N 'Co Supplemental Notes. 87 redeem itself, tlien wliy do they not purchase the investment from those who now hokl it, and take their own chance of its being one day paid by their State 1 Before dropping this subject, we submit the following passage from Hunt's Merchant's Magazine, vol. viii., 1843, Article on the National Tebts of Europe, by Francis Wharton, an eminent lawyer in Pennsylvania : " That the funding policy, both of the whig administration of Sir Robert Walpole and of the tory administration of Mr. Pitt, was dangerous in the extreme, in its consequential influence, will be readily admitted. We believe that no more satisfactory precedent can be found for the repudiation of our own days, than the reduction by the English government, between 1716 and 1727, of the interest accruing on the funded debt, from six to th7-ee and a half per cent. We scarcely know a more strik- ing instance of national ill-faith, than the appropriation by Mr. Pitt and Lord Henry Petty, of the sinking fund pledged to public creditors, to the purposes of temporary revenue. Such precedents require the intervention of a strong over-ruling hand to prevent their repetition ; and we trust, for the honor of the Anglo-Saxon race, both in the country from whence its origin is dated, and in the country in which its later energies have taken root, that the principle on which they are based, will be crushed signally and forever." >